John 8:54 pronoun

[Jason Hare]

Someone else, not me, argued that ὃν [of whom] as a pronoun referred back to με [me] and not to o Πατήρ [Father].

Well, that someone else made a bad argument. No one’s theology ultimately hinges on that verse, of course.

[Jason Hare]

Are you suggesting that Jesus was telling a group of Jews that they called him their God?

ὑμεὶς λέγετέ [με] ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν...
You say [of me], “He is our God...”

This seems utterly impossible. What Jews were calling Jesus their God?

Should we not expect the verb to be in the first person if it were otherwise, anyway?

μὲ ὃν ὑμεὶς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ὑμῶν εἰμι...
me of whom you say that I am your God...

The third person doesn’t really fit this interpretation, I think. Greek would be far less likely to use the third person in such a statement.

[Barry Hofstetter]

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, Ἐὰν ἐγὼ δοξάσω ἐμαυτόν, ἡ δόξα μου οὐδέν ἐστιν· ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν...

It seems most sensible to me to read ὅν as referring back to ὁ πατήρ μου. I don’t think it could be read otherwise. It should be read more directly as:

ὑμεῖς λέγετε [τὸν πατέρα μου] ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν...
You say [of my father], “He is our God...”

I’d take the accusative here as the accusative of reference and indeed say “of” or “concerning” in my reading of it.

Why, when it makes perfect sense as the simple direct object of λέγετε?

[Daniel Semler]

ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, Ἐὰν ἐγὼ δοξάσω ἐμαυτόν, ἡ δόξα μου οὐδέν ἐστιν· ἔστιν ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ δοξάζων με, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν...

It seems most sensible to me to read ὅν as referring back to ὁ πατήρ μου. I don’t think it could be read otherwise. It should be read more directly as:

ὑμεῖς λέγετε [τὸν πατέρα μου] ὅτι θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν...
You say [of my father], “He is our God...”

I’d take the accusative here as the accusative of reference and indeed say “of” or “concerning” in my reading of it.

Why, when it makes perfect sense as the simple direct object of λέγετε?

A few thoughts having poked at this a bit. I think the issue may stem from the handling of the rest of the phrasing, in particular, the second implied pronoun causes some awkwardness in translation I think.

So : whom you say is your God.
This translation of the "our" to "your" exists in several translations I have and is very natural it seems to me and has no need of "of".

But commonly I see: of whom you say that "He is our God".
I think the combination of translation of ὅτι and the insertion of an overt "He" tends to that translation. This is a very common handling.

Most English translations I have use "of whom" but I think that's just English and that reads very naturally in English particularly if you want to render the ὅτι clause as a direct quotation.

All that to say, that the translation might be influencing the perception of the Greek. But I wouldn't claim to that I would have read it as a straight "whom" sense myself, initially. That said though, I thought that λέγετε could be read with the sense κάλετε "whom you call your God".

But Barry I am interested in how the Greek handles all this. It's been a while since I read much on quotations in the Greek text and the proper handling of ὅτι. So if any of that seems off to you, or anyone, I would like to hear the arguments.

Thx
D

[Barry Hofstetter]

A few thoughts having poked at this a bit. I think the issue may stem from the handling of the rest of the phrasing, in particular, the second implied pronoun causes some awkwardness in translation I think.

I think this is right. The best phrasing in Greek will often sound awkward if rendered literally in English.

So : whom you say is your God.
This translation of the "our" to "your" exists in several translations I have and is very natural it seems to me and has no need of "of".

Our/your is actually a text critical issue:

John 8:54
{B} θεὸς ἡμῶν 𝔓75 A B2 C W Δ Θ 070 0141 0233 f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 892 1006 1241 1243 1292 1505 Byz [E G H N] Lectpt itaur, f vgww, st syrs, p, h copsa, pbo, bo arm eth geo slav Gregory-Nyssa Cyrillem; Augustine // ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν 𝔓66c (𝔓66* ὑμῶν) L // θεὸς ὑμῶν א B* D F Ψ 700 1010 1071 1342 1424 Lectpt, AD ita, b, c, d, e, ff2, l, q vgcl syrpal copboms Chrysostom; Tertullian TOB BTI // θεός (itr1 θεὸς ἀληθής) copach2

Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. (Eds.). (2014). The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Fifth Revised Edition, p. 344). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; American Bible Society; United Bible Societies.

Common text critical problem with these pronouns, especially since they were probably pronounced identically, thanks to itacism, during the period of time when most copies were being produced.

Most English translations I have use "of whom" but I think that's just English and that reads very naturally in English particularly if you want to render the ὅτι clause as a direct quotation.

All that to say, that the translation might be influencing the perception of the Greek. But I wouldn't claim to that I would have read it as a straight "whom" sense myself, initially. That said though, I thought that λέγετε could be read with the sense κάλετε "whom you call your God".

But Barry I am interested in how the Greek handles all this. It's been a while since I read much on quotations in the Greek text and the proper handling of ὅτι. So if any of that seems off to you, or anyone, I would like to hear the arguments.

ὅτι can be used to introduce either, and here the context is sufficiently ambiguous that an argument could be made for either one.

[Jason Hare]

Why, when it makes perfect sense as the simple direct object of λέγετε?

Does it? Can you speak a person? Can you say a person? I don’t see how that could be a simple direct object.

[Stephen Carlson]

Why, when it makes perfect sense as the simple direct object of λέγετε?

Does it? Can you speak a person? Can you say a person? I don’t see how that could be a simple direct object.

It’s not a simple direct object. As far as I can tell. It’s proleptic for topicalization and the case assignment follows that. English prefers other devices for topicalization, including “of whom.”

[Daniel Semler]

So : whom you say is your God.
This translation of the "our" to "your" exists in several translations I have and is very natural it seems to me and has no need of "of".

Our/your is actually a text critical issue:

John 8:54
{B} θεὸς ἡμῶν 𝔓75 A B2 C W Δ Θ 070 0141 0233 f1 f13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 892 1006 1241 1243 1292 1505 Byz [E G H N] Lectpt itaur, f vgww, st syrs, p, h copsa, pbo, bo arm eth geo slav Gregory-Nyssa Cyrillem; Augustine // ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν 𝔓66c (𝔓66* ὑμῶν) L // θεὸς ὑμῶν א B* D F Ψ 700 1010 1071 1342 1424 Lectpt, AD ita, b, c, d, e, ff2, l, q vgcl syrpal copboms Chrysostom; Tertullian TOB BTI // θεός (itr1 θεὸς ἀληθής) copach2

Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. (Eds.). (2014). The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Fifth Revised Edition, p. 344). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; American Bible Society; United Bible Societies.

Common text critical problem with these pronouns, especially since they were probably pronounced identically, thanks to itacism, during the period of time when most copies were being produced.

Thanx for that - I would normally have checked for that but was distracted by the other issue. Ooops. Makes sense.

ὅτι can be used to introduce either, and here the context is sufficiently ambiguous that an argument could be made for either one.

Thanx - makes sense

Thx
D

[Barry Hofstetter]

Why, when it makes perfect sense as the simple direct object of λέγετε?

Does it? Can you speak a person? Can you say a person? I don’t see how that could be a simple direct object.

It's the direct object, and the ὅτι clause is in apposition. Awkward in English, so we have to do something with it, but that doesn't mean that ὅν is an accusative of respect.

[Barry Hofstetter]

It’s not a simple direct object. As far as I can tell. It’s proleptic for topicalization and the case assignment follows that. English prefers other devices for topicalization, including “of whom.”

Hmmm... I think we might be saying the same thing using different metalanguage.