« first day (1926 days earlier)      last day (1658 days later) » 

4:02 AM
Wow. Ground breaking archeology: babylonbee.com/news/…
 
 
2 hours later…
5:57 AM
@JamesShewey Haha, that site is hilarious. Surely there's some part of 31:31ff that must be canonical too, right? ;-)
 
 
2 hours later…
7:31 AM
@DickHarfield The answer you gave presumes the use is parenthetic which was not in the question and for which you gave no rationale. As such your answer was incomplete. Applying the logic of the answer (from ch1) to the use in ch 4 creates the paradox which I showed in my comment. (The comment was not criticism it was just a literal application of the answer to the question).
 
 
7 hours later…
2:04 PM
I think the question of whether v25 is parenthetic is based on the Samaritans use of Christ (in v29,42). Bowman believes they used taheb which was changed by the writer. If the use in v25 is parenthetic did the woman say taheb which the writer changed to Messiah? Or did she say Messiah and the writer's parenthetic serves both as an explanation of Messiah and the substitution for taheb in what follows? — Revelation Lad 7 hours ago
@RevelationLad Hi! I though I'd pick up that ^^^^ comment here, since you were in the neighborhood. :) Those are good questions, and I can tweak my answer if this conversation proves fruitful.
 
2:35 PM
There's now more than one issue on the go, and it's as well to keep them distinct. (If we can!) My own sense is that the "parenthetic" nature of these asides is pretty much a given -- although 4:25 might be a special case: the only other one of these that is embedded in direct speech is 9:11, and that can't be "parenthetical" (I think!). So there's room for doubt here.
Then there's the taheb/christos-- when you mention Bowman, I take you have pp. 312-13 in mind? I confess it's not crystal clear to me what he has in mind at that point. Compare Odeberg, p. 187 (top). Which term in Jn 4:25 is the candidate for substitution? It would more plausibly be "Messiah", as you suggest.
(And christos is not used in 4:42 -- I don't know why Bowman picks that up. You're right to point to v. 29, where the woman is now depicted as using christos, and v. 42 does look like a reference back to the question posed in v. 29.)
But the "substitution" suggestion is only that: a suggestion, and Odeberg's wording makes it clear he thinks there's not a lot in it, although he raises it speculatively.
I reckon, in the end, all we can do is explain -- as best we can -- what John is narrating. 1:41 gives us the translation equivalent; 4:25 (in direct speech) gives us an alternate designation of an individual, whether as a spoken gloss by "the woman", or as parenthetically introduced by the narrator. Having given that designation, it continues in use in v. 29.
Does that get us anywhere? Or is it now as clear as mud?
 
3:30 PM
Does anyone know if there is a reason that the codices (I'm thinking of the majuscules) were written in narrow columns rather than using the whole page? I assume parchment was relatively expensive to produce, and it seems like a big waste of space. Sinaiticus has 4 columns per page, with ~13 letters each! I think the others are mostly 3 columns, but still lots of blank space.
 
3:41 PM
@Susan Where's Dirk Jongkind when you need him? ;) (+ reason for invoking his name)
 
Oh interesting, it looks like parts of the OT Sinaiticus have only two columns. Poetry?
@Dɑvïd Looks like a useful person + book!
 
@JonEricson - Question for when you have a few idle moments (ha!). The comment trail on this question implies it has been edited, but there's no signs of an edit having been made. Odd?
@Susan Very. He's responsible for the Tyndale House GNT which he tweets about from time to time.
 
3:57 PM
@Dɑvïd It was edited on Christianity. But I don't know why they didn't get migrated too.
 
 
3 hours later…
6:56 PM
@JonEricson That's a good bit of sleuthing. :) Thanks! (And a heavy use of   -- I reckon there's got to be an easier way to present that.)
 
 
2 hours later…
9:19 PM
@Dɑvïd @Dɑvïd Understanding the Samaritan taheb is certainly part of the passage. At a minimum the point would be that both Jewish and Samaritan people had an expectation that it was "time" for the messiah/taheb. Matthew has the men form the east; Luke has Simeon in the Temple, so John adds 2 events indicating a general "looking for/expectancy of" the messiah/taheb. An issue with the Samaritan event is the use of "messiah" which is the wrong Hebraism coming from the woman.
@Dɑvïd So if the word messiah is hers, she called him the messiah. Would a Samaritan call the taheb using the Greek messiah? If so they're using Jewish term, which means anointed. If the word is not hers, then John changed taheb to messiah, which is contrary to the idea he is trying to report what the person said (as in John 1). Then he uses Christ when reporting what the townspeople report, which if accurate means the woman likely said the same thing (so it is not a parenthetic).
@Dɑvïd If not a parenthetic it would follow the overall gist of the conversation where the woman speaks about Jewish beliefs, ie Jerusalem. It seems confusing. I like your answer as is. If you think there is something to add please do.
 
 
2 hours later…
11:49 PM
@JonEricson P.s. One click led to another and I wound up here. The target URL for the "hermeneutical approaches" link was a bit funky, so I thought I'd fix it. But I failed to find an obvious candidate -- did you have one in mind?
@RevelationLad Interesting reflections. There's a lot more here than first meets the eye, clearly. I'll leave my answer on "Main" the way it is then - I would likely just make it more confusing if I tried to tweak. Thanks for a stimulating Q&A!
 

« first day (1926 days earlier)      last day (1658 days later) »