Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] John 20:23

Expand Messages
  • Ramsey Michaels
    Without using the term retain, Jesus does in fact retain sins in Jn 8:21, 24; 9:41; 15:22. Interestingly, I know of no place in John s Gospel where he
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Without using the term "retain," Jesus does in fact "retain" sins in Jn
      8:21, 24; 9:41; 15:22. Interestingly, I know of no place in John's Gospel
      where he explicitly "forgives" anyone's sin (5:14 comes closest, except for
      8:11, which I guess does not count).

      Ramsey Michaels

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <Maluflen@aol.c;om>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:24 AM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:23


      > In a message dated 4/21/2004 2:37:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
      > bobschacht@... writes:
      >
      >
      > > NRS John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them;
      if
      > > you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
      > >
      > > So what the heck does this mean?
      > >
      > > "Retain" is apparently a form of the verb kratein. One of the most
      common
      > > applications of this verb is "arrest," as in
      > > NRS Mark 14:44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one
      I
      > > will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard."
      > >
      >
      > I think the meaning of the term KRATEIN here is clear enough because of
      the
      > context: it means to withhold forgiveness. On the other hand, it remains
      an
      > unusual, not to say an odd expression because it actually speaks of the
      sins,
      > rather than the forgiveness as being "retained". KRATEIN frequently means
      "to
      > have power over, to control". In this meaning too, the verb would make
      more sense
      > if its implied object were "forgiveness", rather than the sins themselves.
      > And although the context makes the overall meaning clear, the terms
      AFIENAI and
      > KRATEIN do not, to my knowledge, form an otherwise biblically attested
      pair of
      > contrasting terms. The term KRATEIN is very common in 4 Macc, almost
      always
      > in the context of the "control" of reason over the passions, or the
      "dominance"
      > of the passions over reason. But, again, I don't think these uses of the
      term
      > are particularly illuminative of this Johannine passage.
      >
      > Leonard Maluf
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Tobias Hägerland
      Yesterday, I posted the following comment in the Xtalk forum, but it ... them; if ... I think the closest parallel to the expression in Jn 20.23 is probably
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 23, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Yesterday, I posted the following comment in the Xtalk forum, but it
        appears more appropriate here:

        --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <bobschacht@i...>
        wrote:
        > NRS John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven
        them; if
        > you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
        >
        > So what the heck does this mean?
        >

        I think the closest parallel to the expression in Jn 20.23 is
        probably Sir. 28.1 according to Rahlfs' text: tas hamartias autou
        diatêrôn diatêrêsei (RSV "he will firmly establish his sins").

        Could diatêrein in Sirach be equal to kratein in John? The simple
        têrein once renders the Hebrew QWM hif'îl in Rahlfs' Septuagint (1
        Kingdoms 15.11 LXX = 1 Sam. 15.11 MT); likewise kratein is employed
        for QWM hif'îl once (Prov. 30.4). But this is an extremely weak
        argument.

        I heard Sandra M. Schneiders propose a different interpretation of Jn
        20.23 during last year's Raymond E. Brown conference on the Gospel of
        John. Hopefully, I both got her right at that time and do now
        remember her argument correctly.

        Sr Schneiders claimed that there is no evidence for the construction
        hamartiôn kratein in Greek literature unaffected by the Gospel of
        John (and I think she is correct on that matter). She also pointed
        out that there is no explicit mention of 'sins' in 20.23b.
        Schneider's suggestion was that the customary understanding of 20.23b
        as saying, in effect, 'an tinôn kratête tôn hamartiôn kekratêntai' is
        a misreading. Rather, tinôn is not a qualifier of a supplanted tôn
        hamartiôn but the object of kratête. Thus, 20.23b should be
        translated simply: 'if you hold fast any, they are held fast'. And
        to 'hold fast' means to preserve within the community, within God's
        love, or the like (actually I do not recall her exact wording).

        Interesting as this suggestion seems to me, it has not convinced me.
        The parallel relationship between Jn 20.23 and Mt. 16.19 is hardly
        coincidental, and in the latter passage the two members of the
        construction are opposite to each other in meaning. Also, it appears
        strange to have kratein and aphienai as synonyms (see Song 3.4 LXX,
        where the two are clearly antonyms).

