How should we understand λαμβάνω in John 5:34?How should we understand the “Cleansing of the Temple”?To whom should we attribute John 3:16?What did Jesus likely say in John 8:58?How should we understand “he cannot sin” in 1 John 3:9?What does it mean, “the darkness did not comprehend it”? (Jn 1:5)Two words for love in John 21:15–17How do you reconcile world (κόσμος) in 1 John 2:15-17 with John 3:16-17?In 1 John 1:1 should it read “the word of life” or “the living message”?How should πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς; (NA27) be translated in John 7:15?God vs devil - How much does God allow?

May a man marry the women with whom he committed adultery?

Am I allowed to use personal conversation as a source?

Help with one interview question --expected length of numbers drawn

How do I stop my characters falling in love?

Examples of simultaneous independent breakthroughs

Is my investment strategy a form of fundamental indexing?

Melee or Ranged attacks by Monsters, no distinction in modifiers?

Sci fi story: Clever pigs that help a galaxy lawman

Can anyone give a concrete example to illustrate what is an uniform prior?

What does "see" in "the Holy See" mean?

The Sword in the Stone

Correlation length anisotropy in the 2D Ising model

Are the named pipe created by `mknod` and the FIFO created by `mkfifo` equivalent?

Is cardinality continuous?

Why do planes need a roll motion?

If my pay period is split between 2 calendar years, which tax year do I file them in?

Isolated audio without a transformer

Why is the number of local variables used in a Java bytecode method not the most economical?

If a 2019 UA artificer has the Repeating Shot infusion on two hand crossbows, can they use two-weapon fighting?

Assuring luggage isn't lost with short layover

Did the IBM PC use the 8088's NMI line?

What language is Raven using for her attack in the new 52?

3D Statue Park: Daggers and dashes

Is there a list of words that will enable the second player in two-player Ghost to always win?



How should we understand λαμβάνω in John 5:34?


How should we understand the “Cleansing of the Temple”?To whom should we attribute John 3:16?What did Jesus likely say in John 8:58?How should we understand “he cannot sin” in 1 John 3:9?What does it mean, “the darkness did not comprehend it”? (Jn 1:5)Two words for love in John 21:15–17How do you reconcile world (κόσμος) in 1 John 2:15-17 with John 3:16-17?In 1 John 1:1 should it read “the word of life” or “the living message”?How should πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδεν μὴ μεμαθηκώς; (NA27) be translated in John 7:15?God vs devil - How much does God allow?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








3















How should we understand λαμβάνω in John 5:34?




ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε. (John 5:34, NA27)




While many more literal translations translate λαμβάνω as receive or accept:




Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, ESV)



I don’t receive man’s testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, HCSB)



Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. (John 5:34–35, NIV)




The more paraphrased translations translate λαμβάνω differently, but with a somewhat common theme:




It is not that I must have a human witness; I say this only in order that you may be saved. (John 5:34, TEV)



Of course, I have no need of human witnesses, but I say these things so you might be saved. (John 5:34, NLT)



It is not that I need what humans say; I tell you this so you can be saved. (John 5:34, NCB)



But my purpose is not to get your vote, and not to appeal to mere human testimony. I’m speaking to you this way so that you will be saved. (John 5:34, The Message)




More specifically, I’m asking is there a linguistic reason for how λαμβάνω is paraphrased, or is it solely based on context? Even BAGD only assigns a more literal meaning to this verse:




d. receive, accept … J 5:34; ….




Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature : a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schrift en des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur (p. 464). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.










share|improve this question






















  • There is also συλλαμβανο (conceive or take) and καταλαμβανο (comprehend or apprehend) to consider. Which makes the 'paraphrased' translations look somewhat inadequate, in my own view. +1.

