Abstract
It appears possible to point to linguistic structures in John 8.25b and 45a which exhibit similarities. While John 8.25b has seen discussion, the problems of John 8.45a have not been given much attention. This article argues that both passages contain structures which derive from Semitic influence on the Greek. This is important both for translating the sentences and for the question of the author of John’s Gospel and his background.
Introduction
Two passages of John’s Gospel have recently seen renewed interest. 1 Of these two passages, John 8.45a has not been perceived as structurally problematic and only a new translation has been proposed. The other passage, John 8.25b, shows apparent structural problems which lead to uncertainties in its translation. The linguistic problems of John 8.25b have sparked intense scholarly discussion. Roger L. Omanson summarizes the discussion concerning John 8.25b: “The words of Jesus, Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑµῖν, are an incomplete sentence. They have been called ‘the most obscure sentence in the Gospel and the most uncertain how to translate’” (Omanson 2012, 185). 2
The problem of the sentence structure as quoted by Omanson is clear, and will be discussed in this contribution, with special focus given to a possible origin of this structure. A linguistic solution has been suggested recently for the passage (cf. Förster 2016a). In contrast, the sentence in John 8.45a has seen suggestions for a new translation, but the linguistic problems of the structure have not been mentioned (cf. Förster 2016b). While the new translation may improve the understanding of John 8.45a, there has been no discussion of the obvious linguistic problem of the sentence. It will become apparent that both sentences have Greek linguistic structures which find their counterparts in the Septuagint. Thus, the impression is that these structures in John’s Gospel can best be understood either as the attempt of a Greek-speaking author to imitate linguistic structures influenced by Hebrew or as typical Semitisms. The subject matter dictates the structure of its presentation in this paper. Discussion of the linguistic structures of the two passages and possible similarities to Septuagintal Greek will be the focus of the contribution. Since it has been acknowledged that John 8.25b poses problems of syntax and translation this will be discussed first. The problems of John 8.45a have not received much scholarly discussion and might therefore be deemed more elusive. Thus, the argument will build on the apparent problems of John 8.25b in order to make the problems of John 8.45a evident and to suggest a solution. The question as to whether this has implications for our perception of the intended readership will be part of the conclusion.
The structure of John 8.25b
The problem
The structural problems of the text of John 8.25b as presented in the UBS Greek New Testament (UBS4) and Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) are obvious and have been regarded as problematic
3
: εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑµῖν; said to-them Jesus: the beginning that which/why also I-speak to-you?
The sentence τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑµῖν is, as Omanson notes, incomplete and the translation uncertain. Despite the uncertainty of its meaning, the punctuation of the sentence in the critical edition of Novum Testamentum Graece declares it to be a question. The direct speech of Jesus starts with an accusative, followed immediately by a subordinate clause, which is introduced by either the pronoun ὅ τι or the particle ὅτι. Graphically these two words look the same in many manuscripts. It is apparent that the main clause is incomplete since it consists only of an accusative (τὴν ἀρχὴν) which may be interpreted as an adverb. Omanson aptly describes the linguistic problem posed by this sentence: Since the older Greek manuscripts lack punctuation and are written without divisions between words, it is possible to interpret Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑµῖν in several ways. They may be understood as a question, an exclamation, or an affirmation. Furthermore, the words ὅ τι may be read as one word, and translated “why,” “that,” or “because.” Or they may be read as two words as in the UBS4 text and mean “that which.” And finally, the words Τὴν ἀρχὴν may be read as an accusative noun meaning “the beginning” or as an adverb meaning “primarily.” (2012, 185)
The linguistic possibilities described by Omanson produce a wide range of different translations of the half-verse. GNB, for example, opts for translating ὅ τι as a relative pronoun: “Jesus answered, ‘What I have told you from the very beginning.’” GNB makes the relative pronoun the beginning of the direct speech and also translates τὴν ἀρχήν as part of the direct speech. Thus, in the case of GNB’s translation one would actually expect the following as the Greek source text: ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑµῖν τὴν ἀρχήν. Further, the prepositional phrase ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς would be even more fitting as the source text of GNB. NRSV interprets ὅ τι as coordinating a causal structure and arrives at the following translation: “Jesus said to them, ‘Why do I speak to you at all?’” Here the conjunction ὅτι has a causal force as the beginning of the direct speech and “at all” renders τὴν ἀρχήν. This translation seems to put an anti-Jewish slant onto Jesus’ words. The phrase implies that Jesus does not see any merit in his communication with his Jewish audience. These two examples suffice to show that the structure of the sentence appears to be in need of improvement, and that part of the traditional way of improving it is to understand the accusative τὴν ἀρχήν as having an adverbial function in the direct speech.