        /Tobias Hägerland

        Tobias Hägerland, M.Th.
        Ph.D. Candidate
        Göteborg University
        Department of Religious Studies and Theology
      • Bill Bullin
        No one seems to have referred to Isaiah 22:22 yet nor the Lord s Prayer debts / sins. It seems to me we may be dealing with idioms that reflect / link sin and
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 23, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          No one seems to have referred to Isaiah 22:22 yet nor the Lord's Prayer
          debts / sins. It seems to me we may be dealing with idioms that reflect /
          link sin and forgiveness with debt and imprisonment for debt, hence doors
          shutting and opening, hands grasping and releasing. It is as if to be sinned
          against raises a debt that may be 'forgiven' or 'released' or 'held' almost
          physically like an unpaid bill. Isaiah 22:22 and context seems to relate to
          the High Priest's ephod which would fit well with Johannine interests, Jesus
          as the Temple and ultimate High Priest and criticism / condemnation of the
          Jerusalem High Priesthood cf.Isaiah 22: 18-19. Breathing the Holy Spirit
          might be a metaphor for re-creation. Incidentally if you close your eyes and
          breath onto your hand you feel, 'wind', 'water' and 'fire', which, when
          taken with clay gives earth, wind, water, and fire, the ancient elements;
          wind and fire are pentecost signs while water may relate to baptism,
          cleansing, and initiation.

          My material on Isaiah is in a huge pile waiting to be sorted and shelved and
          which I have not consulted so this may not be of much help in which case
          please 'fling it out of the ball park', cf. Isaiah 22: 18: "He will seize
          firm hold of you, whirl you round and round and throw you like a ball into a
          wide land; there you shall die and there your splendid chariots shall lie".
          Sounds like the Highland games to me!

          Fortunately the issue of 'David's key' is not strictly Johannine.

          Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
        • Bill Bullin
          A lateral thinking after thought in relation to Isaiah 22:22 and John 20:23. Could there be some vague connection too with the curious comment made in the
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 23, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            A lateral thinking after thought in relation to Isaiah 22:22 and John 20:23.

            Could there be some vague connection too with the curious comment made in
            the letter of Polycrates of Ephesus to Victor concerning the Evangelist, as
            cited by Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question, (E.T.1989), 125-6:

            "We could go on to ask as was often done earlier - whether the report of
            Polycrates of Ephesus in his letter to Victor of Rome about John 'who was a
            priest and wore the high-priestly plate on his forehead', is connected with
            John 18:16, ' he was known (or related) to the High Priest' indeed whether
            Polycrates, who was born about 125 CE and bound to earlier Asian
            Christianity by mant ties of family relationships, and of course knew very
            much more than he writes in the letter, wanted in this way to indicate that
            the disciple 'who reclined on the Lord's breast' was, like John the Baptist,
            of priestly descent." with a footnote to Eusebius, HE5:24:.3?

            Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: Bill Bullin To: Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 23, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Bill Bullin" <bill.bullin@...>
              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:07 PM
              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:23


              > No one seems to have referred to Isaiah 22:22 yet nor the Lord's Prayer
              > debts / sins. It seems to me we may be dealing with idioms that reflect /
              > link sin and forgiveness with debt and imprisonment for debt, hence doors
              > shutting and opening, hands grasping and releasing. It is as if to be
              sinned
              > against raises a debt that may be 'forgiven' or 'released' or 'held'
              almost
              > physically like an unpaid bill.

              Debts xwbyn for sins is an Aramaic idiom.

              "And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

              Keep in mind that Luke, being from an Incola of Syrian Antioch, was surely
              competent in Aramaic as well as Greek. The author of Canonical Matthew,
              on the other hand, appears neither competent in Aramaic nor Hebrew.
              Matthew,
              therefore, renders this petition as:

              KAI APHES EMIN TA OPHEILEMATA EMON
              and forgive us our DEBTS

              OS KAI EMEIS APHIEMEN TOIS OHIEILETAIS EMON
              as also we forgive our DEBTORS

              You see, Matthew, IMO, was working from a GREEK translation of the sayings
              source document (TA LOGIA) mentioned by Papias in Eusebius. In the
              Greek OPHEILEMATA refers to your Master Card bill <g>.

