John 20:31 was Re: [B-Greek] Phil 2:11

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Oct 16 10:50:27 EDT 2003


At 9:57 AM -0400 10/16/03, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
>At 12:53 PM 10/15/03 -0400, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>I would still hold that in the noun clause which functions as the
>>object of PISTEUSHTE:
>>
>>	hOTI IHSOUS ESTIN hO CRISTOS, hO hUIOS TOU QEOU
>>
>>the grammatical subject is hO CRISTOS with its appositive, hO hUIOS TOU
>>QEOU, and that IHSOUS is NOT the subject, but the predicate. At any rate, I
>>don't really think that the arthrous hO IHSOUS of verse 30 indicates that
>>IHSOUS must be the subject of verse 31.
>>
>>The effect of this word-order, thus understood, in English might be
>>something like this:
>>
>>	"that it is Jesus, the one who is the Messiah, the Son of God"
>
>Thank you very much for this explanation.  In your Englishing of it,
>however, did you intend for "the one who is the Messiah, the Son of
>God" to be in apposition of the subject "it" rather than Jesus?

No, I realized soon after I dispatched that message that the phrasing was
wrong; it should be, "... that it is Jesus who is the one who who is the
Messiah, the Son of God." Clearer English would be, "... that the one who
is the Messiah, the Son of God, is Jesus." I continue to maintain with you
the notion that IHSOUS is in fact the predicate word and is emphasized here
as being such.

>>It is hardly a surprise that translators in English would reverse the terms
>>of the equation to produce more idiomatic English phrasing, particularly
>>inasmuch as an equative clause such as this affirms the identity of the
>>nominal elements on both sides of ESTIN. This is ultimately a quibble of
>>sytactic structure, since there is not really any semantic difference
>>between "Jesus is the Messiah" and "the Messiah is Jesus."
>
>You're right: there isn't much, if any, semantic difference between "Jesus
>is the Messiah" and "the Messiah is Jesus" since the two are being equated.
>Even so, I would suggest that is there is a slight difference in emphasis,
>and, given that this clause occurs in a statement that many, but not all,
>argue sets forth the purpose for writing the Gospel, this difference can
>illuminate which part of the equation the Evangelist intended most to
>clarify.  To say more would be to go beyond the perimeters of B-Greek, but
>I am pleased to learn that at least the grammatical part of Jackson's argument
>is not completely off base.
>
>>It will probably
>>not be a matter of consensus, either. I am reminded of Joshua Whatmough's
>>comment regarding the Accusative Absolute: "There are those who say that
>>this should really be called the Nominative Absolute, but since the subject
>>in it is a neuter substantive and the predicate is a neuter participle,
>>there's no way to determine whether it is Nominative or Accusative."

Well, Stephen, I'm glad to be with you in particular on this little
quibble, for all our numerous opponents on the question.
-- 

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