The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness

[franklinmonroe]

In Matthew it is clear that John is referred to since it has him saying, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord." Christ would not be saying this of Himself. Then in 3:4 it says, "This same John" (Gr. autos de ho Yoannes). With that grammar and context, the one in the wilderness must be John. ...

I agree that it is John that says "Prepare ye the way of the Lord" but that overlooks the question of the identity of the 'crying-one'. Isn't John stating that he is merely "a voice of" the One crying out?

Why would John mention "a voice" if he could have simply said without including "a voice" something like "I am one crying out"?

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me pass along my thanks to all of those who participated in this thread. I have really gotten an education from you Greek scholars.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree that it is John that says "Prepare ye the way of the Lord" but that overlooks the question of the identity of the 'crying-one'. Isn't John stating that he is merely "a voice of" the One crying out?

"Crying" and "I" are in the same nominative case, meaning that "crying" must modify "I." It is a participle with adjectival usage. That means that John is the one crying in the wilderness. Sorry, but that's what the Greek grammar says. There is nothing else for "crying" to modify there.

Why would John mention "a voice" if he could have simply said without including "a voice" something like "I am one crying out"?

John mentioned "a voice" because Isaiah did. It was a Hebrew idiom that, probably due to the Bible's influence, we have in English also. Example: "I'll vote for Smith so I can have a voice in Congress for what I believe."

 

[Van]

Just a quick note on the grammar, "I" and "a voice" are both nominative, but "of crying one" is genitive.

How does it read to you, Franklinmonroe?

 

[John of Japan]

"Crying" and "I" are in the same nominative case, meaning that "crying" must modify "I." It is a participle with adjectival usage. That means that John is the one crying in the wilderness. Sorry, but that's what the Greek grammar says. There is nothing else for "crying" to modify there.

I mis-spoke myself here. Van is right that "crying" is genitive. It is "I" and "voice" that are nominative.

What is missing but understood in John's syntax here is the copulative verb eimi, "am." In the case that both nouns are nominative with a copulative verb (even an unwritten but understood one as here), the first noun equals the second one, thus: "I (am) a voice...." Thus the participle, being masculine singular, modifies the masculine singullar nouns, thus meaning that John is definitely saying that he is the voice crying.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Just a quick note on the grammar, "I" and "a voice" are both nominative, but "of crying one" is genitive. ...

Yes, and since "one" is implied in the Genitive of the verb "crying" the "crying most certainly must refer to the "one". But could "crying" be referring to both "one" and "I" in John's Gospel? Following JoJ's explanation of the grammar, it would seem that "I" and "one" are the same person in John's Gospel.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... What is missing but understood in John's syntax here is the copulative verb eimi, "am." In the case that both nouns are nominative with a copulative verb (even an unwritten but understood one as here), the first noun equals the second one, thus: "I (am) a voice...." Thus the participle, being masculine singular, modifies the masculine singullar nouns, thus meaning that John is definitely saying that he is the voice crying.

Thanks, John. I must acquiesce to your Greek knowledge. It is hard to understand how Wuest could have missed it.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks, John. I must acquiesce to your Greek knowledge.

It was a fun thread. :wavey: Sorry I started out not paying much attention.

It is hard to understand how Wuest could have missed it.

That's the danger of a one man translation. Wuest was a brilliant scholar, but having a committee provides checks and balances that catch most mistakes like this.

 

[Van]

Not sure how the implied "am" fits into the picture, but the grammar indicates "I (am) a voice" is the intended message. But the issue remains, the "voice" gender is female, where the "of crying one" is male.

Therefore the argument seems to be to violate the syntax because "there is nothing else for the "of crying one" to modify. Look at it this way, what if the noun voice read forerunner, then using the same grammar it would read I am a forerunner of one crying in the wilderness.

 

[John of Japan]

Not sure how the implied "am" fits into the picture, but the grammar indicates "I (am) a voice" is the intended message. But the issue remains, the "voice" gender is female, where the "of crying one" is male.

Therefore the argument seems to be to violate the syntax because "there is nothing else for the "of crying one" to modify. Look at it this way, what if the noun voice read forerunner, then using the same grammar it would read I am a forerunner of one crying in the wilderness.

In Greek, nouns have only one gender. In other words, "voice" (fonh) in Greek can only be feminine. Therefore therefore the gender of "voice" is irrelevant here.

 

[Van]

Now if it also true that the word translated "of crying one" does not come a female form, then I agree the differing genders do not point away from John being the one crying.

But if "Thus the participle, being masculine singular, modifies the masculine [I does not have a gender specified in my interlinear and voice is female] singular nouns," is not accurate, then what other than proximity makes us believe John is saying he is crying, rather than he is a lowly forerunner of the One crying.