The proposed solution
It has been suggested that the natural structure of the syntax of John 8.25b differs from the traditional presentation of the text (UBS4/UBS5 and NA28) and should be presented as follows: εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν ἀρχήν· ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑµῖν. This punctuation (supported by manuscripts such as Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis or Codex Basiliensis) makes τὴν ἀρχήν part of the narrative frame, thereby making the two sentences syntactically correct Greek. If structured like this, there are no problems with the syntax: it is apparent that in this case the accusative (τὴν ἀρχήν) follows the verbum dicendi (verb of speaking—εἶπεν) and has the syntactical function of an adverb, “immediately.” The use of an accusative as adverb is a phenomenon seen also in other instances of the New Testament, 4 as well as in patristic literature (Blass and Debrunner 2001, §§160.2 and 266.2). Suffice it to mention that John Chrysostom uses the words τὴν ἀρχήν at the end of a sentence in an adverbial sense (cf. Förster 2016a, 15–16).
The proposed solution makes the syntactic structure more acceptable Greek by including τὴν ἀρχήν in the narrative frame. It appears that the direct object which is placed right at the beginning of Jesus’ words functions at the same time as object and as marker (ὅτι), which in the New Testament and other Greek texts very often separates the narrative frame from the spoken or referred word. Thus, this can also be seen as an indicator of where the narrative frame ends and the spoken word starts. Τὴν ἀρχήν as part of the direct speech creates problems of syntax and translation, and would actually provoke the question why the particle ὅτι does not introduce speech in this case. The translation of the proposed text of John 8.25b is as follows: “Jesus spoke to them at first/immediately: I am telling you this.” 5
In this translation an intense and somewhat lively discussion appears to take place between Jesus and his Jewish counterparts in John 8.25b. Instead of disrupting the dialogue by voicing a rhetorical question implying a rebuke (cf. NRSV, “Why do I speak to you at all?”), Jesus appears to take up the challenge of John 8.25a. Therefore, he answers “immediately.” This would imply then the following situation: Jesus says something first and then adds to what he says—and this seems to be what he is doing in John 8, since John 8.25b is the beginning of a statement which continues in John 8.26.
The fact that the Vulgate does not do justice to the Greek text 6 may have been influential in preventing the detection of the solution to the grammatical problems in John 8.25b. The entire Latin tradition gives evidence of the problems in translating John 8.25b. 7 This may be seen as an indication that the use of the accusative as adverb in this case was a linguistic choice the translators were not familiar with. 8 Thus, there is no need to see this as an “obscure sentence.” The unfamiliarity of the translators who produced the Latin versions of John’s Gospel with this sentence structure could point to an influence of Hebrew. Before this possible source of the linguistic structure is discussed, the problems of John 8.45a need to be presented.
The structure of John 8.45a
The problem
Compared with John 8.25b, the sentence structure of John 8.45a has not received much discussion. The sentence reads as follows: ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτι τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ πιστεύετέ µοι. GNB opts for the translation, “But I tell the truth, and that is why you do not believe me.” NRSV has, “But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” LB uses the following as translation: “And so when I tell the truth, you just naturally don’t believe it!” And KJV has, “And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.”
