In John 4.9, the author introduces the divide between Jews and Samaritans with the short phrase οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις.Footnote 1 English translations since Wycliffe and Tyndale have translated οὐ συγχρῶνται with a phrase something like ‘do not associate with’,Footnote 2 as have standard European translations.Footnote 3 In recent years, influenced by a 1950 article by David Daube,Footnote 4 some translations such as the NRSV and the NET have chosen an alternate translation: ‘do not share vessels/things with’.Footnote 5 The newer translation proposal seems to have persuaded a little less than half of the major commentators since the publication of Daube’s article,Footnote 6 while a little more than half favour the traditional translation.Footnote 7
What I suggest in this article is that the newer translation for συγχράομαι, ‘use things in common with’ is nearly impossible, and the traditional translation ‘associate with’ is possible but has limited evidence for it. Instead, I will propose another translation that matches how the word was often used in antiquity: ‘to get help from’ or ‘to be aided by’.
1. Evidence for the Traditional View (συγχράομαι = ‘associate with’)
The best evidence for the traditional view, that συγχράομαι means ‘to associate with’, is found in the history of translation. One Old Latin translation (VL 11) chose communicare, a word used to translate κοινωνέω and συγκοινωνέω elsewhere in the Vulgate (Eph 5.11, Phil 4.14–15, 1 Tim 5.22, Sir 13.1, 3, 21).Footnote 8 Chrysostom seems to have agreed. In his sermon on John 4, Chrysostom sees συγχράομαι as similar in meaning to προσίημι, which means ‘to accept’ or ‘to allow someone to approach’.Footnote 9 In explaining ‘Jews do not συγχρῶνται with Samaritans’, Chrysostom suggests Jews ‘do not accept Samaritans (προσίενται)’.Footnote 10
A second piece of evidence for the meaning ‘associate with’ is that the unprefixed χράομαι can be found with this meaning elsewhere, normally when used as a substantival participle. Prov 5.5 LXX describes the doom of τοὺς χρωμένους αὐτῇ, ‘those who have dealings with her’ (the wanton woman). Socrates ‘conferred the greatest benefits on all who dealt with him’, τοὺς χρωμένους αὐτῷ (Xen. Mem. 4.8.11).Footnote 11 Συγχράομαι and χράομαι have some other meanings in common, making the verbs related in meaning, although not perfectly synonymous.
Oddly, proponents of the traditional view apparently never use either of these arguments, instead relying on a number of incorrect examples of the usage of συγχράομαι from other Greek literature (discussed below).
2. Problems with the Traditional View
Although one Old Latin translator chose communicant for συγχρῶνται in John 4.9, the Vulgate followed most other Old Latin translations in rendering συγχρῶνται with coutountor. Coutor is a calque, an artificially coined word that mimics the source word, using equivalent morphemes.Footnote 12 Composed of con + utor (to use), coutor is a good calque for σύν + χράομαι, but coutor did not have any established meaning in Latin. It was never used before the Old Latin translation, and used after only in the Vulgate and in quotations of John 4.9. The choice of coutor may indicate that Jerome and other translators were not convinced of the meaning communicare for συγχράομαι in John 4.9, or it may be indicative of the occasional hyper-literalist tendency to use calques in the Vulgate and Old Latin.Footnote 13
But the main problem with the traditional view is that there is no unambiguous evidence for this meaning in other Greek texts. Since συγχράομαι does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament or the LXX, evidence has to be drawn exclusively from other Greek literature. The following passages are presented by major lexica and by commentaries as evidence for the meaning ‘associate with’ for συγχράομαι. In each case, a look at the proposed passage reveals that the meaning ‘associate with’ is inaccurate or ambiguous.
1. BDAGFootnote 14 cites Pseudo-Demetrius, de Elocutione (On Style) 3.281 as evidence for the meaning ‘associate with’, but the use in the passage suggests this is inaccurate. As an example of euphemism, Demetrius reports that a speaker discussed melting down the statues of the Victories for a war effort: ‘He put it… “We will have the support of (συγχρησόμεθα) the Victories for the war,” a version which suggests not the cutting up of the Victories but their conversion into allies.’ The fact that the Loeb translator rendered συγχρησόμεθα as ‘we will have the support of’ suggests that this is not a good example of the meaning ‘associate with’.Footnote 15 Instead, it seems to be evidence that the verb refers to the kind of help that comes from an ally.
