Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[hope]

It’s Matthew and Luke who drop him from the narrative at about the time Jesus attains adulthood (when his parents ‘loose’ him in Jerusalem – he’s roughly about the age of his bar-mitzvah. Traditionally done at 13, but there is no specific age given in either the Bible or (I believe) the Mishnah).

Luke 2:
42
and when he was twelve years old, they went up according to festival custom.>

Acts and Mark seem to have imitated the earliest Greek epic.

No. What you state seems to say that they made up everything about Jesus.

Jesus dies like Hector (from the divine point of view),

Remember I said manipulation to make it seem the same. You throw in divine point of view to try to make it the same but the truth is Hector was not crucified and Jesus did not die in battle.

He heals two women who are too similar to Sarpedon and Glaucus to be coincidence.

Who is the He? What Women? Sarpedon and Glaucus are men???
I am going to end this by quoting an old saying “there is nothing new under the sun” because there are similarities does not mean that they borrowed. It does mean that God was preparing the world for His son. It is quite possible that the devil provided these similarities in order to cause doubt about Jesus.

 

[Medawlinno]

If you are familiar with it, I am surprised you would use such a weak argument to DENY the Perpetual Virginity f the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Refer to Hodos’s comments above - they are arguing the same thing and going into a bit more detail with respect to the grammar.

I don’t think it’s a weak argument at all. proponents of the perpetual virginity argument want to turn the grammar into something it’s not. “Heos” and “heos hou” carry very different semantic nuances. I don’t think there’s any getting around that.

 

[hope]

What do you think the term Terminus Ad Quem means? This is specifically mentioned in the definition provided in the lexicon.

|n.|A goal or finishing point.|
|n.|A final limiting point in time.|
|n.|the latest possible date of a non-punctual event (period, era, etc.)|

What it doesn’t mean is a change in situation. It refers to a period of time without any indication of after that time.

Right, because your are purposefully distorting the text

If this were true, I wouldn’t have said this is not what you meant. In my view point it is you who is distorting Matthew 1:25. No it was not clear from the sentence. It is also unclear how you would arrive at the conclusion that James is the eldest brother.

You are actually just argued against your entire case.

No because Eusebius is not writing scripture. Because Greek has a word for cousin does not mean that when brother is used it means a sibling. An example they call Elizabeth a kinsman rather than cousin. There is also the evidence of Abraham calling his nephew Lot brother. Some translations have changed it to nephew but that is not what the original says. If you say they are different people , you provide the evidence. Your reaching for straws.

 

[Cathoholic]

@Good_Fella to Hodos . . .

The action of the main clause doesn’t necessarily cease with heos ou ; heos hou can be used interchangeably with heos and mean the same thing “up to the time of.”

@Hodos to Good_Fella . . .

The word Έως means until or as far as. The word όυ means of whom, of which, or of when. When paired with together, Έως όυ until the time when or until when, until which time, etc. This conjunctive phrase can be followed by either indicative mood statement, which speaks to something that has or is certain to happen, or a subjunctive mood statement, which speaks to something that is hoped for, desired, or may happen but is not certain. In the case of Matthew 1:25, we see the Έως όυ construction followed by an indicative statement that we know to be true.

Medawlinno to me (Cathoholic) attempting to use the heos hou spoof to DENY the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary . . . .

Refer to Hodos’s comments above . . .

OK. I referred to it and see nothing but ipse dixit so far.

This is so, because I say it is so.

I need more than this.

 

[Hodos]

What it doesn’t mean is a change in situation. It refers to a period of time without any indication of after that time.

It provides a temporal connection between the clause, he knew her not, and the clause she had given birth to a son, serving as a terminus of the state provided in the first clause.

An example they call Elizabeth a kinsman rather than cousin. There is also the evidence of Abraham calling his nephew Lot brother. Some translations have changed it to nephew but that is not what the original says. If you say they are different people , you provide the evidence. Your reaching for straws.

