Grace and Truth, Revisited

1. I think Rick has a very good point about the particular way I've been expressing the relationship, and will reconsider how best to summarize the matter. I think i might now better express it as a "clear equivalent" or even "alternate translation" of the same OT passage.

   I remain quite convinced that John INTENDS for us to see a reference to the proclamation of Exodus 34, and all the more so when I look at the whole array of Greek and Hebrew expressions, as well as the clear usage and importance of this particular 'confession'.

2. There are several contextual and linguistic supports for making the Ex 34 connection, but most important may be to note that the NT use of "grace" (charis) often corresponds to the LXX use of "mercy" (eleos), a term the latter repeatedly uses for Hebrew hesed but that is only sparingly used in the NT (and with a somewhat different range of meaning).

   If we accept this substitution John's expression DOES match well (Note that there are a number of other comparable cases in the NT where phrasing differing from the LXX, clearly corresponds to the same OT language… keeping in mind too that the NT writers did not always precisely follow the LXX, even used other Greek translations.) (There might be some useful English translation analogies as well, e.g., "(a voice in) the wilderness" vs. "(a voice in) the desert" in different versions, but clearly based on the same OT language and passages.)

It is true that the LXX of Ex 34:16, does not precisely match John's wording, and I ought to carefully consider how to make MY language reflect that fact in claiming this connection (of which I, with a number of commentators, am quite convinced). My basic point would then be that John's expression is clearly equivalent to the LXX's and clearly intended to point us to Ex 34:6. We might better term it an 'alternate rendering' or translation of the very same Hebrew expression. There are several solid reasons and precedents for this. Consider:

1. the 'truth' connection is very strong; polu- is not a huge issue; the word in question then is CHARIS (John) as opposed to ELEOS (LXX of Ex 34:6) I think the 'solution' is largely found in (4) below… but some other considerations may help

   (Perhaps it will help to note that the LXX expression of Ex 34:6 uses two adjectival forms - unlike the Hebrew, John 1, and many OTHER LXX passages rendering Hebrew expressions that are identical or nearly so, to Ex 34. Thus "true" vs. "truth" in not an issue at all here – they can and should be taken as equivalent)

2. the main thing here is the expression as a whole and its meaning, and what it would reasonably be recognized as corresponding to. The language of Ex 34:6 is key throughout the OT, and widely echoed, sometimes with variations, yet still quite recognizable – whether in the Hebrew or Greek. If we cam see that OTHER clear OT echoes of Ex 34 use alternate language (not only in the Greek but in the Hebrew), it is quite reasonable to accept a NT/Johanine variation as based on the same original Hebrew expression, and esp on its 'foundational' and 'catechetical' use in Ex 34.

   For that matter, the establishment that there is this set of terminology in Ex 34 and connected passages that may vary a bit but all rooted at or talking about the same things (synonyms, anyone?) would do much for both the 'narrow' linguistic argument, as well as for the bigger theological point – the MAIN issue here, viz., that John INTENDS for us to connect his statements about Jesus in John 1:14-18 with the Exodus 34 revelation.

   A simple English analogy – English translations may read "a voice of one crying in the wilderness" or (now more commonly, perhaps more precisely in light of English usage changes), ". . . in the DESERT". But we have no trouble recognizing the same original Hebrew expression, and esp. the echo/quotation of Isaiah 40 when we see either expression in the NT.

   There are several reasons we recognize the correspondence – including the REST of the expression (cf. the use of forms of "truth" in the Greek compound expression in question), and the FAMILIARITY of the language. I think there is very little doubt of the latter – as I began to argue (and could illustrate at length from OT passages), the Ex 34 expressions were a CENTRAL and very familiar expression of their understanding of "the ways" God made known to Moses (and so to them)…

   The centrality and famliarity of the expression makes it easier for a writer (speaking to an audience that KNEW this key language well) to vary the expression. Such variations are LESS of a problem, since in such a case you may vary the precise expression more – certainly including the substitution of recognized SYNONYMS – and generally expect your audience to recognize the root expression (and passage) you intend,

   (The same might be observed, for example, in the use of wordplay – the MORE familiar the expression used as the basis for the wordplay, the more variation one might employ and still have the audience 'get it'. Those of us wont to stretch these bounds beyond reasonable expectations, at least for a general audience– with the predictable result that our brilliant bit of humor seems under-appreciated–should be aware of this!)

3. NT translations of OT passages are NOT always taken from the LXX as we know it (it was NOT the only Greek OT available) … and may at times even be "independent" translations or adaptations of OT verses (the "version variation" argument).

   Related to this – Could John, who in OTHER passages is most definitely echoing specific OT passages but slightly altering or adapting the language, be doing some more of the same here in order to serve OTHER rhetorical purposes in the passage or of the gospel as a whole? (tiny quick example – the choice [coinage?} of the verb "skene" for "dwell".. it's meaning is clear, and the choice accomplishes some other purposes, such as the shekinah wordplay, yet is NOT used in the Greek OT or by anyone else in the NT!)

   Considering the next point, I tend to think John is NOT doing so in this particular case, but rather is following the standard terminology of the early church, esp since "grace" is not a major term in the Johanine vocabulary (though you might argue he is setting up "grace upon grace"). But wait! If that is the case, why is John using a pair like this at all? (Could he maybe be echoing a known expression in a form familiar to the NT church?)

4. LXX and NT Greek terms for the same thing DO vary. Reasons? a couple that seem esp. relevant here
   • though both Hellenistic Greek, the dialects and time period are not identical;
   • the NT church has adopted certain preferred and at times perhaps even technical terminology. And CHARIS/"grace" is certainly such a central term for the early church, from its use in theological discourse to its common use in the newly minted standard salutation and blessing, "Grace and peace. .. ". (I'd like to scout out some other clear examples of the LXX - NT variation of terminology, esp. the NT church's choice of a particular expression… perhaps that of "ekklesia" over "synagoge"?)

     Now if you compare the uses (and frequency!) of ELEOS and CHARIS in the LXX and the Greek NT, you find the LXX using the former quite frequently, the latter quite sparingly. On the other hand, CHARIS dominates NT use, while ELEOS has very limited use. (I have not studied every single examples, but there are a number of LXX expressions using ELEOS where a NT parallel expression uses CHARIS.)

     (I'd extend the study to related language, e.g., verb forms, though we needn't assume some neat correspondence there – language is seldom so neat!)

     This point may be the most significant. I've encountered a number of other terms through the years in which the LXX term and Greek NT term were generally distinct, though clearly corresponding and, more importantly, the NT used the 'common NT term' in place of the LXX one when clearly quoting or alluding to a particular OT passage (or set of passages).

I hope that clarifies the point for you. . . though I'm now working on the best way to make it clear to a "general" audience.. I welcome feedback on all this.