John 12:6
Footnote:
96 | The Tongues Case Strongs Greek NT #1101 γλωσσόκομον, glóssokomon. Tongue Keeper/Case, Language Guardian. The word "γλωσσόκομον" (glōssokomon) is a compound word in ancient Greek. It is composed of: "γλῶσσα" (glōssa): meaning "tongue" or "language." "κομός" (komos): meaning "care," "attention," or "keeping." So, "γλωσσόκομον" refers to a person or object that deals with or is involved in the management, study, or preservation of languages. It could be translated as "language keeper" or "language guardian," and it may refer to a linguist, a scholar of languages, or a repository of linguistic knowledge. Used for "Chest" which held money in the Septuagint (2 Chr 24:8, 2 Chr 24:10, 2 Chr 24:11). The word only occurs in John 12:6 and 13:29. It is a specific New Testament version of an earlier word, γλωσσοκομεῖον, (glōssokomeion). Translators and scholars have traditionally referred to the earlier version for definition: Strong's Exhaustive Concordances: "From glossa and the base of kosmos; properly, a case (to keep mouthpieces of wind-instruments in) i.e. (by extension) a casket or (specially) purse -- bag." Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
Bill Mounce: Definition:
pr. a box for keeping the tongues, mouth-pieces, or reeds of musical instruments; hence, genr. any box or receptacle; in NT a purse, money-bag, Jn. 12:6; 13:29*
Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889:
a case for the mouthpiece of a pipe: generally, a case, casket, NTest.
Not "Things Put"
τὰ βαλλόμενα: Neuter plural nominative or accusative of the present middle/passive participle of βάλλω ("to throw, strike, hit"). The phrase may be rendered either as "the things being thrown" (i.e., projectiles) or "the things being struck," depending on syntactic and contextual factors. In military contexts, it typically denotes missiles or other launched objects. Cf. LSJ, s.v. βάλλω.
Nearly all translations render this "things that are put" in an attempt to force the meaning to fit with presumed contexts. But this is very ambiguous. What are "things that are put"? Or "things that are placed"? Basically, any and every kind of object out there! Is that really what John means to write?
The rendering therefore turns the clause into pointless wordy nonsense. We found in the Godbey Translation "things cast in" which is closer, but he is compelled to add the word "in" which is not a part of the text.
Rendering τὰ βαλλόμενα as "things that are put" is imprecise and generally incorrect in classical or Koine Greek contexts.
Correct Renderings:
In late or metaphorical usage (e.g., emotions being hurled, words cast out), the range can broaden, but “put” remains too far removed from the core action of βάλλω. he carried, took up. The word ἐβάσταζεν also gets hacked by a number of translations rendering it as "steal" (NASB, NRSV, BLB, NLT, Weymouth, etc, etc) It does not mean steal. The LSV, YLT, Julia Smith Literal give the accurate rendering:
The supposed usage of βαστάζω in John 12:6 as “steal” is a marked departure from its classical semantic field, where it predominantly denotes physical bearing or emotional endurance. While a few post-Classical sources (e.g., Polybius, Lucian) attest furtive or appropriative nuances, the scholars' application of the verb to Judas Iscariot exploits this marginal semantic possibility, resulting in a contextually derived but lexically unconventional meaning. The verb thus illustrates a semantic broadening in late Koine, partially shaped by idiomatic and narrative exigency, rather than linguistic norm. In John 12:6, then, this sense of the verb requires a highly idiomatic usage:
We are led to believe this idiomatic usage is pervasive throughout the NT. This, we are told, is how Koine Greek works, being as it is, a common lingua franca, with more colloquial range than Classical Greek. Koine (Common) Greek Usage To build theology, ontology, or ecclesial structures on language that trades in idiomatic elasticity is, by classical standards, precarious. What then exactly is the "The New Testament Usage"? The Usage of Koine that we are given is very frequently:
The irony here is that this porous linguistic ground tends to fulfill the very prophetic metaphor of building “on sand” (cf. Matt. 7:26). To say that this is ironic is not just being rhetorically effective; it's epistemologically apt. The textual tradition invites trust and belief, but does not give certainty through philological precision. The issue remains: meaning is underdetermined in many key NT passages—not because of poor writing, but because of intentional polyvalence and the limitations of Koine itself. This semantic underdetermination leads directly to:
Koine’s instability functions not only as a medium but as a theological instrument. The traditional Gospel of John, for instance, is exploiting semantic ambiguity for theological depth. Consider:
The traditional NT's idiomatic Koine creates interpretive instability. Though meanings persist, their range precludes doctrinal precision. This is why the traditional Gospel stands on semantically shifting terrain, a fact that is well attested by the inumerable doctrinal divisions and countless church splits that have persisted since the start. In other words, the traditional NT is sand. In spite of the broad idiomatic ranges of Koine Greek, the underlying semantic infrastructure of Greek remains intact. The core lexemes are not lost. Therefore, a translation that is philologically rigorous (tracking morphology, syntax, and semantic ranges), non-theological (eschewing doctrinal overlays), historically contextualized (respecting 1st-century Hellenistic idioms), can produce a concrete rendering—one that favors lexical precision over theological tradition or interpretive smoothness. Such a translation would have to make difficult choices, especially when a Greek word has multiple plausible senses (e.g. βαστάζω, λόγος, σῶμα). But it could legitimately render:
The result would be technically accurate, but theologically destabilizing—because it would strip away centuries of doctrinal accretion and force readers to confront the text’s raw lexical surfaces. The obstacle is not the Greek itself, but the weight of interpretive tradition, the ambiguity left by authorial intent, and the modern reader’s expectation that religious texts be theologically consistent and immediately comprehensible. Much of post-NT theology rests not on the raw Greek, but on translated, interpreted, harmonized, or doctrinally massaged renderings. When we restore the actual voice and syntax of the text, strip away the smoothing effect of ecclesiastical translation traditions, and refuse to resolve lexical ambiguity prematurely, indeed we risk destabilizing received doctrine. The result of undoing centuries of scholarly interpretation very well could be a giant mess, or, perhaps we might gain access to a latent doctrinal architecture that may have been hidden in plain sight? |