Too many "hims"

[Allan Rumsch]

This week the Gospel lectionary selection (John 13, vs 31-35) has a confusing statement: καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν. There are too many third person pronouns. And I wonder about the inclusion of εὐθὺς...why the sense of immediacy is there. I think it should be translate: "And God will glorify him in him, and immediately he will glorify him." Him referring to the Son of Man. I guess some texts leave out [εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ] just before the passage.
Any thoughts on this?

[Jonathan Robie]

This passage plays with these two phrases, changing who is referenced by αὐτὸν:

ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, "be glorified in him"
δοξάσει αὐτὸν - "glorify him"

Here is the passage, with a little color coding to indicate who is being glorified in each case, and to point out the use of Νῦν and εὐθὺς at the beginning and end:

Νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ·
εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, - "if God is glorified in Jesus"
καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν αὑτῷ, - "then God will glorify Jesus in himself"
καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν. - "and God will glorify Jesus soon"

In each case, blue marks the verb δοξάσει/ἐδοξάσθη and indicates who is being glorified.

In the first use of δοξάσει, the subject is explicit (and marked in red), ὁ θεὸς is doing the glorifying. In the second use of δοξάσει, the subject is implicit, but it can only be ὁ θεὸς.

In this case, I assume εὐθὺς means "at once", this glorification is happening very soon.

Does that help?

[Allan Rumsch]

Thanks,
Now I see the last phrase as kind of an aside, that embellishes the previous phrase, rather than continuing it.
al

[Jonathan Robie]

I think the last phrase echoes the first:

Νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
!!! SNIP !!!
καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν.

[Allan Rumsch]

Yes, I see. Perhaps, because the words would have originally been in Aramaic, it is like the Hebrew fashion of repeating the same idea again but slightly differently, as in the Psalms.

[Jonathan Robie]

I don't know that this was translated from Aramaic. Regardless, you see this a lot in Greek too.

[RandallButh]

I don't know that this was translated from Aramaic. Regardless, you see this a lot in Greek too.

Yes. I find John to be the most idiomatic Greek in the Gospels. It is simple, but generally natural, clean Greek.

The comments on "Aramaic" continue to remind us how far out of touch New Testament studies are from having understood and digested 1st century sociolinguistics and the findings of mishnaic Hebrew research in the last generation. First century Galilean rabbis taught in Hebrew. Parables were always in Hebrew, prayers almost always in Hebrew. Hebrew itself was in two registers at the time: a 'high' register, classical/biblical/literary as exemplified in many Qumran writings and behind works like 1Mac, and a 'low' colloquial register seen in some contemporary documents, Copper Scroll, and later in the recordings of the pre-tannaitic and tannaitic rabbis.

[Barry Hofstetter]

I don't know that this was translated from Aramaic. Regardless, you see this a lot in Greek too.

Yes. I find John to be the most idiomatic Greek in the Gospels. It is simple, but generally natural, clean Greek.

The comments on "Aramaic" continue to remind us how far out of touch New Testament studies are from having understood and digested 1st century sociolinguistics and the findings of mishnaic Hebrew research in the last generation. First century Galilean rabbis taught in Hebrew. Parables were always in Hebrew, prayers almost always in Hebrew. Hebrew itself was in two registers at the time: a 'high' register, classical/biblical/literary as exemplified in many Qumran writings and behind works like 1Mac, and a 'low' colloquial register seen in some contemporary documents, Copper Scroll, and later in the recordings of the pre-tannaitic and tannaitic rabbis.

1) The most idiomatic? This is a highly subjective evaluation... I agree that it is certainly a simple and easy style for non-Greek readers, but I personally find Luke-Acts to be the most idiomatic Greek. I do think the simplicity of John is a deliberate stylistic choice.

2) Where can the research to which you allude be found? Is there one or two textbooks in particular you'd recommend, a handy website with a good bibliography?