2. BDAG, BrillDAG and M-MFootnote 16 cite Diogenes Oenoander, Fragment 64 as evidence for the meaning ‘associate with’, while Daube uses it as evidence for ‘use together with’. Neither seems to be a correct reading of the fragment. The Oenoander fragments are a large collection of inscriptions of the writings of Epicurus and Diogenes. One fragment is a letter written to the mother of the author. He tells his mother not to send any more money, since he already has enough sent by his father. Instead, he says ‘Each of you [mother and father] should not be burdened on your own account for my sake, but each one should be supported by [συνχρῆσθαι] each other.’ Here, the context clearly shows that συγχράομαι is not about associating with someone, but helping or relying upon each other, specifically referring to money.Footnote 17
3. BDAG cites Pseudo-Clement, Homilies 9.22 as evidence for the meaning ‘associate with’, likely because of the rendering of συνχρησάμενος in a nineteenth-century translation of Pseudo-Clement by P. Peterson.Footnote 18 However, the meaning ‘equating with’ for συνχρησάμενος seems more likely in this context. Pseudo-Clement warns against certain exorcists who have an immoral lifestyle: ‘But the one who observes him, equating (συνχρησάμενος) the exorcist with a pious man, perishes as he chases after the same way of life’ (my translation).Footnote 19 The use of συγχράομαι with two dative objects (in this case, εὐσεβεῖ and ἀπελάσαντι, pious man and exorcist) means ‘to equate one thing with another’ or ‘to use one thing as another’ (Diod. Sic. Hist. 3.32.3, 29.18.1; Polyb. Hist. 5.21.8, 10.1.9; Asclep. Tact. 8.1.10).Footnote 20 Peterson likely relied on lexica commonly used in his time; those lexica gave the meaning ‘associate with’ based on John 4.9 and did not mention the use of συγχράομαι with a double dative.Footnote 21
4. BrillDAG cites Periplus Maris Erythraei 31.3 as evidence for the meaning ‘associate with’, and Daube uses it as evidence for the meaning ‘use something in common’. But neither meaning fits the context. Periplus describes trade and travel around the Red Sea and Arabian Sea during the first century. In the previous paragraph (Periplus 21.7), the merchants of Muza ‘carry on trade’ or ‘make use of trade’ (συγχρῶνται τῇ… ἐργασίᾳ) with some other towns.Footnote 22 Note that the dative ἐργασίᾳ is an object, not a co-ordinate subject; the merchants are not associating with trade, but practising or making use of trade. The towns being traded with are in the genitive, not dative. This idiomatic use of συγχράομαι plus the dative ἐργασίᾳ to mean ‘carry on trade’ is described in LSJ.Footnote 23
Now, BDAG actually cites a parallel sentence a few paragraphs later, Periplus 31.3. The language there is a little ambiguous: on the island of Dioscorida, the merchants of Muza ‘carry on trade’ (συνεχρήσαντο δὲ αὐτῇ), but this time αὐτῇ is used in place of ἐργασίᾳ.Footnote 24 The two English translators of Periplus render the phrase in 31.3 as ‘carry on trade’, apparently treating αὐτῇ as referring to trade (ἐργασία), not to the island (νῆσος).Footnote 25 Thus the sentence does not appear to be describing ‘associating with’ or ‘using something with someone else’, but rather ‘engaging in’ something.
