I'd call this a case of anacoluthon; I think that Paul started out to say "ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν" -- but that he decided to insert another notion that "suffering for Christ" must have as its necessary foundation. “I'd call this a case of anacoluthon; I think that Paul started out to say "ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν" -- but that he decided to insert another notion that "suffering for Christ" must have as its necessary foundation. Of course it's possible to English the content by omitting the anacoluthon, "You've been privileged, not only to believe in Christ, but to suffer for Him as well." I think that the initial formulation of the subject of ἐχαρίσθη was intended to be τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πάσχειν, but that Paul switched horses in mid-stream and decided to expand upon his initially intended formulation.
Carl, are you saying it is reasonable to believe the ἀνακόλουθον is Paul intentionally using a non sequitur for the syntactic effect? (Switching horses??) There is I think (I emphasize THINK) some term for this style which escapes me, i.e., a type of self-communication forcing the reader to make sense of the subject at hand.
If so, (I’m probably reaching here, but what you’re saying rings very true
) is this common and is this also what could be happening in Jn beklow? (using the longer variant based on the NET notes) and adding the differences below:
22. “Τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστηκὼς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, ἰδὼν ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ ἕν ἐκεῖνο εἰς ὃ ἐνέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὅτι οὐ συν--εισῆλθεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ πλοιάριον, ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον 23. ἄλλα δὲ ἦλθεν πλοιάρια ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον, εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου 24 ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν ὁ ὄχλος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ οὐδὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, ἐνέβησαν αὐτοὶ εἰς τὰ πλοῖα, καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καπερναούμ, ζητοῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν 25. Καὶ εὑρόντες αὐτὸν πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης, εἶπον αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, πότε ὧδε γέγονας;
22. Τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἑστηκὼς πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶδον ὅτι πλοιάριον ἄλλο οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖ εἰ μὴ ἓν καὶ ὅτι οὐ συνεισῆλθεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον ἀλλὰ μόνοι οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθον• 23 ἄλλα ἦλθεν πλοιά[ρια] ἐκ Τιβεριάδος ἐγγὺς τοῦ τόπου ὅπου ἔφαγον τὸν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου. 24 ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν ὁ ὄχλος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ οὐδὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, ἐνέβησαν αὐτοὶ εἰς τὰ πλοιάρια καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ ζητοῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν. 25. καὶ ΕὙΡΌΝΤΕΣ αὐτὸν πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἶπον αὐτῷ• ῥαββί, πότε ὧδε γέγονας;
The large group of 5,000 people (makes no sense all 5,000 boarded the Tiberian ships) can deduce Christ had went across by divine power and many more stayed, so is it possible to believe they wanted His whereabouts covered (miracles were not their objective).
There had been only boat; they see it leave without Christ, yet the next day when the other boats come, they hopped the ships to Capernaum and there is Jesus. Logically, one must conclude through a miracle. Yet, there seems to be confusion (ἀνακόλουθον) in the words, yet the meaning is self-evident, since in v. 22 the Apostle John confirms only one small ship, that all saw it leave and Christ was not in it. Further, in v 23 we are told when the ships came from Tiberius a group of people (not 5,000) passed over. Perhaps those who were left where they were first fed, also were there to make sure they did not miss Christ seeking to block any exit so that Christ could not leave.
V 26b. You’re not
looking for me because of the miracles you saw, but for the food with which you filled your bellies. (ζητεῖτέ με οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα, ἀλλʼ ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε).
“The day following, when the multitude which stood on the other side of the sea saw only a small boat had been there, save the one his disciples had left on alone and not with Christ; 23 howbeit other boats from Tiberias arrived at the place where the multitude did eat bread, after Christ had given thanks: 24 when the multitude saw Jesus was not there, [some] boarded the Tiberian ships, and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when appearest thou here?"
Or, is this not in any way related to the to the Pauline text? Thanks for any help with this