Translational practice typically restructures the sentence, placing the proleptic ἐγὼ δέ within the subordinate clause introduced by ὅτι. One would expect something like the following, to use one example, as source text for NRSV: ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ λέγειν µε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, οὐ πιστεύετέ µοι. 9 It is noteworthy that, in fact, the first two words (ἐγὼ δέ) stand strictly outside the subordinate clause and thereby constitute an incomplete sentence. In Greek grammar the conjunction ὅτι stands at the beginning of the subclause and the subject of the sentence follows. 10 Thus, according to the standard interpretation of the Greek syntax of John 8.45a, ἐγὼ δέ is part of the main clause.
A comparable structure can be found in Matt 6.6a: σὺ δὲ ὅταν προσεύχῃ εἴσελθε εἰς τὸ ταµεῖόν σου (NRSV: “But whenever you pray, go into your room”). Here, the proleptic σὺ δέ precedes the conjunction introducing the subordinate clause (ὅταν). Since the personal pronoun is the subject of the main clause, one might use the following punctuation to clarify the structure: σὺ δέ, ὅταν προσεύχῃ, εἴσελθε εἰς τὸ ταµεῖόν σου. Since the first person singular in Matt 6.6a is the subject of both the main and subordinate clauses, the prolepsis of the personal pronoun preceding the temporal conjunction is unproblematic. A comparable structure occurs also in Mark 4.31: ὡς κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃς ὅταν σπαρῇ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, µικρότερον ὂν πάντων τῶν σπερµάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (NRSV: “It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth”). The relative pronoun (ὃς) introduces a relative clause in which a temporal clause (beginning with ὅταν) is inserted. 11 The third person singular is the subject of both the relative clause and the inserted temporal clause. However, in John 8.45a the personal pronoun in the first person singular precedes the conjunction introducing the subordinate clause and is not the subject of the main clause. Thus, the following structure would make John 8.45a correct Greek, adhering to the traditional interpretation of the sentence and following the examples given above: ἐµοὶ δέ, ὅτι τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ πιστεύετέ. In this case the personal pronoun (ἐµοί) is the indirect object of the main clause and at the same time, standing right before the conjunction ὅτι, introduces the subject of the hypotaxis.
A standard translation would interpret the particle ὅτι as coordinating a causal subclause and put the personal pronoun as well as the conjunction δέ inside the subclause. In such a translation the juxtaposition of Jesus and his Jewish opponents is rather strong: the very fact that he tells the truth is the reason why his opponents do not believe. It is a fact that the particle ὅτι is a rather weak causal coordinator. Thus the following translation, which has been recently suggested, may be seen as coming closer to the semantics of this particle: “But you do not believe that I tell the truth” (see Förster 2016b, 162–63). 12 It seems more natural that someone tries to tell the truth and then states that the audience does not believe that (s)he is telling the truth. It seems rather strange to make a causal connection between someone telling the truth and others not believing that person. This translation appears to be an improvement in the semantics of the translation; it is, however, still not a translation that does justice to the grammatical problem posed by the sentence: in the Greek text the personal pronoun and the particle δέ are outside the subclause, be it a causal subclause or a subclause containing the direct object of the verb of the main clause (πιστεύετε is a verbum putandi—verb of believing—and is commonly construed with object clauses). Thus, close attention to syntactic structure may help us to understand the sentence better here.
Possible Hebrew influence on the syntax of John 8.45a
The personal pronoun outside the sentence to which it belongs can be found in the Septuagint. As a first and very obvious parallel, Exod 16.7b can be cited. The Hebrew has the following question: ונחנו מה כי תלונו [תלינו] עלינו (For what are we, that you complain against us? – NRSV). This is translated in the Septuagint as, ἡµεῖς δὲ τί ἐσµεν ὅτι διαγογγύζετε καθ᾿ ἡµῶν; (But we, what are we that you complain against us? – NETS). It is apparent that the Hebrew conjunction (ו) is translated as a Greek conjunction (δέ). The personal pronoun (נחנו) is translated as a personal pronoun (ἡµεῖς) and the interrogative particle (מה) is rendered by a full subclause (τί ἐσµεν). Interestingly, the Greek particle ὅτι corresponds to the frequently used Hebrew particle כי. NRSV renders this sentence as, “For what are we, that you complain against us?” In this case the Greek particle ὅτι seems not to carry a causal force.