5. BDAG cites Pseudo-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Mag. 2.19.3 as an example of the meaning ‘associate with’. As far as I can tell, this is the only passage from antiquity where συγχράομαι plus a dative object might mean ‘associate with’, but it is by no means clear. The book is a piece of historical fiction about Alexander the Great. It has a complicated textual history: some sections may date as early as the first century bce, but there are nine recensions, so it is difficult to know what the date of any section is.Footnote 26 Only recension A includes the phrase in question; it is possibly dated to the early fourth century ce.Footnote 27 The cited section is in a letter purported to be written by Darius to an ally concerning Alexander’s invasion. But the meaning is obscure: ‘The enemy coming upon me is not willing to return my mother and wife and children to me; for which reason, συγχρησάμενος μοι τοῖς πράγμασιν οὐ πείθεται.’ Is the meaning of that last phrase: ‘after dealing with me, he is not persuaded in these matters’? or ‘after using me in these matters, he is not persuaded’? or (perhaps ironically) ‘being helped by me in these matters, he is not persuaded’? The only modern translator of Pseudo-Callisthenes, Richard Stoneman, pointed out the difficulty of making any sense of this phrase. Later recensions of the book are missing the phrase συγχρησάμενος μοι τοῖς πράγμασιν; Stoneman suggested that scribes may have replaced it because of its difficulty.Footnote 28 The only interaction between Darius and Alexander earlier in the book is an exchange of hostile letters. If συγχρησάμενος refers to those letters, it is hard to see συγχρησάμενος as meaning something like ‘associate with’, especially in any sort of positive sense.
What is striking about these five citations is that they are the only passages that are proposed by the lexica or commentaries as evidence for the meaning ‘associate with’, but none of them provide unambiguous evidence. However, despite the lack of clear examples in other Greek texts for the meaning ‘associate with’ for συγχράομαι, the other evidence (the Old Latin translation communicant, Chrysostom’s explanation and the possible parallel use of χράομαι) will likely persuade some that the traditional translation (‘associate with’) is better than the newer translation (‘use in common with’).
2.1 Evidence for the newer view (συγχράομαι = ‘use in common with’)
The newer translation proposal began with a 1950 article by David Daube, who is still the only secondary source quoted on this matter in later commentaries and lexica.Footnote 29 Daube argued that οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις should be translated ‘Jews do not use [vessels] in common with Samaritans.’ That is, he treated the dative Σαμαρίταις as a co-ordinate subject: Jews and Samaritans do not jointly use some unstated object. Daube further suggested an implied object, ‘things’, or more specifically ‘vessels’.
Daube had three main arguments. First, he felt that ‘use vessels with’ made better sense of the purity issues surrounding Jesus’ request to drink from a Samaritan woman’s water pot. Second, he found the meaning of the σύν- prefix persuasive: ‘Literally, of course, συγχράομαι means “to use together”, though sometimes it is employed in the more general sense of “to use.” The natural interpretation is: Jews do not use – scil. vessels – together with Samaritans.’Footnote 30 Third, he pointed out that there is almost no ancient evidence that συγχράομαι meant ‘have relations with’. The passages presented as evidence for the meaning ‘have relations with’ in LSJ and M-M were not very good evidence, according to Daube (a conclusion that I agreed with above). Instead, he proposed a few ancient passages (examined below) as evidence for the meaning ‘jointly use’.
Although Daube did not mention it, Augustine’s comments on John 4.9 also provide some roundabout support for the meaning ‘share vessels with’. Augustine, of course, was not commenting on the Greek text, but on the Latin. Augustine explained the phrase ‘Jews do not coutuntur with Samaritans’, as ‘You see that they were aliens; indeed, Jews would not use (utebantur) their vessels.’ Augustine specifically supplies the word ‘vessels’ (vasculis) and uses the unprefixed utor in place of coutor. However, all this provides is evidence for how a Latin speaker might read the otherwise unknown calque coutor, not how a Greek speaker would read συγχράομαι.
2.2 Problems with the newer view
Daube’s first reason for favouring the translation ‘use vessels with’ is quite unpersuasive. While many Johannine scholars believe that this scene is illuminated by understanding the purity issues involved in sharing a vessel with a Samaritan woman, those purity issues do not provide evidence that the word συγχράομαι must mean ‘share [vessels] with’. The traditional translation ‘associate with’ would also fit the proposed purity/impurity context.
