[B-Greek] Kataphoric TAUTA (John 15:17)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jan 14 08:34:51 EST 2007


On Jan 14, 2007, at 4:04 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> So, to clarify, I am pretty sure that hAUTH in John 17:3 is  
> kataphoric, since it follows a fixed and
> common pattern in John. The singular demonstrative anticipates the  
> later sentence and agrees in case
> and gender with the nominal phrase.
>
> I suggest that TAUTA is probably anaphoric in 15:17, based on  
> normal usage of TAUTA. When I said
> that TAUTA always in John is anaphoric, I didn't say that without  
> first having checked all 61
> instances. If you can find me one that is not anaphoric, not  
> counting the disputed one in 15:17, I'd
> be grateful. Sometimes the "bearing up" is not to explicit words in  
> the preceding context, but to
> things already known to all parties involved in the conversation.
>
> Concerning the other parts of the NT, there are 239 TAUTA's in all.  
> I have now gone through them
> all, and 99% are anaphoric, but there are three special cases of  
> kataphoric usage:
>
> Mat 10:2 ... TA ONOMATA ESTIN TAUTA: PRWTOS SIMWN...
> Mrk 16:17: SHMEIA DE TOIS PISTEUSASIN TAUTA PARAKOLOUQHSEI:
>    EN TWi ONOMATI MOU DAIMONIA  
> EKBALOUSIN, ..LALOUSIN...AROUSIN...PIWSIN...EPIQHSOUSIN
> Luk 18:11 hO FARISAIOS ... TAUTA PROSHUCETO:
>    hO QEOS, EUCARISTW SOI hOTI..., NHSTEUW...APODEKATW...
>
> In all of these cases the use of plural TAUTA is justified, a list  
> of names or a list of
> actions. It is the singular form of hOUTOS that more often is used  
> kataphorically, especially by
> John, although the predominant usage is still anaphoric. (I don't  
> have the statistics, except a
> total of 591 instances of singular hOUTOS/hAUTH/TOUTO.)
>
> John 17:3 says: TAUTA ENTELLOMAI hUMIN hINA AGAPATE ALLHLOUS

Actually that's John 15:17.
>
> Here AGAPATE ALLHLOUS is not a list of several elements or several  
> actions. It is hEIS LOGOS. Notice
> also that in the very few cases where TAUTA is used kataphorically  
> there is no hINA (or hOTI) to
> introduce the list.

Iver, I don't question the accuracy of your research into usage of  
TAUTA and your conclusion that it is quite consistently anaphoric in  
almost all instances. Nor do I dispute your argument that AGAPATE  
ALLHLOUS is a single injunction, a single item of discourse. But it  
is also true that a substantival hINA clause of command following  
upon a verb of command (e.g. ENTELLOMAI, DIASTELLOMAI, EPITIMAW,  
PARAKALEW, KTL.).

BUT: it may just be that the TAUTA is not the direct object of  
ENTELLOMAI but adverbial in the sense "and so ... " See LSJ s.v.  
hOUTOS (http://tinyurl.com/y3vwzv):

             VIII. Adverbial usages:
                   1. TAUTA abs., therefore, that is why . . , Il. 
11.694; TAUT' ARA Ar.Ach.90 ,Nu. 319, 335, 394, al., X.Smp.4.55;  
TAUTA DH A.Pers.159 , Pl.Smp.174a; TAUT' OUN  S.Tr.550 , Ar.V.1358,  
etc.; AUTA TAUTA hHKW, hINA . . Pl.Prt. 310e: TOUTO is rare in this  
sense, TOUT' AFIKOMHN, hOPWS ... EU PRAXAIMI TI S. OT1005 ; AUTO GAR  
TOUTO just because of this, Pl.Smp.204a.

That just may be the answer to this otherwise anomalous TAUTA that  
seems to point forward to the command indicated in the hINA clause:  
it's not what it seems at all but rather an old adverbial usage: "And  
so I charge you to love one another" or "That's why I charge you to  
love one another." If that's correct, then it's an elliptical  
instance of anaphoric TAUTA after all.

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