Luke uses the word συγγενισ. It is interesting that you are using examples where the author is being fairly precise and is NOT using the word αδελφη as a general word for kinsman and then trying to use that as a case for supporting the opposite point. Provide the reference to your example with Lot and which translation you are referring to. In either case though, both authors went through the process of explaining the lineage of Elizabeth and Lot so that even if a particular term is used outside of its normative usage, the context is available to make that conclusion rather than arguing from silence.

 

[hope]

What do you think the term Terminus Ad Quem means? This is specifically mentioned in the definition provided in the lexicon.

|n.|A goal or finishing point.|
|n.|A final limiting point in time.|
|n.|the latest possible date of a non-punctual event (period, era, etc.)|

What it doesn’t mean is a change in situation. It refers to a period of time without any indication of after that time.

Right, because your are purposefully distorting the text

If this were true, I wouldn’t have said this is not what you meant. In my view point it is you who is distorting Matthew 1:25. No it was not clear from the sentence. It is also unclear how you would arrive at the conclusion that James is the eldest brother.

You are actually just argued against your entire case.

No because Eusebius is not writing scripture. Because Greek has a word for cousin does not mean that when brother is used it means a sibling. An example they call Elizabeth a kinsman rather than cousin. There is also the evidence of If you say they are different, you provide the evidence. Your reaching for straws.

 

[hope]

It provides a temporal connection between the clause, he knew her not, and the clause she had given birth to a son, serving as a terminus of the state provided in the first clause.

Just another way of saying a period of time the says nothing about what happened after that period of time.

Genesis Chapter 14

14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

KJV the Old Testament was written in Hebrew which has no word for cousin. When transmitting a story from your own language to another you would use what was familiar in your own. Recently we had a visit from a friend in the Philippines. Their cousin they called their uncle. They did not use the word cousin because it was not their custom. If I would have written their story I could only write what they conveyed to me. The same with the writers of the Gospels. Even though other cultures might call them cousins they would not because it was not part of their culture. You want to argue from your culture which looses the meaning. Like when you tried to make betrothal mean what it means in our culture.

 

[Hodos]

Just another way of saying a period of time the says nothing about what happened after that period of time.

No, it just says it ended when something else occurred. Also, you fail to recognize that again, we aren’t reading Matthew 1:25 in a vacuum. We also acknowledge that Matthew also tells us that Jesus mother and brothers and sisters came to find him in Chapter 10.

The same with the writers of the Gospels.

Again, they didn’t speak Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic and Greek. Second, the gospels were written into Greek, and you are assuming that the author did not select words to convey coherent meaning. Also, we see that the word for cousin is actually used in the New Testament, by Jewish speakers, Paul, for example does so in Colossians 4. Finally, even in translation from Hebrew to Greek we see that the Jewish translators chose words to convey precise meaning such as in Leviticus 25:49 where a cousin is described as the son of the brother of the father. Jeremiah does this as well. So the culture argument holds no weight because it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

 

[hope]

It is interesting that you are using examples where the author is being fairly precise and is NOT using the word αδελφη as a general word for kinsman and then trying to use that as a case for supporting the opposite point.

It is interesting that you miss the point. You wrote that there was a word for cousin in Greek. The old argument is that if there was a word for cousin than why did they use brother if they meant cousin. I merely point out that they rarely used the word for cousin even when cousin or another relationship like sister-in-lay or uncle/aunt was meant.

 

[hope]

No, it just says it ended when something else occurred.