A further parallel to be mentioned here is Neh 9.33: καὶ σὺ δίκαιος ἐπὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐρχοµένοις ἐφ᾿ ἡµᾶς, ὅτι ἀλήθειαν ἐποίησας, καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐξηµάρτοµεν (And you are just in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt truthfully, and we did wrong. – NETS). There is a nominal sentence at the beginning which consists only of subject (σύ) and predicate (δίκαιος) but misses the copula; the nominal sentence is followed by a subclause introduced again by the particle ὅτι and then a second main clause follows. This corresponds to the Hebrew text: ואתה צדיק על כל־הבא עלינו כי־אמת עשׂית ואנחנו הרשׁענו. Again the sentence introduced by the multivalent coordinator (כי) corresponds to the sentence introduced by the Greek particle ὅτι. One must add that the Hebrew particle used here appears to be quite similar to the Greek particle since both the Hebrew particle and the Greek particle are closely related to a demonstrative pronoun. It appears that the Hebrew particle was originally a demonstrative pronoun 13 and it is apparent that the Greek particle is closely related to or even identical with the neuter of the pronoun ὅστις. The sentence is translated thus: “You have done right to punish us; you have been faithful, even though we have sinned” (GNB). Closer to the source text is NRSV: “You have been just in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt faithfully and we have acted wickedly.”
This sentence is important for two reasons: on the one hand the personal pronoun is at the beginning of a (possibly) incomplete sentence (one is tempted to consider the sentence incomplete since the copula is missing). However, nominal sentences without copula are used in Greek and an accusative (אמת/ἀλήθειαν) is used as adverb in the subclause. The grammar of Blass and Debrunner gives a few examples (mostly concerned with time or place) of the accusative as adverb in the New Testament (2001, §160.2) but does not list (τὴν) ἀλήθειαν among them. However, it is apparent that this word is used also in other instances in the Septuagint as an adverb. One could mention the words of David (2 Sam 2.6a): καὶ νῦν ποιήσαι κύριος µεθ᾿ ὑµῶν ἔλεος καὶ ἀλήθειαν. This has as source text the following Hebrew clause: ועתה יעשׂ־יהוה עמכם חסד ואמת. GNB translates the Hebrew אמת as an adjective and replaces the verb (יעשׂ/ποιήσαι) with the copula (“be”). This transposes the sentence with a finite verb into a nominal sentence with the adjectival predicate “faithful,” while the Greek text of the Septuagint renders אמת as the accusative of the substantive ἀλήθεια. GNB offers the following translation: “And now may the Lord be kind and faithful to you.” NETS opts for a very literal translation: “And now may the Lord do mercy and truth with you!”
One could argue on the basis of these examples that the combination of the accusative ἀλήθειαν with a verbum dicendi—in the Septuagint λαλέω is used quite a few times in this combination—might also hint at an adverbial use of ἀλήθειαν in Septuagintal Greek and in Greek imitating Septuagintal Greek. In Zechariah the following exhortation is found (Zech 8.16b): λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν ἕκαστος πρὸς τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ. The Greek text of the Septuagint renders the following Hebrew source text: דברו אמת אישׁ את־רעהו. GNB translates this, “Speak the truth to one another.” This is indeed a correct translation. One could, however, argue that functionally, here also the Hebrew accusative functions as an adverb. In this case one could also render, “Speak truthfully/honestly to one another.” It is obvious that personal dealings with one’s neighbour are the focus of the quote from the prophet Zechariah. In this case there is no semantic difference between “speak the truth” and “speak truthfully.” The prophet admonishes his audience to deal truthfully with one another; the meaning of ἀλήθεια in the Septuagint covers this translation. 14
Comparison of John 8.25b and 8.45a
