[B-Greek] Jn 17:3 Gk syntax
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jan 13 11:51:06 EST 2007
On Jan 13, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> My comments introduced by IL:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oun Kwon" <kwonbbl at gmail.com>
>
>
> Jn 17:3
> hAUTH DE ESTIN hH AIWNIOS ZWH
> hINA GINWSKWOSIN SE TON MONON ALHQINON QEON KAI hON APESTEILAS
> IHSOUN CRISTON
>
> Similar syntax is seen in
>
> 3:19 hAUTH DE ESTIN hH KRISIS
> hOTI TO FWS ELHLUQEN EIS TON KOSMON ...
>
> 15:12 hAUTH ESTIN hH ENTOLH hH EMH
> hINA AGAPATE ALLHLOUS KAQWS HGAPHSA hUMAS ...
>
> These last two uses hAUTH to introduce an explanation in the following
> hINA or hOTI clause.
>
> IL: This construction is one of John's favourites where hOUTOS is
> used kataphorically to refer to
> and anticipate a following clause or sentence. The purpose is to
> highlight the content of that
> sentence, and it is normally introduced by hINA, but at least once
> by hOTI ("that").
>
> Let me add three more:
>
> 6:29 TOUTO ESTIN TO ERGON TOU QEOU hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON
> APESTEILEN EKEINOS
>
> 6:39 TOUTO DE ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PEMYANTOS ME hINA PAN hO DEDWKEN MOI
> MH APOLESW EX AUTOU, ALLA ANASTHSW AUTO...
>
> 6:40 TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PATROS MOU hINA PAS hO QEWRWN
> TON hUION
> KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN ZWHN AIWNION...
>
> Notice how they all have the same structure: (a form of) hOUTOS -
> ESTIN - noun phrase in
> nominative - sentence.
>
> OK:
> However, in the case of 17:3, if it is understood in the same way (as
> most translations do), eternal life = knowing, it is difficult to
> conceive 'life' = 'knowledge' conceptually.
> Is it possible to take hINA for purpose ('in order to') and hAUTH to
> refer to the eternal life which was mentioned in the preceding verse?
>
> IL: No, that is highly unlikely. The meaning of ESTIN is not just
> identification, but a connection
> which might be translated as X means Y, X constitutes Y, X entails
> Y, X is described by Y, or X is
> accomplished/obtained by doing Y.
> The focus is on the whole sentence, and that focus is indicated by
> fronting hOUTOS as a kind of
> dummy or place-holder for the sentence in focus.
>
> Let me compare with one similar, but different construction:
>
> 6:50 hOUTOS ESTIN hO ARTOS hO EK TOU OURANOU KATABAINWN
> hINA TIS EX AUTOU FAGHi KAI MH APOQANHi
>
> Here we have a participle in the first clause, and the hOUTOS is
> not kataphoric, but rather deictic.
> Jesus is referring to himself as "this one standing here". There is
> a contrast between the
> bread/manna that came down from heaven in the desert and the new
> "bread" which also came down from
> heaven. NIV translates "here is the bread". The hINA indicates
> result as it is often does,
> especially in John's writings. This "bread" has now come down from
> heaven, so that anyone may eat of
> it and not die.
>
> Finally, the construction in John 15:17 has intrigued me, and I am
> not convinced that the standard
> translation is correct:
>
> 15:17 TAUTA ENTELLOMAI hUMIN hINA AGAPATE ALLHLOUS
>
> RSV translates: "This I command you, to love one another."
> NIV translates: "This is my command: Love each other."
> KJV is more literal and more ambiguous: "These things I command
> you, that ye love one another."
>
> TAUTA in plural always in John refers back to what has been said in
> the previous context, and it is
> quite different from the kataphoric usages above of the singular
> hOUTOS. So, I am wondering whether
> the hINA here is actually purpose: I am commanding you these
> aforementioned things so that you love
> one another. He already said in 15:12 (quoted above) that the
> command was to love one another. It is
> possible that he repeats the same thing in v. 17, but may it not be
> possible that he makes a twist
> and says that the purpose for his various commands is that they
> love one another? In other words,
> mutual love is the goal of his commands.
>
> The first clause is probably reminiscent of what he said a few
> verses earlier in
> 15:14: (hUMEIS FILOI MOU ESTE EAN POIHTE) hA EGW ENTELLOMAI hUMIN.
>
> There are similar constructions with TAUTA and hINA, e.g.
> 5:34 ALLA TAUTA LEGW hINA hUMEIS SWQHTE
> 15:11 TAUTA LELALHKA hUMIN hINA hH CARA hH EMH EN hUMIN Hi
> 16:1 TAUTA LELALHKA hUMIN hINA MH SKANDALISQHTE
> 16:4 ALLA TAUTA LELALHKA hUMIN hINA ... MNHMONEUHTE...
> 16:33 TAUTA LELALHKA hUMIN hINA EN EMOI EIRHNHN ECHTE
> 17:13 KAI TAUTA LALW EN TWi KOSMWi hINA ECWSIN THN CARAN THN EMHN
>
> The construction is not found in the other gospels or Acts, but
> Paul uses it a few times. The
> closest is:
> 1 Tim 5:7 KAI TAUTA PARAGELLE hINA ANEPIPLHMTOI WSIN
>
> There are 60 instances of hAUTA in John's Gospel apart from 15:17,
> and all of them are anaphoric,
> referring back to the previous context. That is one reason I think
> it unlikely that hAUTA in this
> particular sentence should be kataphoric. Furthermore, in all such
> constructions with hAUTA and hINA
> in both John and Paul, hAUTA is always anaphoric (I found 17 of
> them, 5 in Paul's letters, 9 in
> John's Gospel, and 3 in 1 John).
Iver, there's some confusion here: twice in this last paragraph you
refer to hAUTA, but there is no hAUTA in Koine Greek: you must mean
either TAUTA or hAUTH. Are you saying then that you don't think TAUTA
in John 15:17 is kataphoric? i.e. it MUST be anaphoric? I would
sooner question the proposition, "TAUTA in plural always in John
refers back to what has been said in the previous context" -- even if
in MOST cases it can be shown to be so.
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