The something else that occurred is the birth of Jesus. What it says is that the time before Jesus’ birth Joseph and Mary did not know one another what it doesn’t say is that after the birth they did. It does not say that and neither does the definition. You fail to recognize the culture and that the use of brother and sister in that culture and as have sited other cultures as well do not mean the same thing as our culture means by brother and sister. Aramaic also has no word for cousin.
Yes I know that the word for cousin is used in other places in the New Testament. It does not change that brother is used elsewhere as cousin. Why do you suppose that in Leviticus they don’t use the word cousin. You won’t admit it but it is because they did not have a word for cousin and this was the way their culture described the relationship.
Something else you won’t acknowledge is that each and every brother mentioned by name is shown to have other parents other than Mary. You also do not acknowledge that Mary was given to someone who was not her child to be cared for nor do you acknowledge that Jesus’ brother talk to Him as being their being older not younger than Jesus.

 

[Hodos]

It is interesting that you miss the point. You wrote that there was a word for cousin in Greek. The old argument is that if there was a word for cousin than why did they use brother if they meant cousin. I merely point out that they rarely used the word for cousin even when cousin or another relationship like sister-in-lay or uncle/aunt was meant.

And as demonstrated above, in at least two examples above, authors used other words to denote familial association outside of being a brother. Luke demonstrated one example, Paul demonstrated another, and a third was demonstrated using Leviticus and Jeremiah. Greek was used far more precisely than you are attempting to argue by ignoring evidence that disputes your dogmatic claim.

The something else that occurred is the birth of Jesus.

Precisely, the state of not knowing his wife was completed when Christ was born.

Something else you won’t acknowledge is that each and every brother mentioned by name is shown to have other parents other than Mary.

No, I fully acknowledged this. I just demonstrated that there are other explanations that don’t involve dismissing the rest of the evidence.

nor do you acknowledge that Jesus’ brother talk to Him as being their being older not younger than Jesus.

You have absolutely no evidence that this is even the case. Show me one statement in Matthew or any of the canonical gospels where James or any of his brothers directly address Jesus, or that they are ever referred to as firstborn of anyone. I’ll wait… Again, you are making a case from silence. So much eisegesis…

 

[hope]

Precisely, the state of not knowing his wife was completed when Christ was born.

You use the word completed. It is not the word that was used. The word used was until which has been amply shown to only mean a specified time. You are trying to change the meaning to mean a change. You have been unable to do that because it does not mean a change. Everything you have presented confirms that only the period of time before Jesus’ birth is being referred to.

You have absolutely no evidence that this is even the case. Show me one statement in Matthew or any of the canonical gospels where James or any of his brothers directly address Jesus, or that they are ever referred to as firstborn of anyone. I’ll wait… Again, you are making a case from silence. So much eisegesis…

Luke Chapter 2

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.

John 7
No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world."

So Jesus said to them, "My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you.

So much eisegesis

yes you do seem to do a lot of it.

I have asked before but maybe you missed it. Do you still claim that Betrothed means engage or do you now realize they were married?

 

[Cathoholic]

The DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a tradition of men that makes void the word of God.

To the readers here on the heos hou spoof.

From our local men’s Bible study items . . .

Maybe the Greek phrase for “until” (“heos hou”) necessitates a change in status

Objection: Maybe the Greek phrase for “until” (“heos hou”) really means it necessitates a change in the status of Mary’s virginity. After all, the phrase “heos hou” and not merely “heos” is the Greek that is used here.

MATTHEW 1:24-25 . . . . he (Joseph) took his wife, but knew her not until (“heos hou”) she had borne a son . . . .

Objection (continued): Yes the Greek must strongly purport this necessary change in status of Mary!

Answer: Why?

Objector: Because I say so!

Answer: That’s the fallacy of “ipse dixit” (“ipse dixit” is a fallacy where someone purports something to be true, merely because they assert it to be true).

The “Original Greek” term “heos hou” (ewz ou) argument denoting a necessary change in status , has recently been purported by some Protestant apologists to try to deny the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

They have said “until” in the sense of heos hou ALWAYS NECESSITATES a “change in status”.

But even more recently, we see this heos hou objection put forth by Protestants less and less frequently. Why?

Because it isn’t true that’s why; and now they know it (most of them).