    – Nigel J
    7 hours ago












  • I like to consult the LXX and see what Hebrew word/phrase is translated in the Greek. And vice versa. Especially since the NT authors I imagine thought in Hebrew and it was their mother tongue even if they were born outside of Israel. I found this word to be translated from נסה / נשׂא nâśâ' / nâsâh and the best word I see in the English for both in English would be ‘regard’. As in to take into account, to consider. Examples 2 kings 3:14, Isaiah 49:25, Jeremiah 23:39, Ezekiel 24:16. Thought I’d share, might help some.

    – Autodidact
    2 hours ago

















3















How should we understand λαμβάνω in John 5:34?




ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε. (John 5:34, NA27)




While many more literal translations translate λαμβάνω as receive or accept:




Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, ESV)



I don’t receive man’s testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, HCSB)



Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. (John 5:34–35, NIV)




The more paraphrased translations translate λαμβάνω differently, but with a somewhat common theme:




It is not that I must have a human witness; I say this only in order that you may be saved. (John 5:34, TEV)



Of course, I have no need of human witnesses, but I say these things so you might be saved. (John 5:34, NLT)



It is not that I need what humans say; I tell you this so you can be saved. (John 5:34, NCB)



But my purpose is not to get your vote, and not to appeal to mere human testimony. I’m speaking to you this way so that you will be saved. (John 5:34, The Message)




More specifically, I’m asking is there a linguistic reason for how λαμβάνω is paraphrased, or is it solely based on context? Even BAGD only assigns a more literal meaning to this verse:




d. receive, accept … J 5:34; ….




Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature : a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schrift en des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur (p. 464). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.










share|improve this question






















  • There is also συλλαμβανο (conceive or take) and καταλαμβανο (comprehend or apprehend) to consider. Which makes the 'paraphrased' translations look somewhat inadequate, in my own view. +1.

    – Nigel J
    7 hours ago












  • I like to consult the LXX and see what Hebrew word/phrase is translated in the Greek. And vice versa. Especially since the NT authors I imagine thought in Hebrew and it was their mother tongue even if they were born outside of Israel. I found this word to be translated from נסה / נשׂא nâśâ' / nâsâh and the best word I see in the English for both in English would be ‘regard’. As in to take into account, to consider. Examples 2 kings 3:14, Isaiah 49:25, Jeremiah 23:39, Ezekiel 24:16. Thought I’d share, might help some.

    – Autodidact
    2 hours ago













3












3








3








How should we understand λαμβάνω in John 5:34?




ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε. (John 5:34, NA27)




While many more literal translations translate λαμβάνω as receive or accept:




Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, ESV)



I don’t receive man’s testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, HCSB)



Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. (John 5:34–35, NIV)




The more paraphrased translations translate λαμβάνω differently, but with a somewhat common theme:




It is not that I must have a human witness; I say this only in order that you may be saved. (John 5:34, TEV)



Of course, I have no need of human witnesses, but I say these things so you might be saved. (John 5:34, NLT)



It is not that I need what humans say; I tell you this so you can be saved. (John 5:34, NCB)



But my purpose is not to get your vote, and not to appeal to mere human testimony. I’m speaking to you this way so that you will be saved. (John 5:34, The Message)




More specifically, I’m asking is there a linguistic reason for how λαμβάνω is paraphrased, or is it solely based on context? Even BAGD only assigns a more literal meaning to this verse:




d. receive, accept … J 5:34; ….




Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature : a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schrift en des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur (p. 464). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.










share|improve this question














How should we understand λαμβάνω in John 5:34?




ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου τὴν μαρτυρίαν λαμβάνω, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα λέγω ἵνα ὑμεῖς σωθῆτε. (John 5:34, NA27)




While many more literal translations translate λαμβάνω as receive or accept:




Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, ESV)



I don’t receive man’s testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. (John 5:34, HCSB)



Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. (John 5:34–35, NIV)




The more paraphrased translations translate λαμβάνω differently, but with a somewhat common theme:




It is not that I must have a human witness; I say this only in order that you may be saved. (John 5:34, TEV)



Of course, I have no need of human witnesses, but I say these things so you might be saved. (John 5:34, NLT)



It is not that I need what humans say; I tell you this so you can be saved. (John 5:34, NCB)



But my purpose is not to get your vote, and not to appeal to mere human testimony. I’m speaking to you this way so that you will be saved. (John 5:34, The Message)




More specifically, I’m asking is there a linguistic reason for how λαμβάνω is paraphrased, or is it solely based on context? Even BAGD only assigns a more literal meaning to this verse:




d. receive, accept … J 5:34; ….




Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature : a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schrift en des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur (p. 464). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.







greek john new-testament






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









Perry WebbPerry Webb

1,8681 gold badge4 silver badges18 bronze badges




1,8681 gold badge4 silver badges18 bronze badges












  • There is also συλλαμβανο (conceive or take) and καταλαμβανο (comprehend or apprehend) to consider. Which makes the 'paraphrased' translations look somewhat inadequate, in my own view. +1.

    – Nigel J
    7 hours ago












  • I like to consult the LXX and see what Hebrew word/phrase is translated in the Greek. And vice versa. Especially since the NT authors I imagine thought in Hebrew and it was their mother tongue even if they were born outside of Israel. I found this word to be translated from נסה / נשׂא nâśâ' / nâsâh and the best word I see in the English for both in English would be ‘regard’. As in to take into account, to consider. Examples 2 kings 3:14, Isaiah 49:25, Jeremiah 23:39, Ezekiel 24:16. Thought I’d share, might help some.

    – Autodidact
    2 hours ago

















  • There is also συλλαμβανο (conceive or take) and καταλαμβανο (comprehend or apprehend) to consider. Which makes the 'paraphrased' translations look somewhat inadequate, in my own view. +1.

    – Nigel J
    7 hours ago












  • I like to consult the LXX and see what Hebrew word/phrase is translated in the Greek. And vice versa. Especially since the NT authors I imagine thought in Hebrew and it was their mother tongue even if they were born outside of Israel. I found this word to be translated from נסה / נשׂא nâśâ' / nâsâh and the best word I see in the English for both in English would be ‘regard’. As in to take into account, to consider. Examples 2 kings 3:14, Isaiah 49:25, Jeremiah 23:39, Ezekiel 24:16. Thought I’d share, might help some.

    – Autodidact
    2 hours ago
















There is also συλλαμβανο (conceive or take) and καταλαμβανο (comprehend or apprehend) to consider. Which makes the 'paraphrased' translations look somewhat inadequate, in my own view. +1.

– Nigel J
7 hours ago






There is also συλλαμβανο (conceive or take) and καταλαμβανο (comprehend or apprehend) to consider. Which makes the 'paraphrased' translations look somewhat inadequate, in my own view. +1.

– Nigel J
7 hours ago














I like to consult the LXX and see what Hebrew word/phrase is translated in the Greek. And vice versa. Especially since the NT authors I imagine thought in Hebrew and it was their mother tongue even if they were born outside of Israel. I found this word to be translated from נסה / נשׂא nâśâ' / nâsâh and the best word I see in the English for both in English would be ‘regard’. As in to take into account, to consider. Examples 2 kings 3:14, Isaiah 49:25, Jeremiah 23:39, Ezekiel 24:16. Thought I’d share, might help some.

– Autodidact
2 hours ago





I like to consult the LXX and see what Hebrew word/phrase is translated in the Greek. And vice versa. Especially since the NT authors I imagine thought in Hebrew and it was their mother tongue even if they were born outside of Israel. I found this word to be translated from נסה / נשׂא nâśâ' / nâsâh and the best word I see in the English for both in English would be ‘regard’. As in to take into account, to consider. Examples 2 kings 3:14, Isaiah 49:25, Jeremiah 23:39, Ezekiel 24:16. Thought I’d share, might help some.

