[B-Greek] Accusative in John 2:11

Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Wed Aug 6 19:57:49 EDT 2003


I might be just out of my mind. I was thinking that SHMEION was f. (SHMEIA).
That is where my error lies. OK - I conceed. ;-)

Jason

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "Jason Hare" <jason at hareplay.com>
Cc: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>; "B-Greek"
<B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Accusative in John 2:11


> At 5:28 PM -0500 8/6/03, Jason Hare wrote:
> >Carl,
> >
> >If I understand you correctly, TAUTHN is feminine because of analogy with
> >THN ARCHN. What if it is supposed to be referring to SHMEIA? If that were
> >the case, would not THN ARCHN be appositive to TAUTHN?
> >
> >In other words: "He did this in Cana of Galilee, the first of [his]
signs."
> >What do you think? Is it not possible that the antecedent of TAUTHN is
> >indeed SHMEIA (from SHMEIWN)??
>
> No, not by analogy but because it agrees directly with it, as any
adjective
> qualifying a noun agrees with it in number, gender, and case. And in any
> case, I don't really see how SHMEIWN, which is a genitive n. pl dependent
> upon a noun which can only be ARCHN, could conceivably be an antecedent of
> a feminine accusative singular demonstrative adjective. Are you suppose
> that what we have is an alternative formulation of something like TOUTO TO
> SHMEION EPOIHSE THN ARCHN TWN SHMEIWN? In that case THN ARCHN might be
> considered appositive to TOUTO SHMEION, but that's very different from the
> formulation we're presented with in the text in question.
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
> >To: "Rob Matlack" <united_by_truth at myrealbox.com>
> >Cc: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 11:27 AM
> >Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Accusative in John 2:11
> >
> >
> >> At 9:34 AM -0500 8/6/03, Rob Matlack wrote:
> >> >TAUTHN EPOIHSE THN ARCHN TWN SHMEIWN hO IHSOUS EN KANA THS GALILAIAS
> >> >I have two questions concerning this first clause of 2:11. First, the
NET
> >> >Bible note
> >> >reads: "Jesus did this as the first of his miraculous signs. The
sentence
> >> >in Greek
> >> >involves an object-complement construction. The force can be either
> >'Jesus
> >> >did this
> >> >as,' or possibly 'Jesus made this to be,' The latter translation
accents
> >> >not only
> >> >Jesus' power but his sovereignty too. Cf. also 4:54." I can see how
this
> >> >could be
> >> >construed as and object-compliment construction, but could it not also
be
> >> >a simple
> >> >appositive, so the NIV and ESV.
> >> >
> >> >Second, some manuscripts omit the THN before ARCHN. Is there any
> >significant
> >> >difference in meaning? Does the presence of the article lend itself
more
> >> >to the simple
> >> >accusative understanding?
> >>
> >> I think you are raising more a question of the grammar of English
> >> translation than of understanding the Greek text: TAUTHN THN ARCHN is a
> >> unit and functions as the object of EPOIHSE--if that weren't so the
TAUTHN
> >> wouldn't be feminine. The reading TAUTHN ARCHN without the article is
> >> intelligible but violates standard Greek grammar which calls for a
> >> demonstrative such as hOUTOS always to be in a predicative position,
which
> >> in turn means that the article must appear with the noun. The Greek
text
> >> says, "performed this beginning of (his) miracles" although you could
as
> >> well translate TAUTHN THN ARCHN as "this first one."
> --
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list