Let’s begin by looking at an extended quote from Fr. Ronald Tacelli who knows Bible Greek (also called Koine’ Greek ) and routinely reads the Bible in Greek. Let’s listen as he discusses this issue concerning the Greek speaking and Greek writing St. John Chrysostom who comments on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 way back in the 300’s A.D.

“These men” that Fr. Tacelli criticizes below, are some of the current Protestant apologists who are attacking the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on their invented “heos hou” objection.

See page 3. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry

“Bible Greek” is often called Koine Greek (pronounced “coin-ay”). A common non-Bible ancient Greek is often called “Attic Greek” a subset of an Ionic dialect and refers to the region of Attica which included Athens. There are other subsets of the ancient Greek language which are beyond the scope of this study.

1/2

 

[Cathoholic]

2/2 . . .

. . . . But regardless of how well or poorly these men (some Protestant apologists) know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let’s look at what he had to say on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the meaning of heos hou.

In his sermons on St. Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca, 7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, “But why . . . did [St. Matthew] use the word ‘until’?” Note well here: In quoting the verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he uses for “until” is heos all by itself - as if he were unaware of a difference in meaning between these two expressions.

He answers his question by saying that it is usual and frequent for Scripture to use the word “until” (heos) without reference to limited times. Then he gives three examples. The first is his own paraphrase of Genesis 8:7: “The raven did not return until the earth was dried up.” Here Chrysostom uses heos hou for “until.” (But the actual text of the Septuagint has heos alone.) The second example is from Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting you are.” The verse quoted (correctly) by Chrysostom has heos all by itself. The third example is from Psalm 72:7: “In his days justice shall flourish and fullness of peace until the moon be taken away.” And here the word for “until,” as in the Septuagint text, is heos hou.

It’s clear that for St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. That’s why he framed his question about “until” in terms of heos alone, even though the verse giving rise to the question, which he’d just finished quoting, had heos hou instead. That’s why it was natural for him to use heos hou in his paraphrase of Genesis 8:7. And that is why, in his list of analogues to Matthew 1:25, he used both heos and heos hou without the slightest hesitation - his linguistically sensitive ear registered no difference in meaning between them. (But there is a syntactical difference: heos hou came normally to be used as a conjunction; heos by itself as a preposition.)

If an unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm. The whole “heos hou vs. heos” argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that heos and heos hou are equivalent in meaning. . . .

He’s an Only Child-- A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the rounds. By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J. Envoy Magazine Envoy Magazine, May/June, 1997, p.54.

 

[Cathoholic]

More on the heos hou spoof . . . .

. . . . This was a made-up invention by some recent (fortunately only a few) Protestant apologists who are more concerned with winning debates than they are with seeking out and conforming to truth. And this heos hou objection of these same Protestant apologists to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity has been embarrassingly (for them) publicly debunked by Catholic apologists who called them on it.

Why would the Greek writing and speaking St. Epiphanius back in the 300’s A.D. refer to Mary as “EVER-Virgin” if heos hou ALWAYS necessitated a change in status? Can we assume it is a good thing modern day deniers of Christian doctrine came along to teach the Greek speakers and writers their own language almost two thousand years later?

St. Epiphanius We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.

— The Man Well-Anchored 120 [ A.D. 374 ]

Also there were no people calling themselves Christians that were writing against and refuting these ancient Church Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Epiphanius, and others who were just matter-of-factly re-affirming the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Why?

Because the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was commonly taught and accepted virtually universally by the early Christians.

Other writings by St. Epiphanius and other writings by the Greek speaking St. John Chrysostom, also assert the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The truth is, the theological novelty or new-fangled religious invention, is the DENIAL of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, not the affirmation of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity! The affirmation of Mary’s perpetual Virginity is part of the teachings of classic Christianity for the past 2000 years.

Aside from Tertullian (who turned out to be a heretic) the first one calling themselves a Christian and denying this doctrine didn’t come until about 400 A.D. and again, was a NEW invention—that’s WHY St. Jerome called this denial “a theological novum” at the time. “Novum” is Latin for “a new invention”. . . .