– Autodidact
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














BDAG offers two translations of John 5:34:




  • the testimony I receive is not from a human being, or,


  • I will not accept mere human testimony (note that "mere" had to be added)

The matter at stake here is: What, primarily, is the word "not" [οὐ (ou)] attached to? In the first option above it is attached to "from man" and thus serves as a negation of the entire sentence; and in the second option it is attached to "receive/accept".



The most literal word-for-word rendering (which is often misleading) is the first because of placement and proximity. However, οὐ (ou) is an adverb of negation which (strictly grammatically) applies to the verb, λαμβάνω (lambanō = accept/receive) which lends weight to the second option - hence the more literal Bible versions.



Neither option is completely wrong. I presume that the more paraphrased versions have noticed the literary contrast made between v33 & v34 - the Jews wanted John (a human's) testimony (v33), but Jesus does not accept nor need a human testimony.



I personally prefer "But I do not accept the testimony from humans … ", because the alternative implies here (but is absent from the immediate text) that Jesus has available the testimony from heaven. While this is true, that is not what the text is saying. Jesus wants us to accept Him for what He is, "so that you might be saved" (John 5:34b).



The Pulpit Commentary notes that:




Verse 34. - But I for my part receive not the witness which affirms my
Sonship from a man; or, yet the witness which I receive is not from
man. Some have given the stronger meaning of "take hold," or "snatch,"
or "strive after," to λαμβάνω. But this is unnecessary, for emphasis
is laid on the article, "the witness," which is real, infallible,
convincing, commanding, must come from the highest source of all. Yet,
though Christ cannot depend upon John's testimony, it ought to have
had weight with his hearers. It called them to repentance, to holy
living, to faith in the Coming One.







share|improve this answer

























  • I guess if this were a Greek or Hebrew idiom meaning what was paraphrased, we would find it stated in the commentaries. The Pulpit Commentary makes sense, but is not easy to translate.

    – Perry Webb
    5 hours ago


















1














Thayer has two pages on the verb λαμβανο which are headed up :




I - to take with the hand, lay hold of



II - to receive




My 1,700 page Liddell & Scott (American Edition 1854), similarly has a couple of columns summed up as :




A - to take hold of, grasp, seize



B - to have given one, receive, get




The KJV, Young's Literal, and the Englishman's Greek New Testament all agree :




But I receive not testimony from man [KJV]



But I do not receive testimony from man [YLT]



I but not from man witness receive [EGNT literal]




The Douay Rheims also agrees :




But I receive not testimony from man [D-R]




and the Wycliffe . . and J N Darby . . . and Tyndale :




But I take not witness from man [Wyc]



But I do not receive witness from man [JND]



But I receive not the record of man [Tyn]




I can see no reason whatsoever for the 'paraphrased' versions to depart from the above.






share|improve this answer

























    Your Answer







    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("virtualKeyboard", function ()
    StackExchange.virtualKeyboard.init("hebrew");
    );
    , "virtkeyb");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "320"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41701%2fhow-should-we-understand-%25ce%25bb%25ce%25b1%25ce%25bc%25ce%25b2%25ce%25ac%25ce%25bd%25cf%2589-in-john-534%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    BDAG offers two translations of John 5:34:




    • the testimony I receive is not from a human being, or,


    • I will not accept mere human testimony (note that "mere" had to be added)

    The matter at stake here is: What, primarily, is the word "not" [οὐ (ou)] attached to? In the first option above it is attached to "from man" and thus serves as a negation of the entire sentence; and in the second option it is attached to "receive/accept".



    The most literal word-for-word rendering (which is often misleading) is the first because of placement and proximity. However, οὐ (ou) is an adverb of negation which (strictly grammatically) applies to the verb, λαμβάνω (lambanō = accept/receive) which lends weight to the second option - hence the more literal Bible versions.



    Neither option is completely wrong. I presume that the more paraphrased versions have noticed the literary contrast made between v33 & v34 - the Jews wanted John (a human's) testimony (v33), but Jesus does not accept nor need a human testimony.