              NOW...let's look at it in Aramaic before moving on to good old Luke:

              I will phoneticize this rather than use standard
              transliteration scheme and
              I am going to use a capital X for the pharyngeal,
              back-of-the-throat het thingy because this sentence as it came from the
              mouth of
              Jesus will make you reach for the gargle if you are not middle eastern.

              woshVOX lan Xoy-ya-VAIN ayKAH-na dup XaNAN shva-XAN ull-Xaya-VAIN

              The Aramaic hoyBAYN for "debts" is an idiom *ONLY IN ARAMAIC* for "SINS."

              NOW let's Look at how our Greek educated but Aramaic speaking physician
              writes
              this in his gospel:

              KAI APHES EMIN TAS AMARTIAS EMON
              and forgive us our SINS

              KAI GAR AUTOI APHIEMEN PANTI OPHEILONTI EMIN
              for also ourselves we forgive everyone indebted
              to us

              You will notice that Luke, writing for Greek speaking gentiles, uses the
              Greek word for SINS in the first part while retaining the Greek word for
              "debt" (in participial form) in the second part. So what is Luke telling us
              here?

              Luke is saying:

              "I am writing this in Greek for you because you speak Greek and not the
              native Aramaic of our Lord so you dont know that "debt" means "sin"
              to someone who speaks Aramaic so I am writing YOUR word for SIN
              to make you understand what it means."

              Luke is testifying here that 1. Jesus spoke Aramaic; 2. The Lord's Prayer
              was originally spoken in Aramaic; 3. He is translating the Aramaic to Greek
              for his gospel.

              That's my take on the debts/sins thingy.

              Jack

              Jack Kilmon
              San Marcos, TX
            • Bill Bullin
              Dear Jack If I have followed your exposition (below) correctly, then it appears to confirm that the concepts of debt and sin were linked through an Aramaic
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 24, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Jack

                If I have followed your exposition (below) correctly, then it appears to
                confirm that the concepts of debt and sin were linked through an Aramaic
                idiom. Metaphorically sin could be spoken of as a debt. This being the case
                I am suggesting that a similar semi-connected idiom may have existed linking
                sin to retaining \ holding or releasing. This is a seperate issue from the
                'breathing' on them of the Holy Spirit, which, I suppose some could argue is
                connected and others that 20:23 is an intrusion. I see no reason to follow
                the second option. Isaiah 22 as a whole, the High Priesthood and the letter
                to Victor are seperate issues again, I cannot see any clear connection
                myself but I like to doubt my doubts and explore all options. Isaiah 22:22
                does appear, ar first take, to have some bearing on the first issue though.

                > > No one seems to have referred to Isaiah 22:22 yet nor the Lord's Prayer
                > > debts / sins. It seems to me we may be dealing with idioms that reflect
                /
                > > link sin and forgiveness with debt and imprisonment for debt, hence
                doors
                > > shutting and opening, hands grasping and releasing. It is as if to be
                > sinned
                > > against raises a debt that may be 'forgiven' or 'released' or 'held'
                > almost
                > > physically like an unpaid bill.
                >
                > Debts xwbyn for sins is an Aramaic idiom.
                >
                > "And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."
                >
                > Keep in mind that Luke, being from an Incola of Syrian Antioch, was surely
                > competent in Aramaic as well as Greek. The author of Canonical Matthew,
                > on the other hand, appears neither competent in Aramaic nor Hebrew.
                > Matthew,
                > therefore, renders this petition as:
                >
                > KAI APHES EMIN TA OPHEILEMATA EMON
                > and forgive us our DEBTS
                >
                > OS KAI EMEIS APHIEMEN TOIS OHIEILETAIS EMON
                > as also we forgive our DEBTORS
                >
                > You see, Matthew, IMO, was working from a GREEK translation of the
                sayings
                > source document (TA LOGIA) mentioned by Papias in Eusebius. In the
                > Greek OPHEILEMATA refers to your Master Card bill <g>.
                >
                > NOW...let's look at it in Aramaic before moving on to good old Luke:
                >
                > I will phoneticize this rather than use standard
                > transliteration scheme and
                > I am going to use a capital X for the pharyngeal,
                > back-of-the-throat het thingy because this sentence as it came from the
                > mouth of
                > Jesus will make you reach for the gargle if you are not middle eastern.
                >
                > woshVOX lan Xoy-ya-VAIN ayKAH-na dup XaNAN shva-XAN ull-Xaya-VAIN
                >
                > The Aramaic hoyBAYN for "debts" is an idiom *ONLY IN ARAMAIC* for "SINS."
                >
                > NOW let's Look at how our Greek educated but Aramaic speaking physician
                > writes
                > this in his gospel:
                >
                > KAI APHES EMIN TAS AMARTIAS EMON
                > and forgive us our SINS
                >
                > KAI GAR AUTOI APHIEMEN PANTI OPHEILONTI EMIN
                > for also ourselves we forgive everyone indebted
                > to us
                >
                > You will notice that Luke, writing for Greek speaking gentiles, uses the
                > Greek word for SINS in the first part while retaining the Greek word for
                > "debt" (in participial form) in the second part. So what is Luke telling
                us
                > here?
                >
                > Luke is saying:
                >
                > "I am writing this in Greek for you because you speak Greek and not the
                > native Aramaic of our Lord so you dont know that "debt" means "sin"
                > to someone who speaks Aramaic so I am writing YOUR word for SIN
                > to make you understand what it means."
                >
                > Luke is testifying here that 1. Jesus spoke Aramaic; 2. The Lord's Prayer
                > was originally spoken in Aramaic; 3. He is translating the Aramaic to
                Greek
                > for his gospel.
                >
                > That's my take on the debts/sins thingy.
                >
                > Jack
                >
                Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: Bill Bullin To: Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 4:00 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 24, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Bill Bullin" <bill.bullin@...>
                  To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 4:00 AM
                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:23