Further, it is not entirely clear that the author intends readers to pay attention to possible purity implications in this scene. He chooses not to point out purity or impurity overtly as he does in other scenes (John 2.6, 3.25). He emphasises instead other factors separating Jews from Samaritans, such as their place of worship and their understanding of God (John 4.20–2). This is in keeping with other Second Temple authors, who describe the Samaritans not as unclean, but as foolish (Sir 50.25–6; T. Levi 7.2) and apostate (Jos. Ant. 11.340), as well as monotheistic and law-keeping (Jos. Ant. 9.290).
Although it is common to assert that first-century Jews would regard Samaritan women as inherently unclean, the evidence for this is not strong. Later rabbinic tradition asserts that Samaritan women ‘are considered menstruants from the cradle’ (m. Nidd. 4.1); however, it is unclear if that late rabbinic opinion reflects first-century views. Daube thought that the statement dated to 66 or 67 ce, relying on a claim in the Talmud that it was one of a set of decrees issued before the fall of Jerusalem (m. Shab. 1.4).Footnote 31 Christine Hayes has argued that while parts of Niddah may date to the late first century, the section describing the ritual impurity of Gentile and Samaritan women is a late insertion dating to the fourth century; the original text only contained a ban on intermarriage.Footnote 32 On the other hand, even if there was no specific declaration that Samaritan women were unclean, the water vessel may have been regarded as unclean by some first-century Jews. As is often the case, however, evidence for such practices is only found in later rabbinic literature.Footnote 33 Jesus’ offer of ‘living water’ (ὕδωρ ζῶν, John 4.10–11) could be taken as a reference to the flowing water (ὕδωρ ζῶν) required for some purification rituals (LXX Lev 14.5–6, 51–2, Num 19.17), but it may have instead been intended to recall the spring of flowing water (φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος) that Hagar saw (Gen 21.10), or the eschatological ‘living water’ from the Temple (Zech 14.8; Ezek 47.9; cf. John 7.38). In any case, whether purity is taken as an important aspect of the scene or not, it does not provide evidence that συγχράομαι means ‘share vessels with’.
Daube’s second piece of evidence was that the σύν- prefix led naturally to the conclusion that συγχράομαι meant ‘use something together with’ someone else. The problem with this argument should be obvious immediately: etymology, especially an unverified etymology, is an unreliable guide to the meaning of a word. The σύν- prefix on any word does not necessarily mean what Daube claims it means. It turns out that there are essentially three ways that a σύν- prefix functions on a verb.
Some σύν-prefixed verbs work exactly as Daube suggests. They use a dative object as essentially a co-ordinate subject. That is, the dative object is the person with whom the subject carries out the action. For example, Elizabeth’s neighbours συνέχαιρον αὐτῇ, ‘were rejoicing with her’ (Luke 1.58). That is, the subject οἱ περίοικοι (neighbours) and the dative object αὐτῇ are both rejoicing about something else. Σύν-prefixed verbs that use the dative in this way always work this way. That is, συγχαίρω always uses its dative object (if it has one) as a co-ordinate subject of the verb (Luke 15.6, 9; Phil 2.17–18; Gen 21.6 LXX; Arist. Nic. 9.4.8). Συγχαίρω, and other verbs like it, never uses the dative as an actual object. This category of verbs, in its unprefixed form, usually takes an accusative object or is intransitive.Footnote 34 For example, χαίρω takes an accusative object.
Other σύν-prefixed verbs work differently, always using a dative object as an actual direct object. With few exceptions, these verbs in their unprefixed form also take the dative. For example, when Jesus told his disciples to get a donkey, they did καθὼς συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ‘as Jesus directed them’ (Matt 21.6). Jesus, the subject, did not direct with them as if they were co-ordinate subjects; rather, Jesus directed them, the direct object. Συντάσσω always takes the dative as its object, not as a co-ordinate subject (Matt 26.19, 27.10; Gen 18.19; Exod 1.17; Plut. Thes. 20.6.2). Συντάσσω, like the unprefixed τάσσω, takes the dative as its object (Matt 28.19; Acts 22.10).Footnote 35 For verbs like this, the σύν- prefix never refers to a co-ordinate subject.Footnote 36 Verbs in this category may be virtually synonymous with their unprefixed form (συντάσσω, συγκοινωνέω) or in some cases may be quite distinct in meaning (συμβαίνω, συμφέρω).
