Monday, May 07, 2007

Is Jesus the vine or the vineyard?

Caution: Technical discussion of Greek below; knowledge of Greek is required to understand the arguments!

I have been reading Caragounis’ The Development of Greek and the New Testament. In pages 247-261 he takes issue with the traditional rendering of AMPELOS as vine in John 15, noting (correctly) that the meaning of AMPELOS was changing from that of vine to vineyard and KLHMA from branch to vine, while AMPELWN, the Attic word for vineyard, fell into disuse. He cites evidence from the papyri, as well as Hellenistic authors, all of which contain occurrences that endorse his rendering. Further, there is the use of AMPELOS in Revelation 14:17-20, which he says should be translated vineyard, given that there is a winepress in it. He also examines the Church Fathers, who continued to use the older Attic meaning of vine, but, as he points out, they were classically trained and consciously writing Atticizing Greek. Further, he argues that Athanasius was trying to use the vine/branch simile as a Trinitarian argument; the later Fathers simply followed in his steps. So far, so good. He seems to have an airtight case—or does he?

As Caragounis himself points out, this section of John is modeled after Isaiah 5, the song of the vineyard (KEREM in Hebrew). What is conspicuous by its absence is any reference by him to the Septuagint. We know that the gospel writers were heavily dependent and strongly influenced by the Septuagint rendering of Hebrew words. So, how does the Septuagint render the Hebrew KEREM in Isaiah 5? Not by AMPELOS, but by the Classical word AMPELWN. That’s right, throughout the entire song of the vineyard, the Septuagint translates KEREM with AMPELWN.

Not content to just look at Isaiah 5, I consulted Hatch & Redpath’s Concordance to the Septuagint, to see what was listed as the Hebrew equivalent for KLHMA, AMPELOS, and AMPELWN. Here are the results:

KLHMA: never used to translate GEFEN (vine).
AMPELWN: KEREM, over 70 times; GEFEN, only once (Jer 5:17)
AMPELOS: KEREM, 4 times (twice in Leviticus, once each in Numbers and Song of Songs); GEFEN, over 50 times

Based on the Septuagint evidence, I would say that the traditional rendering of John 15 as vine/branch is correct. But, how should Revelation 14 be translated, then? Perhaps Caragounis is correct in wanting to translate it as vineyard, but I have two problems with that. First, it isn’t at all obvious from the text that the winepress is in the vineyard. In fact, it appears that the winepress is outside of it, since it says that the winepress was EXWQEN THS POLEWS, not EN AMPELWNI/AMPELWi. Second, I would still prefer to stick with the Septuagint evidence, and simply say it is synecdoche, the one vine representing the whole earth/vineyard.

As I read Caragounis, I have found that this is typical. At first glance, his ideas seem reasonable and an improvement on the traditional understanding. But, when I dig below the surface, I find that he is reading evidence in such a way so as to endorse his theory.

By the way, the book is huge (over 700 pages, with over 100 pages of bibliography). If you choose to read the book, a background in Classics would be helpful, and some experience with Byzantine wouldn’t hurt (I’m weak there). His command of the literature is immense, from Epic all the way through to Modern Greek. The conclusions he draws from that knowledge are frequently overstated, which is why it will take me another 3 months or so to finish it!

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

James:

I'm the one who asked the question. I'm also the one who posted recently about Caragounis's assertion about causal hINA.

It's an interesting book, but it sounds from your comments here and Carl Conrad's comments on my recent post that perhaps one should not automatically take Caragounis at face value, despite his apparently vast knowledge of the field.

Caragounis addresses his critics here:

http://www.lsn.se/2509/Debate.htm

vaisamar said...

I do not think that Caragounis's case can be dismantled just by a simple comparison between the Hebrew text and the LXX, with reference to words related to "vine". Caragounis refers to the LXX (Isaiah 5) only because he wants to trace the imagery of the source in John. LXX cannot be the definitive standard for judging the meaning of words in the NT.
I found his case very persuasive, given the fact that I remeber having stumbled once over the meaning of "airw" and over the idea Jesus being "pruned" rather than the branches.
Emanuel Contac, Romania

ounbbl said...


Caragounis addresses his critics here http://chrys-caragounis.com/Debate/Is%20Jesus%20the%20Vine%20or%20the%20Vineyard.pdf