                  > Dear Jack
                  >
                  > If I have followed your exposition (below) correctly, then it appears to
                  > confirm that the concepts of debt and sin were linked through an Aramaic
                  > idiom. Metaphorically sin could be spoken of as a debt. This being the
                  case
                  > I am suggesting that a similar semi-connected idiom may have existed
                  linking
                  > sin to retaining \ holding or releasing.

                  We are dealing with three separate languages and different times. Isaiah
                  22:22 is a poetic play on words: w'patch w'aik sagar w'sagar w'aik patach in
                  Hebrew. The only test is to find other uses of "shut/open...hold/release"
                  that are used as an idiom for sin.

                  > This is a seperate issue from the
                  > 'breathing' on them of the Holy Spirit, which, I suppose some could argue
                  is
                  > connected and others that 20:23 is an intrusion.

                  The Hebrew rwx (ruach) is wind, breath, mind, spirit as is the Aramaic rwx).
                  The Greek pneuma also refers to the movement of air, hence ruach qodesh and
                  pneuma agion are the same. Of course, the translation "ghost" is, in my
                  mind, cumbersome...to be polite.



                  > I see no reason to follow
                  > the second option. Isaiah 22 as a whole, the High Priesthood and the
                  letter
                  > to Victor are seperate issues again, I cannot see any clear connection
                  > myself but I like to doubt my doubts and explore all options. Isaiah 22:22
                  > does appear, ar first take, to have some bearing on the first issue
                  though.

                  I think it is very tenuous unless precedents can be found.

                  shlomo amek

                  Jack Kilmon
                  San Marcos, Tx
                • w van lohuizen
                  I am a bit late in joining the discussion, but I am wondering whether the translation of KRATEIN should not be closer to the basic meaning of KRAT*, which is
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 24, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I am a bit late in joining the discussion, but I am wondering whether the
                    translation of KRATEIN should not be closer to the basic meaning of
                    KRAT*, which is essentially something like power, rule, victory, control,
                    (to get the) upperhand.

                    Obviously many scholars have wondered, and continue to do so, about the
                    usual translations. In the view of some they do not give a clarifying
                    rendering of
                    the phrase. One of the obstacles was the need to construct a meaning of
                    KRATEIN that rendersit as an opposite to APHIEIN. For generally the phrase
                    with
                    KRATEIN is considered to imply to be an opposite to 'forgiving'.
                    But we may ask if it is really necessary or even logical to view 20:23b as
                    an opposite to 23a? It could also be a variant? Or a positive alternative
                    for
                    'forgiving'?