 

[John of Japan]

Now if it also true that the word translated "of crying one" does not come a female form, then I agree the differing genders do not point away from John being the one crying.

But if "Thus the participle, being masculine singular, modifies the masculine [I does not have a gender specified in my interlinear and voice is female] singular nouns," is not accurate, then what other than proximity makes us believe John is saying he is crying, rather than he is a lowly forerunner of the One crying.

Sorry, you'll have to rephrase this statement for it to make sense in terms of Greek grammar.

The word first person pronoun "I" (egw) does not have gender, though the 3rd person does. But it is the first person pronoun in question here.

"Voice" does not have gender, but whether or not the verb is active, middle or passive. This particular participle is acttive, but I'm not sure what you think that does to affect the meaning of the passage.

 

[Van]

Voice is female in gender, but "of crying one" is male.

 

[John of Japan]

Voice is female in gender, but "of crying one" is male.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the voice of the participle. At any rate, your post is still confusing. Don't know what you were trying to say re Greek grammar.

 

[Van]

No, you are the one who said the nouns were masculine, but the "I" does not have a gender and "voice" is female. Thus your statement, the participle , of crying one, being masculine singular modifies the masculine singular nouns ("I" and "voice") is mistaken.

Thus the grammar does not seem to me to require that John the Baptist is the one crying, John the Baptist could be the herald of the One crying, so Wurst did not miss anything.

 

[John of Japan]

No, you are the one who said the nouns were masculine, but the "I" does not have a gender and "voice" is female. Thus your statement, the participle , of crying one, being masculine singular modifies the masculine singular nouns ("I" and "voice") is mistaken.

Thus the grammar does not seem to me to require that John the Baptist is the one crying, John the Baptist could be the herald of the One crying, so Wurst did not miss anything.

You know, it's hard explaining all of this to someone who knows no Greek grammar. I'll try, though. (I must admit I was a little careless in my exegesis early in this thread, so that mixed you up maybe. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up to this post.)

So here is the whole Greek exegesis of John 1:23 to solve who the voice is.

(1) "I" has no specific gender, but there is no female in view in the whole passage, so it must refer to a male. So consider the gender to be masculine.

(2) The participle "crying" is genitive masculine. (Do you know what a genitive participle indicates? It must modify something, and the only thing for it to modify is "I" which must have a masculine meaning according to the context.

(3) "I" is spoken by John referring to himself (no other meaning is possible), therefore "crying" must modify "I" meaning John is the voice which is crying.

(4) To nail it down, there are two nouns in a row: "I" the pronoun, and "voice," the feminine noun. ("Voice" must always be feminine; it cannot be masculine or neuter. Another case where "voice" refers to a man is Acts 2:14, where the voice is Peter's.) When there are two nouns in a row but no indicative verb, in Greek grammar there must be an understood copula (a linking verb), which is this case must be the word "is." So the passage is exegeted, "I am a voice crying...."

(5) Therefore there are two strong grammatical reasons for John to be the voice, any proper exegesis or translation must make John the voice.

I can't give you any more than this without actually teaching you Greek. Wuest (not Wurst) was wrong. If you don't agree after this, you will be simply showing your ignorance of Greek. Case closed.

 

[Van]

Well, the case is closed. The reason for your claim is not grammar but your understanding of the context. And your understanding may well be correct, but it is not driven by the grammar.

You now are saying what I have been saying "I am a voice" refers to John the Baptist. Now this voice could be "the voice of one crying" making John the one crying. Perfectly reasonable understanding of the verse. However, if we understand "a voice" to refer to a forerunner, a herald of one coming after, then John is the forerunner of the One crying in the wilderness. This seems just as contextual to ignorant ol me.

Wuest might have been right in that the grammar does not dictate John as the one crying, yet wrong on the interpretation because the intended message might be it was John crying.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, the case is closed. The reason for your claim is not grammar but your understanding of the context. And your understanding may well be correct, but it is not driven by the grammar.

And with this, folks, Van has exposed his ignorance of not only Greek grammar, but what grammar actually is. He is saying that word endings, gender, case and the like are not really grammar. I'm done here. :tonofbricks:

 

[Van]

JOJ provides a parting shot, making charges calculated to disparage me.

Perhaps he is the one crying in the wilderness.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And with this, folks, Van has exposed his ignorance of not only Greek grammar, but what grammar actually is. He is saying that word endings, gender, case and the like are not really grammar. I'm done here. :tonofbricks:

You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. I have ceased to interact with certain posters on the BB due to that fact alone.