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

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 15 09:05:15 EST 2007


On Jan 14, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>>>
>>> John 15:17 says: TAUTA ENTELLOMAI hUMIN hINA AGAPATE ALLHLOUS
>
>> 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.).
>
> Of these four verbs, John only uses the first one.

It was hardly an exhaustive list, as I meant to indicate with the  
KTL. (= "etc."). There's ERWTAW in John 4:47 and 17:15 (2x) and  
19:31; ENTOLAS is followed by an epexegetic hINA clause in John  
11:57; in 13:34 a hINA clause follows ENTOLHN; similar is 15:12 hAUTH  
ESTIN hH ENTOLH hH EMH, hINA AGAPATE ALLHLOUS KAQWS HGAPHSA hUMAS. in  
1 John 3:11 hOTI hAUTH ESTIN hH AGGELIA hHN HKOUSATE AP' ARCHS, hINA  
AGAPWMEN ALLHLOUS. Similar are:

1John 3:23 KAI hAUTH ESTIN hH ETOLH AUTOU, hINA PISTEUWMEN TWi  
ONOMATI TOU hUIOU AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU KAI AGAPWMEN ALLHLOUS, KAQWS  
EDWKEN ENTOLHN hHMIN.

1John 4:21 KAI TAUTHN THN ENTOLHN ECOMEN AP' AUTOU, hINA hO AGAPWN  
TON QEON AGAPAi KAI TON ADELFON AUTOU.

2John 5 KAI NUN ERWTW SE, OUC hWS ENTOLHN KAINHN GRAFWN SOI ALLA hHN  
EICOMEN AP' ARCHS, hINA AGAPWMEN ALLHLOUS.

It certainly appears that ENTELLOMAI and ENTOLH are preferred in the  
Johannine literature.


> I just noticed that BAGD suggests that a hINA clause is the  
> complement (object) of ENTELLOMAI in two
> places (out of 15) in the NT, namely Mrk 13:34 and John 15:17. Is  
> this changed in BDAG? The Mark
> passage is straightforward, but if we take the hINA clause as  
> object for the verb in John 15:17,
> TAUTA is left hanging, and that is what you are trying to address  
> below. John used ENTELLOMAI a few
> verses earlier:
> 15:14 hA EGW ENTELLOMAI hUMIN. The hA is quite parallel to TAUTA,  
> so it seems likely to me that
> TAUTA is the object for the verb as hA was the object. So, I would  
> disagree with BAGD for ENTELLOMAI
> in John 15:17.
>
>> 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.
>
> Is this a Classical Greek usage since you say it is "old adverbial"  
> or is it also found in
> Hellenistic Greek? I confess that I am not familiar with the  
> various text references in the quote
> from LSJ.

Homer (Iliad), Aristophanes, Xenophon, Aeschylus, Plato; yes, they  
are all 5th and 4th century authors, and not trifling ones. By "old  
adverbial usage" I meant that it's well-attested in earlier Greek  
literature.  I think it might be difficult to search this in  
Hellenistic authors in TLG, since TAUTA is so very common in so many  
different contexts -- it would require a very laborious effort of  
sorting out what's relevant from what isn't.

> Is it significant that the TAUTA examples here are combined with  
> discourse connectors like
> ARA, DH and OUN? The examples look somewhat different from what we  
> have here in John, and it seems
> unlikely that John would use such a special and unusual sense of  
> TAUTA. If John had wanted to say
> "that is why, therefore" is it likely that he would have used TAUTA  
> to express it? I would have
> expected either DIA TOUTO or OUN (a favourite of John's).

Worthwhile questions, but not so readily answered.

> Your suggestion is a third possibility that I had not considered  
> and it may just be correct as you
> say, but I still think it is unlikely when considering John's style  
> in this section and in general.

I'm not very comfortable with ANY of  the alternatives that have been  
suggested for TAUTA and the hINA clause in John 15:17. I don't really  
think that the TAUTA is anaphoric here but must concede that it  
generally is so; I don't like the plural TAUTA as kataphoric with the  
hINA clause, but I do think that the hINA clause surely must function  
as complementary to ENTELLOMAI. I find the notion that TAUTA here  
means "and that's why ... " very attractive, but I would concede the  
evidence for Hellenistic usage thus is not handy (on the other hand,  
it always disturbs me to see claims about what standard Hellenistic  
usage is that are based upon the GNT corpus only). It may well be  
that Webb's suggesting that this TAUTA is somehow BOTH anaphoric and  
kataphoric is a sensible one: "(All) that (which I've been telling  
you) is what I charge you with: to love one another." It does make a  
nice conclusion to the entire sequence of 15: 9-16.

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