                    Let us consider the crucial character of the moment described in J 20:19-23:
                    the risen Christ appears and addresses the apostles about their task. They
                    will continue his message. He breathes over them and tells them to receive
                    holy spirit. He
                    continues and tells them that their forgiving anybody will imply a radical
                    change in the other: "if you forgive the shortcomings of anyone ,
                    these shortcomings have been forgiven". Mind the perfect tense! An extremely
                    powerful and loving blessing given to the disciples by which he transfers
                    powers of his to the disciples.

                    Is it not logical that the following phrase breathes the same love and
                    power? E.g. in this way: "Ïf you overcome the shortcomings of anyone (for
                    them (AUTOIS), their shortcomings have been overcome". Overcoming means to
                    conquer, to master, to control, to rise above. The ultimate effect is that
                    they have disappeared. It is a transformation. It reminds of the miraculous
                    healings and other deeds of Jesus. His saying something renders the word
                    into a reality. The spiritually blessed one has the inner power to radically
                    change a situation or the psyche of somebody.

                    I feel that this rendering remains close to the basic meaning of KRAT*,
                    whilst at the same time giving a meaning to the phrase that might be less
                    puzzling than the usual ones. It breathes the spirit of the renewed divine
                    message.

                    Well, this is not a paper, of course. Thorough research is missing on my
                    behalf. Yet some explorations in the basic literature have shown that this
                    rendering is worth considering, even if it may have to yield
                    to a better one.

                    I am looking forward to your comments!

                    Wali van Lohuizen
                    Amsterdam, NL









                    bly to be translated by 'shortcomings'; see my paper
                    SBLCambridge 2003). The text gives two possibilities for their reaction.
                    One is 'to let their shortcomings go from them'.
                    The other to give them the power over their shortcomings so that they can
                    handle them.


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Ramsey Michaels" <profram@...>
                    To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:06 PM
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:23


                    Sender:
                    sentto-1164713-4117-1082646363-BPBwalisufi=compuserve.com@...
                    oo.com
                    Received: from n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.73])
                    by siaag2ai.mx.compuserve.com (8.12.9/8.12.7/SUN-2.12) with SMTP id
                    i3MF64Gn020373
                    for <BPBwalisufi@...>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
                    X-eGroups-Return:
                    sentto-1164713-4117-1082646363-BPBwalisufi=compuserve.com@...
                    oo.com
                    Received: from [66.218.66.27] by n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Apr
                    2004 15:06:03 -0000
                    X-Sender: profram@...
                    X-Apparently-To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    Received: (qmail 77910 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2004 15:06:03 -0000
                    Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)
                    by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Apr 2004 15:06:03 -0000
                    Received: from unknown (HELO rwcrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.198.35)
                    by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2004 15:06:02 -0000
                    Received: from oemcomputer
                    (h00508bc0c4ca.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.61.197.242])
                    by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP
                    id <20040422145455013004mq06e>; Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:54:55 +0000
                    Message-ID: <001001c42879$1b2240c0$f2c53d18@...>
                    To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    References: <2d.3c9ad08f.2db92f9a@...>
                    X-Priority: 3
                    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
                    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
                    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
                    X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 204.127.198.35
                    From: "Ramsey Michaels" <profram@...>
                    MIME-Version: 1.0
                    Mailing-List: list johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com; contact
                    johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    Delivered-To: mailing list johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    Precedence: bulk
                    List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
                    Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:50:07 -0400
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:23
                    Reply-To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
                    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


                    Without using the term "retain," Jesus does in fact "retain" sins in Jn
                    8:21, 24; 9:41; 15:22. Interestingly, I know of no place in John's Gospel
                    where he explicitly "forgives" anyone's sin (5:14 comes closest, except for
                    8:11, which I guess does not count).

                    Ramsey Michaels

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: <Maluflen@aol.c;om>
                    To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:24 AM
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:23