    I personally prefer "But I do not accept the testimony from humans … ", because the alternative implies here (but is absent from the immediate text) that Jesus has available the testimony from heaven. While this is true, that is not what the text is saying. Jesus wants us to accept Him for what He is, "so that you might be saved" (John 5:34b).



    The Pulpit Commentary notes that:




    Verse 34. - But I for my part receive not the witness which affirms my
    Sonship from a man; or, yet the witness which I receive is not from
    man. Some have given the stronger meaning of "take hold," or "snatch,"
    or "strive after," to λαμβάνω. But this is unnecessary, for emphasis
    is laid on the article, "the witness," which is real, infallible,
    convincing, commanding, must come from the highest source of all. Yet,
    though Christ cannot depend upon John's testimony, it ought to have
    had weight with his hearers. It called them to repentance, to holy
    living, to faith in the Coming One.







    share|improve this answer

























    • I guess if this were a Greek or Hebrew idiom meaning what was paraphrased, we would find it stated in the commentaries. The Pulpit Commentary makes sense, but is not easy to translate.

      – Perry Webb
      5 hours ago















    1














    BDAG offers two translations of John 5:34:




    • the testimony I receive is not from a human being, or,


    • I will not accept mere human testimony (note that "mere" had to be added)

    The matter at stake here is: What, primarily, is the word "not" [οὐ (ou)] attached to? In the first option above it is attached to "from man" and thus serves as a negation of the entire sentence; and in the second option it is attached to "receive/accept".



    The most literal word-for-word rendering (which is often misleading) is the first because of placement and proximity. However, οὐ (ou) is an adverb of negation which (strictly grammatically) applies to the verb, λαμβάνω (lambanō = accept/receive) which lends weight to the second option - hence the more literal Bible versions.



    Neither option is completely wrong. I presume that the more paraphrased versions have noticed the literary contrast made between v33 & v34 - the Jews wanted John (a human's) testimony (v33), but Jesus does not accept nor need a human testimony.



    I personally prefer "But I do not accept the testimony from humans … ", because the alternative implies here (but is absent from the immediate text) that Jesus has available the testimony from heaven. While this is true, that is not what the text is saying. Jesus wants us to accept Him for what He is, "so that you might be saved" (John 5:34b).



    The Pulpit Commentary notes that:




    Verse 34. - But I for my part receive not the witness which affirms my
    Sonship from a man; or, yet the witness which I receive is not from
    man. Some have given the stronger meaning of "take hold," or "snatch,"
    or "strive after," to λαμβάνω. But this is unnecessary, for emphasis
    is laid on the article, "the witness," which is real, infallible,
    convincing, commanding, must come from the highest source of all. Yet,
    though Christ cannot depend upon John's testimony, it ought to have
    had weight with his hearers. It called them to repentance, to holy
    living, to faith in the Coming One.







    share|improve this answer

























    • I guess if this were a Greek or Hebrew idiom meaning what was paraphrased, we would find it stated in the commentaries. The Pulpit Commentary makes sense, but is not easy to translate.

      – Perry Webb
      5 hours ago













    1












    1








    1







    BDAG offers two translations of John 5:34:




    • the testimony I receive is not from a human being, or,


    • I will not accept mere human testimony (note that "mere" had to be added)

    The matter at stake here is: What, primarily, is the word "not" [οὐ (ou)] attached to? In the first option above it is attached to "from man" and thus serves as a negation of the entire sentence; and in the second option it is attached to "receive/accept".



    The most literal word-for-word rendering (which is often misleading) is the first because of placement and proximity. However, οὐ (ou) is an adverb of negation which (strictly grammatically) applies to the verb, λαμβάνω (lambanō = accept/receive) which lends weight to the second option - hence the more literal Bible versions.