Based on these observations one could suggest that the accusative τὴν ἀλήθειαν in John 8.45a could also be the equivalent of an adverb. This would suggest a parallel grammatical function of both τὴν ἀρχήν (John 8.25b) and τὴν ἀλήθειαν (John 8.45a). In this case the sentence in John 8.45a could be structured as follows: ἐγὼ δὲ ὅ τι τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ πιστεύετέ µοι. That is, two parallel main clauses stand together without a conjunction between them (asyndetic parataxis). The first clause is ἐγὼ δὲ ὅ τι τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω. Based on the use of אמת and its counterpart ἀλήθεια in the Septuagint this could be rendered as: “But I say this honestly/truthfully.” In the proposed structure the particle ὅτι would be interpreted as the demonstrative pronoun ὅ τι—and this is a common function of the neuter singular ὅ τι. This pronoun can be a demonstrative or a relative pronoun equally well; the focus of the pronoun depends on the context. It is very often a reference to “all possible words/things.” 15 The pronoun ὅτι constitutes in this interpretation of the syntax the direct object of the verb λέγω, while τὴν ἀλήθειαν represents the adverb. This suggestion for the interpretation of the syntax of John 8.45a has the possible advantage of making it a complete main clause in accordance with standard Greek grammar (regarding the syntax) and in close relationship to the Septuagint (concerning the use of the accusative τὴν ἀλήθειαν as adverb). The second clause is οὐ πιστεύετέ µοι. This can be translated as “you do not believe me.” Thus, the two clauses combined would be: “But I say this [or even: all this] honestly/truthfully. You do not believe me.” If one wanted to avoid the asyndeton, one could translate, “But I say this honestly/truthfully and you do not believe me.”
As opposed to Zech 8.16b, there appears to be a semantic difference between “speak truthfully” and “speak the truth” in John 8.45a. The first translation indicates that Jesus is honest in his dealings with his audience. The second implies a revelatory speech where Jesus discloses divine truth.
It is apparent that the proposed grammatical interpretation of ὅτι is different from the interpretation given by Abbott. Abbott describes this instance as “suspensive use” of ὅτι. According to Abbott, ὅτι in suspension stands at the beginning of a sentence and has a causal force. He gives Gen 3.14 as an example. 16 This is again a case where the Septuagint translates the Hebrew כי as ὅτι. 17 The KJV offers as translation, “And the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.’” There is no need to discuss the weak causal force of the particles used in this instance since already the GNB translates as follows: “Then the Lord God said to the snake, ‘You will be punished for this; you alone of all the animals must bear this curse: From now on you will crawl on your belly, and you will have to eat dust as long as you live.’” Since the Vulgate uses the conjunction quia to translate כי and to introduce the direct speech, 18 one is tempted to see the causal force of suspensive ὅτι as described by Abbott as a misconception of Greek that is influenced by knowledge of Latin and its use of quia. The conjunction quia is used for many different purposes in biblical Latin and is not exclusively causal, as opposed to its use in classical Latin. 19 Thus, it is a legitimate conclusion that there is no need to see quia as causal in Gen 3.14. Since Gen 3.14 is part of Abbott’s argument for the suspensive use of ὅτι, its use in John 8.45a is also open for reconsideration.
It appears that the author of the Gospel of John uses the accusative in the neuter singular of the weak relative/demonstrative pronoun ὅστις as direct object of verba dicendi also in other instances—in these cases ὅ τι introduces a relative clause. John 2.5 has, λέγει ἡ µήτηρ αὐτοῦ τοῖς διακόνοις· ὅ τι ἂν λέγῃ ὑµῖν ποιήσατε (NRSV: “His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you’”). John 14.13 (cf. also John 15.16) has, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί µου τοῦτο ποιήσω, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ (NRSV: “I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son”). This may hint at the possibility that ὅ τι can function as direct object if taken as demonstrative pronoun.
