John 14:30

[MAubrey]

Mike, "no claim" is not my suggestion (I thought I made that clear).

You did make it quite clear. I never thought it was your suggestion. I'm was just confused as to where it was from. I see now that Jonathan had check a few translations.

Do you have a suggestion on how to render the phrase?

How about "no claim"? I think that's an excellent rendering--mainly because a "literal" translation like "has nothing on me" sounds way too informal for the context.

[Jason Hare]

Mistakenly submitted. ** DELETED BY USER **

[Jonathan Robie]

How about "no claim"? I think that's an excellent rendering--mainly because a "literal" translation like "has nothing on me" sounds way too informal for the context.

Yeah, I can't think of a better rendering.

[Jason Hare]

οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθ’ ὑμῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων· καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν.

Seems to me he's saying that he doesn't have much more to speak with his disciples, since his time is limited and the ruler of the world (that is, Satan) was coming — to bring worldly judgment on him. Although he is called "the ruler of the world," Jesus was claiming that there was nothing within himself over which Satan had any power. "He has nothing within me."

It is, I guess, surprising that this wasn't said more directly as, perhaps, καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν or something similar.

[Bill Ross 2]

How about "no claim"? I think that's an excellent rendering--mainly because a "literal" translation like "has nothing on me" sounds way too informal for the context.

I guess it wouldn't be unforgivable if we just said "Dunno!" ("I don't know")... It is obscure. The fact is that the text might just be corrupt.

[Bill Ross 2]

οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθ’ ὑμῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων· καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν.

Seems to me he's saying that he doesn't have much more to speak with his disciples, since his time is limited and the ruler of the world (that is, Satan) was coming — to bring worldly judgment on him. Although he is called "the ruler of the world," Jesus was claiming that there was nothing within himself over which Satan had any power. "He has nothing within me."

It is, I guess, surprising that this wasn't said more directly as, perhaps, καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν or something similar.

Considered in isolation, I agree that "no claim" seems plausible, but where is the sense to it. It is like this conversation:

Bob: "Peggy, I can't marry you."
Peggy: "But, Bob! Why not?!"
Bob: "Because the University Dean has no claim on me."

It seems a bizarre non-sequitur. In fact, the opposite would make more sense:

Bob: "Peggy, I can't marry you."
Peggy: "But, Bob! Why not?!"
Bob: "Because the University Dean has a claim on me."

BDAG suggests "has no hold on me", which again makes the conversation bizarre:

⑨ special combinations
ⓐ w. prep. ἐν: τὸν θεὸν ἔ. ἐν ἐπιγνώσει acknowledge God Ro 1:28 (cp. ἐν ὀργῇ ἔ. τινά=‘be angry at someone’, Thu. 2, 18, 5; 2, 21, 3; ἐν ὀρρωδίᾳ ἔ. τ. 2, 89, 1; ἐν ἡδονῇ ἔ. τ.=‘be glad to see someone’ 3, 9, 1; ἐν εὐνοίᾳ ἔ. Demosth. 18, 167). ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔ. 2 Cor 10:6 (ἕτοιμος b). ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν he has no hold on me J 14:30 (Appian, Bell. Civ. 3, 32 §125 ἔχειν τι ἔν τινι=have someth. [hope of safety] in someone). κατά τινος: on 1 Cor 11:4 s. above 4. ἔ. τι κατά τινος have someth. against someone Mt 5:23; Mk 11:25; w. ὅτι foll. Rv 2:14. ἔ. κατά τινος w. sim. mng. Hm 2:2; s 9, 23, 2; w. ὅτι foll. Rv 2:4, 20. ἔ. τινὰ κατὰ πρόσωπον meet someone face to face Ac 25:16. μετά: ἔ. τι μετά τινος have someth. w. someone κρίματα lawsuits 1 Cor 6:7. περί: ἔ. περί τινος have (a word, a reference, an explanation) about someth. B 12:1; with adv. τελείως 10:10. πρός τινα have someth. against someone (Ps.-Callisth. 2, 21, 21 ὅσον τις ὑμῶν ἔχει πρὸς ἕτερον) Ac 24:19. ζητήματα ἔ. πρός τινα have differences w. someone (on points in question) 25:19. λόγον ἔ. πρός τινα 19:38. πρᾶγμα (=Lat. causa, ‘lawsuit’: BGU 19 I, 5; 361 II, 4) ἔ. πρός τινα (POxy 743, 19 [2 b.c.] εἰ πρὸς ἄλλους εἶχον πρᾶγμα; BGU 22:8) 1 Cor 6:1. ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορίαν αὐτοῦ J 8:4 D (cp. 5 above). πρός τινα ἔ. μομφήν have a complaint against someone Col 3:13.
ⓑ τοῦτο ἔχεις ὅτι you have this (in your favor), that Rv 2:6. ἔ. ὁδόν be situated (a certain distance) away (cp. Peripl. Eryth. 37: Ὡραία ἔχουσα ὁδὸν ἡμερῶν ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης) of the Mt. of Olives ὅ ἐστιν ἐγγὺς Ἰερουσαλὴμ σαββάτου ἔχον ὁδόν Ac 1:12.—ἴδε ἔχεις τὸ σόν here you have what is yours Mt 25:25. ἔχετε κουστωδίαν there you have a guard (=you can have a guard) 27:65 (cp. POxy 33 III, 4).
Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. ; Bauer, Walter: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000, S. 422

[Bill Ross 2]

Might EKEI be related to TOU KOSMOU? IE: "it (the world) has no hold on me." ?

[Jonathan Robie]

Bill, I think "he has no hold on me" does make sense here - Jesus is saying he is acting in obedience to his Father, so that the world will know that he loves him, not as a slave to the ruler of this world.

I think BDAG and the vast majority of translations got this right.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Might EKEI be related to TOU KOSMOU? IE: "it (the world) has no hold on me." ?

Folks, let's be careful that this discussion continues along the lines of a discussion on the Greek and not on hermeneutics. As to the precise meaning of the Greek phrase, I think that it is more a function of context, of how the phrase is used in this particular discourse, than anything else. For what it's worth, I have always read it as "has no parŧ/share in me," i.e., "the ruler of this world" has nothing to do with Jesus, and therefore the world does not know or understand Jesus, his purpose in coming, etc. But please note that conclusion comes not from a consideration only of a few Greek words and their semantics and syntax, but from a broader examination of the context.

Specifically to answer Bill's Greek question, here, I think it's impossible. In Greek, the default assumption would be that the subject of the two clauses is the same (both verbs are third person singular, you have a nominative singular subject expressed in the prior clause). For κόσμου to be the subject of ἔχει, John would have to indicate it by repeating the noun in the nominative in the second clause, κόσμος.

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Moderator, B-Greek Forum

[Barry Hofstetter]

Bill Ross said:

I guess it wouldn't be unforgivable if we just said "Dunno!" ("I don't know")... It is obscure. The fact is that the text might just be corrupt.

According to the NA apparatus, there only significant textual variant is the substitution εὑρήσει for ἔχει, which does nothing to change the issue. As a rule of thumb, the assumption of some sort of textual corruption should always be the last resort, and should always be held tentatively, especially for people beginning their study of Greek...



N.E. Barry Hofstetter