We will see even Tertullian got part of this doctrine correct but again we will look at him later.

Back to the objection that “ heos hou ALWAYS necessitates a change in status” issue.

How could ALL of these Greek speaking and Greek writing iconic Christians of the early Church miss something so obvious as the fact that “heos hou” ALWAYS necessitated a change in status?

Because “heos hou” DOESN’T ALWAYS necessitate a change in status! These ancient Christian men didn’t “miss” anything of the sort.

Non-Scriptural writings of the same time era used “heos hou” in such a manner where it didn’t necessitate a change in status too. . .

These Saints didn’t need to go to Seminary to learn Greek. Greek of course was their native language.

 

[Good_Fella]

Both indicative statements.

I’m afraid you overlook one significant factor in the equation. The verb used for “know” (eginosken) is in the imperfect tense, not in the aorist (egno) which means that the emphasis is placed on the duration of time in which Mary and Joseph had no marital relations. In other words, the couple had no intercourse during the time that preceded the birth of Jesus. This fits well with the context of the verse, that being the virginal conception of Jesus and its consequences of natural paternity. If Matthew had wished to imply (which wasn’t necessary) Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage like other married couples, he would have used the aorist.

… he conditions the first phrase (he did not know her, a euphemism for having sex) upon the completion of the second phrase (until she gave birth to a son). That is the logical and natural reading of the text. You are the one making the statement that the first clause has no relation to the second clause, when clearly a conjunctive phrase is used to connect the two.

On the contrary, I see a relation between the main clause and the subordinate clause, only it differs from how you perceive the relation. You’re mistaken by thinking a conjunctive adverb functions like a logical connector such as the conjunction epei which means “since” or “because.” Matthew’s choice of the imperfect implies that he did not exclude the possibility of Mary and Joseph having a chaste marriage after the birth of Jesus. So, there is no logical reason for the couple to have marital relations after the birth of Jesus contained in this statement. It’s a question of how you wish to interpret the meaning of the word “until” to accommodate your personal bias.

It is absurd that a husband consummate his marriage with his wife?

What is absurd is the idea that Matthew would construct his statement so that we should know Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage. As I said already, Matthew’s only intention was to assure his Hebrew audience that Mary and Joseph abstained from conjugal relations before Jesus was born to underscore the truth of the incarnation. What might have come after has no bearing on this divine truth. Also, you are begging the question by asserting the brothers and sisters of Jesus, whom Matthew mentions, are in fact our Lord’s siblings.

And yet, the author didn’t use before, which was known to him, he used the conjunctive phrase until when.

A conjunctive adverb isn’t a logical connector. The possibility of a chaste marriage isn’t excluded with the use of the imperfect verb in the main clause. “Before” and “until” are used synonymously, the latter when an emphasis is put. The preposition doesn’t lose its meaning (up to the time of/up until) when used as a conjunctive adverb (cf. 2 Pet. 1:19).

 

[Good_Fella]

…There is a huge leap between John taking Mary into his home, and allegorizing it as Jesus gave his mother to the Church, or to say that the persons who both John and Matthew describes as Jesus’ brothers were not his brothers.

Much of John ’s gospel was written as an allegory. An allegory is both literally and figuratively true. Being so, the facts stated in an allegory also represent and point to something beyond themselves, as on Golgotha. Scripture has five senses, one of them being the allegorical sense.

Okay, show me where this is explicitly stated. Again, this is eisegesis of the text, not exegesis.

Try reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense for a change. It’s often meant to be. Not everything in the Scriptures is spelled out explicitly.

Or conversely, it means, Look!

Other than the word “behold,” there is no single word in English that fits well in most contexts. Although “Look!” and “See!” and “Listen!” would be feasible in some ordinary contexts, in many others these words lack sufficient weight and dignity (cf. Isa 7:14; Lk 1:48; 2:10-11; Mt. 12:41, Jn:26-27, etc.)