The translation of John 8.45 in its immediate context
It does seem to make a difference whether Jesus’ Jewish opponents do not believe him despite the fact “that he is telling the truth” or whether it is despite the fact that he speaks “honestly and truthfully.” One could argue that the immediate context actually favours the latter translation. John 8.45 immediately follows John 8.44. If Jesus is juxtaposing himself with his Jewish counterparts—and there are voices that see this passage as an intense discussion between Jesus and his counterparts 20 —the juxtaposition happens between Jesus, who is described as λέγειν τὴν ἀλήθειαν “speaking the truth,” and the Jews, who are children of a ψεύστης “liar.” The liar’s way of speaking is described as λαλεῖν τὸ ψεῦδος “speaking the lie.” NIV, for example, translates ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος as, “when he lies,” which basically takes the accusative τὸ ψεῦδος as part of the verbum dicendi. Thus, in this case the distinction would not be between “absolute and divine truth” against “lie” 21 but rather between honest and deceitful speech. It is apparent that this has consequences for the interpretation of John 8.45. 22
Conclusion
It appears that both John 8.25b and John 8.45a exhibit sentence structures which show Semitic influence and hint at the linguistic background of the author of John’s Gospel. This makes it possible to interpret them as correct Greek and to identify in both cases an accusative functioning as an adverb. Such identification of a sentence structure has implications for translation, and it makes the translation less uncertain since the function of the parts of the sentence becomes clearer. In both cases a seemingly disrupted dialogue is transformed into an intensified dialogue. It seems important—especially in light of the attempts to understand John 8.44 as an inner-Jewish discussion—that this translation suggests the intense discussion which is taking place in this chapter. The perception of John 8.44 as part of an inner-Jewish discussion is again strengthened by the fact that the text exhibits linguistic features typical for a linguistic environment which has strong and indisputable Semitic influence.
Consequences for the translation
The linguistic subtleties of these two verses in John 8 point to an author who is intrinsically familiar with Hebrew and appears to presuppose a group of readers who share this background. Therefore, a better understanding of this linguistic environment might provide a basis for a possible translational decision which would have consequences for our understanding of the entire chapter. Thus, the question of the linguistic environment has relevance for understanding the overall topic of ch. 8. It is commonly held that this chapter deals with the dichotomy between “truth” and “falsehood.” The suggested grammatical structures and the implied translational consequences seem to shift the topic: Jesus is a trustworthy speaker in front of an unbelieving audience. One can see Jesus’ assertion in John 8.12 (“I am the light of the world”) as the opening statement and a clear claim by Jesus as to who he is. This statement seems to be of importance for the entire chapter. Jesus claims further that he is a speaker worth listening to. Jesus presents his understanding of his own importance in legalistic terminology: He is a witness worth listening to (John 8.17; this translation is argued for in Förster 2017b). Then follows Jesus’ rather enigmatic use of ἐγώ εἰµι in John 8.24. This phrase appears to be a possible echo of the personal pronoun in the first person singular in the Septuagint (e.g., ἐγώ εἰµι for אנכי “I,” in Exod 20.2). 23 Therefore, Jesus seems to take up John 8.12. He asks his audience to believe “what I am” (ὅ τι ἐγώ εἰµι). This is challenged by the audience (John 8.25): “Who are you? Jesus spoke to them immediately: I am telling you this.” The speed of the answer (τὴν ἀρχήν “immediately”) shows that a heated discussion is taking place here. This is the opposite of what NRSV has as translation: “Jesus said to them, ‘Why do I speak to you at all?’”
John 8.45 alludes back to the beginning of the chapter. Jesus describes his way of speaking as honest and still his audience remains unbelieving: “Despite the fact that I am saying this honestly you do not believe me.” The speaker simply acknowledges that he has not been able to convince his audience. If ὅ τι is taken as a pronoun which also contains aspects of a relative pronoun, one would be tempted to translate John 8.45 thus: “You do not believe what I am telling you honestly.”