Συγχράομαι unquestionably belongs to this second category. In all ancient occurrences (with the possible exception of the difficult Pseudo-Callisthenes passage), the dative object of συγχράομαι is an actual object, never a co-ordinate subject. The unprefixed χράομαι takes the dative as its object, so the prefixed συγχράομαι also takes the dative. This objection to Daube’s proposal was raised in a short article by David Hall in 1971, an article which seems to have been overlooked by many later commentaries that favour Daube’s translation.Footnote 37
A third category of σύν-prefixed verbs never uses the dative as either object or co-ordinate subject, but only uses accusative objects. In most cases, such as συνάγω, there are multiple objects or group objects that explain the function of the σύν- prefix, but not necessarily any joint subjects.Footnote 38 In other cases where the object is always accusative, the prefix seems to provide an intensifying force to the verb, and there is no sense of joint subjects or joint objects of the verb.Footnote 39 This category is not relevant for John 4.9, since the object of συγχράομαι is in the dative (Σαμαρίταις).
Daube’s final piece of evidence is that the actual usage of συγχράομαι in ancient texts did not support the meaning ‘associate with’. We should note, of course, that this is not evidence for Daube’s interpretation, but is reason to doubt the traditional interpretation. However, Daube is correct that the evidence for the traditional view is meagre or lacking. But he also proposes a few passages as evidence for the meaning ‘use things in common with’. Two of those have been dealt with above (Diog. Oen. 64, Periplus 31.3), but three more have been proposed by Daube or others.
1. BrillDAG cites Apollonius Dyscolus, Syntax 114.5, 1490.4,Footnote 40 and Galen, 18(2).655, as examples of the meaning ‘to use at the same time’. However, συγχράομαι is used in these examples to refer to the use (not joint use) of a word or grammatical feature. For example, in Dyscolus Syn. 114.5, τοῖς ὀνόμασι συγχρῆσθαι means ‘to use nouns’. This is a standard use of συγχράομαι by Dyscolus and some other ancient grammarians.Footnote 41 Galen uses συγχράομαι in the same way: ‘Hippocrates makes use of (συγκεχρῆσθαι) the word “perception” as if it means “knowledge.”’ (Gal. 18(2).655).Footnote 42
2. LSJ cites Polybius, Histories 1.20.14 as evidence for the meaning ‘borrow jointly’. This could be taken as evidence for the ‘joint use’ meaning proposed by Daube. It is correct that on the two occasions when συγχράομαι takes the accusative, it seems to mean ‘borrow’ or ‘rent’ rather than ‘use’. But in the cited passage from Polybius, the Romans alone ‘borrowed (συγχρησάμενοι) fifty-oared boats and triremes’. Similarly, in a papyrus epistle, ‘we have borrowed five riding donkeys’ (p. Grenf. 2.14 (b)). There is no necessary sense of ‘jointly borrowing’ in either of these rare uses, and it was not translated as such in the Loeb volumes.Footnote 43 And of course, the object in John 4.9 is in the dative, not the accusative.
So Daube, BDAG and LSJ offer five incorrect examples to support the meaning ‘jointly use’. BDAG, BrillDAG and M-M offer four incorrect examples to support the meaning ‘associate with’ and one ambiguous example.
2.3 Evidence for a third view (συγχράομαι = ‘get help from’)Footnote 44
But are there examples that the lexica and commentaries have overlooked? One of the tools that was not available to previous generations of scholars is the searchable database. A search for συγχράομαι in Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) and Papyri.info, up through the fifth century AD, results in several important conclusions. First, there are no clear examples in the approximately 300 occurrences of συγχράομαι, aside from the difficult passage in Pseudo-Callisthenes, where συγχράομαι should be translated ‘associate with’ or ‘use something with someone else’. Standard translations such as Loeb never render συγχράομαι with either of those meanings. Second, there are no examples where a dative object of συγχράομαι functions as a co-ordinate subject in the way suggested by Daube. Whenever συγχράομαι has a dative, it functions as an actual object. Third, there is a consistent meaning for συγχράομαι when the object of συγχράομαι is a person, and that is ‘to rely upon’ or ‘get help from’ or similar. Note the following examples, each with the Loeb translation:
‘We will have the support of (συγχρησόμεθα) [the statues of] the Victories for the war’ (Ps-Dem. Elec. 3.281).