    Neither option is completely wrong. I presume that the more paraphrased versions have noticed the literary contrast made between v33 & v34 - the Jews wanted John (a human's) testimony (v33), but Jesus does not accept nor need a human testimony.



    I personally prefer "But I do not accept the testimony from humans … ", because the alternative implies here (but is absent from the immediate text) that Jesus has available the testimony from heaven. While this is true, that is not what the text is saying. Jesus wants us to accept Him for what He is, "so that you might be saved" (John 5:34b).



    The Pulpit Commentary notes that:




    Verse 34. - But I for my part receive not the witness which affirms my
    Sonship from a man; or, yet the witness which I receive is not from
    man. Some have given the stronger meaning of "take hold," or "snatch,"
    or "strive after," to λαμβάνω. But this is unnecessary, for emphasis
    is laid on the article, "the witness," which is real, infallible,
    convincing, commanding, must come from the highest source of all. Yet,
    though Christ cannot depend upon John's testimony, it ought to have
    had weight with his hearers. It called them to repentance, to holy
    living, to faith in the Coming One.







    share|improve this answer















    BDAG offers two translations of John 5:34:




    • the testimony I receive is not from a human being, or,


    • I will not accept mere human testimony (note that "mere" had to be added)

    The matter at stake here is: What, primarily, is the word "not" [οὐ (ou)] attached to? In the first option above it is attached to "from man" and thus serves as a negation of the entire sentence; and in the second option it is attached to "receive/accept".



    The most literal word-for-word rendering (which is often misleading) is the first because of placement and proximity. However, οὐ (ou) is an adverb of negation which (strictly grammatically) applies to the verb, λαμβάνω (lambanō = accept/receive) which lends weight to the second option - hence the more literal Bible versions.



    Neither option is completely wrong. I presume that the more paraphrased versions have noticed the literary contrast made between v33 & v34 - the Jews wanted John (a human's) testimony (v33), but Jesus does not accept nor need a human testimony.



    I personally prefer "But I do not accept the testimony from humans … ", because the alternative implies here (but is absent from the immediate text) that Jesus has available the testimony from heaven. While this is true, that is not what the text is saying. Jesus wants us to accept Him for what He is, "so that you might be saved" (John 5:34b).



    The Pulpit Commentary notes that:




    Verse 34. - But I for my part receive not the witness which affirms my
    Sonship from a man; or, yet the witness which I receive is not from
    man. Some have given the stronger meaning of "take hold," or "snatch,"
    or "strive after," to λαμβάνω. But this is unnecessary, for emphasis
    is laid on the article, "the witness," which is real, infallible,
    convincing, commanding, must come from the highest source of all. Yet,
    though Christ cannot depend upon John's testimony, it ought to have
    had weight with his hearers. It called them to repentance, to holy
    living, to faith in the Coming One.








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 7 hours ago

























    answered 7 hours ago









    Mac's MusingsMac's Musings

    9,7411 gold badge4 silver badges21 bronze badges




    9,7411 gold badge4 silver badges21 bronze badges












    • I guess if this were a Greek or Hebrew idiom meaning what was paraphrased, we would find it stated in the commentaries. The Pulpit Commentary makes sense, but is not easy to translate.

      – Perry Webb
      5 hours ago

















    • I guess if this were a Greek or Hebrew idiom meaning what was paraphrased, we would find it stated in the commentaries. The Pulpit Commentary makes sense, but is not easy to translate.

      – Perry Webb
      5 hours ago
















    I guess if this were a Greek or Hebrew idiom meaning what was paraphrased, we would find it stated in the commentaries. The Pulpit Commentary makes sense, but is not easy to translate.

    – Perry Webb
    5 hours ago





    I guess if this were a Greek or Hebrew idiom meaning what was paraphrased, we would find it stated in the commentaries. The Pulpit Commentary makes sense, but is not easy to translate.

