[B-Greek] hO ESTIN? (1 Jn 2:8)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Feb 10 09:46:23 EST 2007


On Feb 10, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:

> Iver wrote:
>
>>> The translation by Culy makes no sense to me,
>> because it focuses on
>>> the grammar, where the sense
>>> needs to be derived from pragmatics and context.
>> The hO - which -
>>> of hO ESTIN sets the reader up to
>>> think "What does this concept mean? or "How does
>> it apply?"
>
> Dr. Conrad wrote:
>
>> I wasn't really so much approving and promoting
>> Culy's interpretation
>> as trying to state what it is. On the other hand, if
>> we really do
>> suppose that the neuter relative pronoun hO has hH
>> ENTOLH as its real
>> antecedent, then it's an additional item pointing
>> toward a
>> questionable level of competence in Greek on the
>> part of the author
>> of 1 John. I have thought for some times that there
>> are parts of 1
>> John that really don't fit together very well
>> syntactically -- at
>> least in terms of "standard" syntactic patterns, and
>> this is one of
>> them.
>
>
> Why is hO not the 'conceptual antecedent' I have read
> about in other contexts? Isn't this 'standard' enough
> Greek (as in Eph 2.8 KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN)?

Not hO but rather the preceding clause is the "conceptual antecedent"  
according to Culy's argument. If, on the other hand, I understand  
what Iver is arguing (and I'm by no means confident that I do), it's  
not grammar but intuition that tells us that ENTOLHN KAINHN in the  
preceding clause must be the antecedent of the neuter relative  
pronoun hO.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/





More information about the B-Greek mailing list