The gospel of John was written in Greek. There is no evidence it was written in Hebrew or more precisely Aramaic. You are now assuming a text which does not exist to make a point the text doesn’t attempt to make, to defend a traditional interpretation from which there is no apostolic link. What does the text actually say?

The NT proceeds from the sacred Tradition which has been passed down to us in the Catholic Church. It isn’t the other way around like it is in Protestantism. Further, it’s unlikely John wrote his gospel in Greek. Most probably it was in Aramaic while he was in present-day Turkey and then copied and translated in Greek by one of his disciples. Still, it makes no difference even if he did. “The word “behold,” usually has been retained as the most common translation for the Hebrew word hinneh and the Greek word idou. Both of these words mean something like “Pay careful attention to what follows! This is important!” What we have is a translation that retains and conveys the original sense of meaning.

 

[TULIPed]

Much of John ’s gospel was written as an allegory.

Try reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense for a change.

Tread carefully…this way there be dragons.

 

[Hodos]

I’m afraid you overlook one significant factor in the equation. The verb used for “know” ( eginosken ) is in the imperfect tense, not in the aorist ( egno ) which means that the emphasis is placed on the duration of time in which Mary and Joseph had no marital relations. In other words, the couple had no intercourse during the time that preceded the birth of Jesus. This fits well with the context of the verse, that being the virginal conception of Jesus and its consequences of natural paternity. If Matthew had wished to imply (which wasn’t necessary) Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage like other married couples, he would have used the aorist.

Right, the lasted a period of time, which is the function of the imperfect tense. Doesn’t change the meaning of until she gave birth to a son. And no, you are absolutely wrong about the aorist. The aorist doesn’t tell you whether something is a one and done event. Aorist literally means undefined. You have to derive whether it is a one and done event or an ongoing process from the context of the sentence. So, you aren’t even correct on your tense usage.

What is absurd is the idea that Matthew would construct his statement so that we should know Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage.

No one said he constructed the sentence for that reason. I actually agree with your colleague was that it demonstrates that Mary was kept a virgin until Jesus was born, thus fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 7. That doesn’t negate the full meaning of what Matthew describes in Matthew 1:25, and elsewhere we Jesus brothers and sisters are mentioned.

The possibility of a chaste marriage isn’t excluded with the use of the imperfect verb in the main clause.

No one said it did. The imperfect tense of the verb only shows that Mary was kept a virgin for a period of time in the past. It is the phrase that comes after that indicates otherwise until when she gave birth to a son. That and the fact that Matthew presents the evidence of brothers and sisters. None of this exists in a vacuum.

The preposition doesn’t lose its meaning (up to the time of/up until) when used as a conjunctive adverb (cf. 2 Pet. 1:19).

No one said it does. What was said is that 1) you trying to parse only one word and leaving out the rest of the prepositional phrase along; 2) and you are ignoring the rest of the gospel evidence that states on several occasions that Jesus had brothers and sisters; and 3) your theory is an argument from silence when you assume that Joseph had children from a previous marriage absent evidence from the apostolic writers, and is contradicted by the fact that Joseph was already engaged to be married when the Archangel Gabriel appeared. This blows the traditional explanation that Joseph was appointed as a caretaker husband to Mary out of the water.

 

[Hodos]

Try reading the Scriptures in a spiritual sense for a change. It’s often meant to be. Not everything in the Scriptures is spelled out explicitly.

I do read the scriptures for what the Holy Spirit inspired it to say. I don’t add to it and eisegete the text by claiming it is allegorical or that the Holy Spirit was incapable of communicating the gospel message so that it could be understood by the audience.

Further, it’s unlikely John wrote his gospel in Greek.

Show me the pre-existing Aramaic text from which the Greek manuscript was derived. Another argument based on speculation and not evidence because the text doesn’t say what you are implying that it says.