    – Perry Webb
    5 hours ago













    1














    Thayer has two pages on the verb λαμβανο which are headed up :




    I - to take with the hand, lay hold of



    II - to receive




    My 1,700 page Liddell & Scott (American Edition 1854), similarly has a couple of columns summed up as :




    A - to take hold of, grasp, seize



    B - to have given one, receive, get




    The KJV, Young's Literal, and the Englishman's Greek New Testament all agree :




    But I receive not testimony from man [KJV]



    But I do not receive testimony from man [YLT]



    I but not from man witness receive [EGNT literal]




    The Douay Rheims also agrees :




    But I receive not testimony from man [D-R]




    and the Wycliffe . . and J N Darby . . . and Tyndale :




    But I take not witness from man [Wyc]



    But I do not receive witness from man [JND]



    But I receive not the record of man [Tyn]




    I can see no reason whatsoever for the 'paraphrased' versions to depart from the above.






    share|improve this answer



























      1














      Thayer has two pages on the verb λαμβανο which are headed up :




      I - to take with the hand, lay hold of



      II - to receive




      My 1,700 page Liddell & Scott (American Edition 1854), similarly has a couple of columns summed up as :




      A - to take hold of, grasp, seize



      B - to have given one, receive, get




      The KJV, Young's Literal, and the Englishman's Greek New Testament all agree :




      But I receive not testimony from man [KJV]



      But I do not receive testimony from man [YLT]



      I but not from man witness receive [EGNT literal]




      The Douay Rheims also agrees :




      But I receive not testimony from man [D-R]




      and the Wycliffe . . and J N Darby . . . and Tyndale :




      But I take not witness from man [Wyc]



      But I do not receive witness from man [JND]



      But I receive not the record of man [Tyn]




      I can see no reason whatsoever for the 'paraphrased' versions to depart from the above.






      share|improve this answer

























        1












        1








        1







        Thayer has two pages on the verb λαμβανο which are headed up :




        I - to take with the hand, lay hold of



        II - to receive




        My 1,700 page Liddell & Scott (American Edition 1854), similarly has a couple of columns summed up as :




        A - to take hold of, grasp, seize



        B - to have given one, receive, get




        The KJV, Young's Literal, and the Englishman's Greek New Testament all agree :




        But I receive not testimony from man [KJV]



        But I do not receive testimony from man [YLT]



        I but not from man witness receive [EGNT literal]




        The Douay Rheims also agrees :




        But I receive not testimony from man [D-R]




        and the Wycliffe . . and J N Darby . . . and Tyndale :




        But I take not witness from man [Wyc]



        But I do not receive witness from man [JND]



        But I receive not the record of man [Tyn]




        I can see no reason whatsoever for the 'paraphrased' versions to depart from the above.






        share|improve this answer













        Thayer has two pages on the verb λαμβανο which are headed up :




        I - to take with the hand, lay hold of



        II - to receive




        My 1,700 page Liddell & Scott (American Edition 1854), similarly has a couple of columns summed up as :




        A - to take hold of, grasp, seize



        B - to have given one, receive, get




        The KJV, Young's Literal, and the Englishman's Greek New Testament all agree :




        But I receive not testimony from man [KJV]



        But I do not receive testimony from man [YLT]



        I but not from man witness receive [EGNT literal]




        The Douay Rheims also agrees :




        But I receive not testimony from man [D-R]




        and the Wycliffe . . and J N Darby . . . and Tyndale :




        But I take not witness from man [Wyc]



        But I do not receive witness from man [JND]



        But I receive not the record of man [Tyn]




        I can see no reason whatsoever for the 'paraphrased' versions to depart from the above.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 6 hours ago









        Nigel JNigel J

        7,4432 gold badges5 silver badges29 bronze badges




        7,4432 gold badges5 silver badges29 bronze badges



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhermeneutics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41701%2fhow-should-we-understand-%25ce%25bb%25ce%25b1%25ce%25bc%25ce%25b2%25ce%25ac%25ce%25bd%25cf%2589-in-john-534%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367