‘a guard of 2000 men, which Aristion used (συγχρώμενος) to make himself tyrant’ (App. Mith. 109).
‘I collaborated (συνεχρώμην) with my brother’s forces in order to destroy all of you’ (App. Civ. 5.226).
‘being aided (συγχρώμενοι) in these outrages by the Cephallenian fleet’ (Polyb. Hist. 4.6.2).
‘The Romans…were desirous of employing (συγχρῆσθαι) also the forces of their Celtic allies’
(Polyb. Hist. 2.32.8; see also 1.8.1, 5.39.5, 11.20.7, 18.15.2).
‘but each of you should be supported (συνχρῆσθαι) by the other’ (Diog. Oen. Frag. 126, my translation).
In each case, the subject of συγχράομαι is helped by the dative object, and the objects are all persons or function as persons. Note the Loeb translations: ‘have the support of’, ‘used’, ‘collaborated’, ‘employing’ and ‘being aided’. With at least ten examples of this usage of συγχράομαι, it is clear that it has adequate attestation, unlike the other proposed translations.
The translation ‘get help from’ also fits the context of John 4.9. Jesus’ request to the woman, ‘give me a drink,’ is a request for assistance, and thus she is surprised: Jews do not get help from Samaritans. Interestingly, one of Josephus’ main complaints against the Samaritans was precisely that they would not help Jews when needed:
The Samaritans… when they see the Jews prospering, call them their kinsmen, on the ground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to them through their origin from him, but, when they see the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing whatever in common with them nor do these have any claim of friendship or race, and they declare themselves to be aliens of another race (Jos. Ant. 9.290-291).
While Josephus did not use συγχράομαι here, his point is the lack of help from Samaritans.
2.4 Problems with the third view (συγχράομαι = ‘get help from’)
There are a few weaknesses with this proposed translation. Although the meaning ‘get help from’ has plenty of ancient support, it does not seem to be mentioned in subsequent biblical scholarship. No ancient or modern translation uses ‘get help from’ or anything similar in John 4.9. The traditional view, in contrast, has one Old Latin translation in support, as well as the implicit endorsement of one Greek Father, Chrysostom.
One might also object that the proposed meaning ‘get help from’ is nearly always in military or political contexts, and that sense does not fit in John 4.9. However, the use in Diogenes Oenoander seems to be about monetary help, not military help.
The evidence for the traditional view and the evidence for this third view mirror each other in certain respects. The traditional translation, ‘associate with’, has little support from any earlier Greek literature but has adequate later support in one Latin translation, later commentaries, and nearly all later English and European translations. The translation ‘get help from’ has more than adequate support from earlier Greek usage but is unattested in later translations and commentaries.
Why did the idea of ‘associate with’ become the only way that this word was translated or explained in subsequent centuries? It does not seem likely that one Old Latin translation would have had much influence after the Vulgate became the dominant Latin translation, and the Vulgate’s singular calque translation coutuntur did not necessarily lend itself to this interpretation. It is possible that Chrysostom’s interpretation was influential enough to shape future interpretation; one can also imagine that readers in the fifth century and later had less exposure to older Greek literature that might have led them to other possible understandings of συγχράομαι.
2.5 Proposed changes to the entry for συγχράομαι in the lexica
In light of the multiple errors found in major lexica for this word, as well as overlooked meanings in some lexica, it seems necessary to suggest an alternate lexical entry for συγχράομαι.