                    > In a message dated 4/21/2004 2:37:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                    > bobschacht@... writes:
                    >
                    >
                    > > NRS John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them;
                    if
                    > > you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
                    > >
                    > > So what the heck does this mean?
                    > >
                    > > "Retain" is apparently a form of the verb kratein. One of the most
                    common
                    > > applications of this verb is "arrest," as in
                    > > NRS Mark 14:44 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one
                    I
                    > > will kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard."
                    > >
                    >
                    > I think the meaning of the term KRATEIN here is clear enough because of
                    the
                    > context: it means to withhold forgiveness. On the other hand, it remains
                    an
                    > unusual, not to say an odd expression because it actually speaks of the
                    sins,
                    > rather than the forgiveness as being "retained". KRATEIN frequently means
                    "to
                    > have power over, to control". In this meaning too, the verb would make
                    more sense
                    > if its implied object were "forgiveness", rather than the sins themselves.
                    > And although the context makes the overall meaning clear, the terms
                    AFIENAI and
                    > KRATEIN do not, to my knowledge, form an otherwise biblically attested
                    pair of
                    > contrasting terms. The term KRATEIN is very common in 4 Macc, almost
                    always
                    > in the context of the "control" of reason over the passions, or the
                    "dominance"
                    > of the passions over reason. But, again, I don't think these uses of the
                    term
                    > are particularly illuminative of this Johannine passage.
                    >
                    > Leonard Maluf
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • David Trapero
                    ... whether the ... control, ... phrase ... 20:23b as ... alternative ... task. They ... receive ... radical ... extremely ... transfers ... anyone (for ...
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 26, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "w van lohuizen"
                      <BPBwalisufi@c...> wrote:
                      > I am a bit late in joining the discussion, but I am wondering
                      whether the
                      > translation of KRATEIN should not be closer to the basic meaning of
                      > KRAT*, which is essentially something like power, rule, victory,
                      control,
                      > (to get the) upperhand.
                      >
                      > Obviously many scholars have wondered, and continue to do so, about the
                      > usual translations. In the view of some they do not give a clarifying
                      > rendering of
                      > the phrase. One of the obstacles was the need to construct a meaning of
                      > KRATEIN that rendersit as an opposite to APHIEIN. For generally the
                      phrase
                      > with
                      > KRATEIN is considered to imply to be an opposite to 'forgiving'.
                      > But we may ask if it is really necessary or even logical to view
                      20:23b as
                      > an opposite to 23a? It could also be a variant? Or a positive
                      alternative
                      > for
                      > 'forgiving'?
                      >
                      > Let us consider the crucial character of the moment described in J
                      20:19-23:
                      > the risen Christ appears and addresses the apostles about their
                      task. They
                      > will continue his message. He breathes over them and tells them to
                      receive
                      > holy spirit. He
                      > continues and tells them that their forgiving anybody will imply a
                      radical
                      > change in the other: "if you forgive the shortcomings of anyone ,
                      > these shortcomings have been forgiven". Mind the perfect tense! An
                      extremely
                      > powerful and loving blessing given to the disciples by which he
                      transfers
                      > powers of his to the disciples.
                      >
                      > Is it not logical that the following phrase breathes the same love and
                      > power? E.g. in this way: "Ïf you overcome the shortcomings of
                      anyone (for
                      > them (AUTOIS), their shortcomings have been overcome". Overcoming
                      means to
                      > conquer, to master, to control, to rise above. The ultimate effect
                      is that
                      > they have disappeared. It is a transformation. It reminds of the
                      miraculous
                      > healings and other deeds of Jesus. His saying something renders the word
                      > into a reality. The spiritually blessed one has the inner power to
                      radically
                      > change a situation or the psyche of somebody.
                      >
                      > I feel that this rendering remains close to the basic meaning of KRAT*,
                      > whilst at the same time giving a meaning to the phrase that might be
                      less
                      > puzzling than the usual ones. It breathes the spirit of the renewed
                      divine
                      > message.
                      >
                      > Well, this is not a paper, of course. Thorough research is missing on my
                      > behalf. Yet some explorations in the basic literature have shown
                      that this
                      > rendering is worth considering, even if it may have to yield
                      > to a better one.
                      >
                      > I am looking forward to your comments!
                      >
                      > Wali van Lohuizen
                      > Amsterdam, NL
                      >
                      I absolutely love this interpretation! For a moment there, I thought
                      I was in the presence of previously undiscovered Jesus tradition!
                      Wonderful, refreshing exegesis and wrestling with the Greek text! I'm
                      hoping a solid case can be made for this interpretation because this
                      is the primitive community I've been looking for and I suspected
                      existed all along.

                      Great job and thank you!

                      David

                      David Trapero M.Div.
                      818 2nd St. PL NE #95
                      Hickory, NC 28601
                      Dtrap303@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.