Based on this translation, the situation appears to have been as follows: Jesus is depicted as a speaker who is exasperated by his audience not believing what he is saying. This is disconcerting since he describes himself as a trustworthy and honest person. As there are aspects of the description of Jesus in John’s Gospel that draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses, 24 one could argue that in John 8 Jesus is experiencing what Moses experiences with the people of Israel. Again and again they do not heed his words. Thus, the text of John 8.17, 25, and 45 forces translators to make a choice. Traditionally, translation tends to see here a juxtaposition of “truth” and “falsehood.” However, it is rather difficult to pinpoint what the exact content of “truth” in John 8 might be. I have argued that the discussion between Jesus and the Jews may also be seen as a dialogue between a trustworthy individual and an audience which is not convinced. This translational choice reduces the theological weight of the discussion in John 8 and frees the interpreter from the task of understanding what is meant by the term “truth” here.
Footnotes
1.
This article was written in the context of the research project P29315; the project is funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). I would like to thank Simon Crisp for making my English more fluent and the anonymous reviewers of TBT for valuable input.
2.
Omanson makes reference to Beasley-Murray 1987, 125, and 
, 345–46.
3.
5.
This translation sees καί mainly as pointing to the function of ὅ τι. A possible translation including this conjunction would be, “Jesus spoke to them at first: I am telling you this too.”
6.
The Vulgate has in John 8.25b, “dixit eis Iesus principium quia et loquor vobis” (Jesus said to them: the beginning, what/because I also speak unto you). This is a formally equivalent translation of the Greek structure. The Latin translation renders the accusative τὴν ἀρχήν literally as principium (beginning). But the nominative/accusative principium has no syntactic function in the Latin text.
7.
The manuscripts oscillate between principium (e.g., Palatinus) and initium (e.g., Vercellensis) as a translation of τὴν ἀρχήν, and quia (e.g., Veronensis), qui (e.g., Palatinus), quoniam (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), and quod (e.g., Vercellensis) as a translation of ὅτι.
8.
This solution would suggest the following Latin phrasing as an appropriate translation of the sentence: “dixit eis Iesus statim quia et loquor vobis.” The Latin adverb statim commonly translates εὐθύς.
9.
A structural parallel for the proposed source text is Phil 1.7: Καθώς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐµοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑµῶν διὰ τὸ ἔχειν µε ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑµᾶς, ἔν τε τοῖς δεσµοῖς µου καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου συγκοινωνούς µου τῆς χάριτος πάντας ὑµᾶς ὄντας (NRSV: “It is right for me to think this way about all of you, because you hold me in your heart, for all of you share in God’s grace with me, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel”).
10.
The conjunction ὅτι stands at the beginning of a subordinate clause, the subject and the predicate of which are placed after this conjunction; cf. Bornemann and Risch 2012, §269. In proleptic structures the subject of the subordinate clause is part of the grammatical structure of the main clause (usually the object); cf. Blass and Debrunner 2001, §476, Robertson 1914, 423 (Prolepsis), and , §1920. In the instance of John 8.45a, ἐγὼ δέ must be seen as an incomplete nominal sentence disrupting the grammatical structure of John 8.45.
11.
For a similar structure, cf. also Luke 8.13a: οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας οἳ ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν µετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τὸν λόγον (NRSV: “The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy”). Two conjunctions introducing different subclauses may even follow each other immediately in case the subject of both sentences is identical; cf. Luke 14.10b: ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ κεκληκώς σε ἐρεῖ σοι (NRSV: “so that when your host comes, he may say to you”).
12.
This translation is in accordance with the comments in Abbott’s grammar concerning the use of ὅτι; cf. , §2174: “In theory, ambiguity might arise from the fact that λέγω, πιστεύω, θεωρέω etc. followed by ὅτι, might mean ‘I say, believe, behold, that,’ or ‘I say, believe, behold, because.’ In practice, however, such ambiguity, though not infrequent, is not very serious, except perhaps in one important passage to be considered later on—because John adheres to regular Greek usage, which would not sanction the conjunction after such verbs, except to mean ‘that,’ introducing the object of the verb.”
15.
Cf. also , 83 (regarding his second use of ὅστις): “En appositives et en relatives de choix libre, emplois où, au contraire, il n’est pas soumis à restriction contextuelle et s’applique clairement à un référent, voire à tous les référents possibles” (When used in apposition and in non-restricted relative clauses, it [the relative pronoun] is not subject to any contextual restrictions and clearly applies to a referent, or even to all possible referents).