1. To use impersonal things (tools, weapons, faculties). Συγχράομαι often describes the use of things, much like χράομαι. For example, it describes the use of tax money (BGU 4 1192), power (Philo Abr. 216), personal rights (Polyb. Hist 18.51.7), weapons (Philoch. Frag. 583.2), a well (p. Mich. 18.788), animal instincts (Diog. Laert. Zeno 86), good fortune (Ep. Arist. 12.6.5), divination signs (Ptol. Tetr. 1.22), medical procedures (Gal. 13.716.11) or one’s stewardship (Clem. Paed. 1.1.3.3.7).Footnote 45
2. To use words, grammatical figures, arguments or methods. Grammarians, philosophers, doctors and mathematicians use συγχράομαι to describe the use of words (Galen 18(2).655, Meth. 6.1; Longinus Subl. 1.40.2; Polyb. Hist. 6.3.10, 36.12.3; Athen. Deip. 11.477c), grammatical forms (Dysc. Synt. 1.4.16, 2.131.5, 3.332.8), logical propositions (Epict. Disc. 2.19.1) or historical evidence (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.3).
3. To engage in or display virtues, vices or practices. Συγχράομαι occasionally describes ‘making use of’ in the sense of engaging in or acting on a virtue or vice or other abstract quality. One can engage in a lie (Did. de Phil. Sect. 83.2.28), display strength (Ep. Arist. 92.7), display arrogance (BGU 4 1187), place reliance (Polyb. Hist. 2.39.5) or engage in trade (Perip. Mar. Eryth. 21.7, 31.3).
4. To use persons as aids or allies. συγχράομαι with a dative personal object usually means ‘to get the support of’, ‘to be aided by’, ‘to employ’ or similar, often in political or military contexts (App. Civ. 5.226; App. Mith. 109; Ps-Dem. Elec. 3.281; Diog. Frag. 126; Polyb. Hist. 4.6.2, 18.15.2).
5. To define one thing as another or to use one thing as another (with double dative). People use a herb juice as a drink (Diod. Sic. Bib. Hist. 3.32.3), use a river as a military ally (Polyb. Hist. 3.14.5), use geographical features as landmarks (Polyb Hist. 5.21.8) or use infantry terminology for chariot formations (Asclep. Tact. 8.1.10).Footnote 46
6. Possibly to associate with. Chrysostom, Hom. in Ioh. 31.4., commenting on John 4.9. Cp. the use of χράομαι in Xen. Mem. 4.8.11, Prov 5.5 LXX.
7. Possibly to borrow or rent (with accusative). This meaning is weakly attested, but the two uses of συγχράομαι with an accusative object seem to refer to borrowing or renting rather than just using; warships (Polyb. Hist. 1.20.14) and donkeys (p. Grenff 3.14(b)).Footnote 47
3. Conclusion
In light of the evidence for the usage of συγχράομαι from other Greek literature, it is likely that ‘get help from’ is the meaning in John 4.9, since that is the normal meaning when the object of συγχράομαι is a person. The traditional translation, ‘associate with’, while having no clear examples in antiquity, has some support in the meaning of the unprefixed χράομαι, one Old Latin translation and in Chrysostom’s explanation of John 4.9. The newer interpretation proposed by Daube, ‘share vessels with’, seems impossible; not only is there no clear example of this use in Greek literature, but συγχράομαι never uses the dative in the manner required for this interpretation. Major Bible translations should avoid the translation ‘use vessels with’ in future updates. The traditional translation ‘associate with’ or the proposed translation ‘get help from’ should be in the main text, with the other in a translation note.
This study suggests two broader implications for New Testament scholarship. First, although purity issues should certainly be considered in some passages in the New Testament, it is not clear that impurity is in view in this encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4. Evaluation of possible purity issues in the passage should not invoke the use of συγχράομαι as evidence, since the word was not used to refer to ‘sharing vessels’. The author himself seems to focus on other matters besides purity, such as the Samaritan view of God and the Samaritan temple.
Second, the availability of searchable databases of Greek literature should lead New Testament scholars to check the conclusions of lexica, especially those based on examples from secular Greek literature. Although we have a wealth of modern lexica, usually with very reliable ancient references, there are sometimes errors. In the case of συγχράομαι, mistaken citations from eighteenth-century lexica were reproduced through generations of lexica up until modern editions, such as LSJ, BDAG and BrillDAG. In other cases, examples of usage were added in new lexica, but they disagree with authoritative translations such as Loeb Classical Library. Such lexical research in ancient Greek literature is especially important for words that occur rarely in the New Testament or LXX, like συγχράομαι.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
