KJV: It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
YLT: and also in your law it hath been written, that the testimony of two men are true;
Darby: And in your law too it is written that the testimony of two men is true:
ASV: Yea and in your law it is written, that the witness of two men is true.
νόμῳ | law |
Parse: Noun, Dative Masculine Singular Root: νόμος Sense: anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command. |
|
δὲ | also |
Parse: Conjunction Root: δέ Sense: but, moreover, and, etc. |
|
τῷ | - |
Parse: Article, Dative Masculine Singular Root: ὁ Sense: this, that, these, etc. |
|
ὑμετέρῳ | of you |
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative Masculine 2nd Person Plural Root: ὑμέτερος Sense: you, yours. |
|
γέγραπται | it has been written |
Parse: Verb, Perfect Indicative Middle or Passive, 3rd Person Singular Root: γράφω Sense: to write, with reference to the form of the letters. |
|
ὅτι | that |
Parse: Conjunction Root: ὅτι Sense: that, because, since. |
|
δύο | of two |
Parse: Adjective, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: δύο Sense: the two, the twain. |
|
ἀνθρώπων | men |
Parse: Noun, Genitive Masculine Plural Root: ἄνθρωπος Sense: a human being, whether male or female. |
|
μαρτυρία | testimony |
Parse: Noun, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: μαρτυρία Sense: a testifying. |
|
ἀληθής | TRUE |
Parse: Adjective, Nominative Feminine Singular Root: ἀληθής Sense: true. |
Greek Commentary for John 8:17
Same use of καιδε kai -de as in John 8:16. They claimed possession of the law (John 7:49) and so Jesus takes this turn in answer to the charge of single witness in John 8:13. He will use similar language (your law) in John 10:34 in an argumentum ad hominem as here in controversy with the Jews. In John 15:24 to the apostles Jesus even says “in their law” in speaking of the hostile Jews plotting his death. He does not mean in either case to separate himself wholly from the Jews and the law, though in Matthew 5 he does show the superiority of his teaching to that of the law. For the Mosaic regulation about two witnesses see Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15. This combined witness of two is not true just because they agree, unless true in fact separately. But if they disagree, the testimony falls to the ground. In this case the Father confirms the witness of the Son as Jesus had already shown (John 5:37). [source]
Literally, in the law, that which is yours. Yours has an emphatic force: of which you claim a monopoly. See John 7:49. [source]
The perfect tense: it has been written, and stands written. The common form of citation elsewhere, but used by John of the Old Testament scriptures only here. His usual form is γεγραμμένον ἐστίν , the participle with the finite verb, literally, it is having been written. [source]
See Deuteronomy 19:15. [source]
Thus there are two witnesses, and the letter of the law is fulfilled. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for John 8:17
Periphrastic perfect passive indicative of γραπω graphō (as in John 2:17) in place of the usual γεγραπται gegraptai “Does it not stand written?” In your law From Psalm 82:6. The term νομος nomos (law) applying here to the entire O.T. as in John 12:34; John 15:25; Romans 3:19; 1 Corinthians 14:21. Aleph D Syr-sin. omit υμων humōn but needlessly. We have it already so from Jesus in John 8:17. They posed as the special custodians of the O.T. I said Recitative οτι hoti before a direct quotation like our quotation marks. Ειπα Eipa is a late second aorist form of indicative with -α a instead of -ον on Ye are gods Another direct quotation after ειπα eipa but without οτι hoti The judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Psalm 82:6 as calling them “gods” (τεοι theoi elohim) because they were God‘s representatives. See the same use of elohim in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:9, Exodus 22:28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in a thoroughly Jewish way. [source]
Ellipsis in the Greek (no verb), as in John 9:3; John 13:18. In their law Cf. John 8:17; John 10:34 for this standpoint. “Law” The hatred of the Jews toward Jesus the promised Messiah (John 1:11) is “part of the mysterious purpose of God” (Bernard) as shown by ινα πληρωτηι hina plērōthēi (first aorist passive subjunctive of πληροω plēroō to fulfill). Without a cause Adverbial accusative of δωρεα dōrea from διδωμι didōmi gratuitously, then unnecessarily or gratis (in two Koiné tablets, Nageli) as here and Galatians 2:21. [source]
Condition of third class, undetermined with prospect of determination The emphasis is on εγω egō (I alone with no other witness). Is not true In law the testimony of a witness is not received in his own case (Jewish, Greek, Roman law). See Deuteronomy 19:15 and the allusion to it by Jesus in Matthew 18:16. See also 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19. And yet in John 8:12-19 Jesus claims that his witness concerning himself is true because the Father gives confirmation of his message. The Father and the Son are the two witnesses (John 8:17). It is a paradox and yet true. But here Jesus yields to the rabbinical demand for proof outside of himself. He has the witness of another (the Father, John 5:32, John 5:37), the witness of the Baptist (John 5:33), the witness of the works of Jesus (John 5:36), the witness of the Scriptures (John 5:39), the witness of Moses in particular (John 5:45). [source]
The Father, not the Baptist who is mentioned in John 5:33. This continual witness of the Father (ο μαρτυρων ho marturōn who is bearing witness, and μαρτυρει marturei present active indicative) is mentioned again in John 5:36-38 as in John 8:17. [source]
“The testimony of an unseen and unheard witness would not satisfy them” (Vincent). Bernard understands the Pharisees to see that Jesus claims God the Father as his second witness and so ask “where,” not “who” he is. Augustine has it: Patrem Christi carnaliter acceperunt, Christ‘s human father, as if the Pharisees were “misled perhaps by the Lord‘s use of αντρωπον anthrōpon (John 8:17)” (Dods). Cyril even took it to be a coarse allusion to the birth of Jesus as a bastard according to the Talmud. Perhaps the Pharisees used the question with double entendre, even with all three ideas dancing in their hostile minds. Ye would know my Father also Conclusion of second-class condition determined as unfulfilled with αν an and second perfect active of οιδα oida used as imperfect in both condition and conclusion. See this same point made to Philip in John 14:9. In John 14:7 Jesus will use γινωσκω ginōskō in the condition and οιδα oida in the conclusion. The ignorance of the Pharisees about Jesus proves it and is due to their ignorance of the Father. See this point more fully stated in John 5:36-38 when Jesus had his previous controversy in Jerusalem. In John 7:28 Jesus said that they knew his home in Nazareth, but he denied then that they knew the Father who sent him. Jesus will again on this occasion (John 8:55) deny their knowledge of the Father. Later he will deny their knowledge of the Father and of the Son (John 16:3). The Pharisees are silenced for the moment. [source]
Or on the authority of. On condition that two witnesses testify. The O.T. law on this point in Deuteronomy 19:15. Comp. Matthew 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1. [source]
Condition of first class with ει ei and the present active indicative, assumed as true. The conditions for a legally valid witness are laid down in Deuteronomy 19:15 (cf. Matthew 18:16; John 8:17.; John 10:25; 2 Corinthians 13:1). [source]