16.
Abbott 1906, §2176: “The suspensive use of ὅτι in the Greek Testament is first found in Genesis iii. 14 ‘And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because (ὅτι) thou hast done this, cursed art thou,’ . . . In N. T., suspensive ὅτι is almost confined to the Johannine writings and the Apocalypse.” This seems to point strongly to Septuagintal influence on the author of John’s Gospel in John 8.25b and in 8.45a; for the possibility that the use of ὅτι might suggest Semitic influence, see , 436–37.
17.
Gen 3.14: καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ ὄφει Ὅτι ἐποίησας τοῦτο, ἐπικατάρατος σὺ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν θηρίων τῆς γῆς· ἐπὶ τῷ στήθει σου καὶ τῇ κοιλίᾳ πορεύσῃ καὶ γῆν φάγῃ πάσας τὰς ἡµέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου.
ויאמר יהוה אלהים אל־הנחשׁ כי עשׂית זאת ארור אתה מכל־הבהמה ומכל חית השׂדה על־גחנך
תאכל כל־ימי חייך׃
18.
Gen 3.14 (Vulgate): “et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem quia fecisti hoc maledictus es inter omnia animantia et bestias terrae super pectus tuum gradieris et terram comedes cunctis diebus vitae tuae.”
19.
Cf. , 226: “Der AcI wird im Vulgär- und Spätlatein meist durch einen Objektsatz (auch: ‘Kompletivsatz’ < fr. proposition complétive) mit quod oder quia (beide in der Bedeutung ‘dass’) ersetzt. Quia (ursprünglich ‘weil’) macht also einen Bedeutungswandel durch (> ‘dass’)” (The accusative with infinitive is commonly translated in vulgar and late Latin as an object sentence using the conjunctions quod or quia [both with the meaning “that”]. This is also called a complement clause, from the French proposition complétive. The conjunction quia [which originally meant “because”] undergoes a change of meaning [taking on the meaning “that”]).
20.
21.
For the juxtaposition of “truth” and “lie” (ψεῦδος), see Bauer 1988, s.v. ἀλήθεια. For the consequences, see , 181: “Dass es die teuflische Lüge ist, die den Menschen die göttliche Wahrheit in Jesus und seinem Wort nicht erkennen lässt, zeigen auch die drei begründenden ὅτι-Sätze in den VV. 43.45.47, die den Teufelsvers umrahmen und zueinander in Entsprechung stehen, so dass sie sich gegenseitig auslegen” (The three causal ὅτι–clauses in vv. 43, 45, 47 show this: it is the diabolical lie which does not allow human beings to understand the divine truth in Jesus and his word. These verses constitute a frame around the ‘devil’s verse’ [v. 44] and are intrinsically related to and interpret each other).
22.
For the juxtaposition of “absolute truth” and “lie,” see, e.g., , 352: “Wenn der eigene Anspruch exklusiv als Wahrheit gilt, bleibt die Gegenseite, solange sie diesen Anspruch nicht teilt, auf Unglaube und Lüge festgelegt. . . . Die Tragik der Situation des Johannesevangeliums liegt darin, dass sich in härtester Auseinandersetzung alles auf diesen einen Punkt zuspitzt und allein an der Stellung zur Person Jesu Wahrheit und Lüge auseinandertreten” (If one’s own claim is asserted as absolute truth, the other side is implicitly committed to disbelief and lies as long as it does not share this claim. . . . The tragedy of the situation in the Gospel of John is that the heated dispute comes to a head here: only in one’s position towards the person of Jesus are truth and falsehood separated).
24.
Abbreviations
GNB Good News Bible (1976)
KJV King James Version (1611)
LB Living Bible (1971)
NA28 Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition (2012)
NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007)
NIV New International Version (1978)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version (1989)
UBS4 UBS Greek New Testament, 4th edition (1993)
UBS5 UBS Greek New Testament, 5th edition (2014)