[B-Greek] 1Jo 3:4,6 - hAMARTANW and POIEW + hAMARTIA
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Sep 29 14:39:30 EDT 2007
On Sep 29, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Matthew Burgoon wrote:
> I have a newby question about 1 John 3:4,6:
> PAS hO POIWN THN hARMARTIAN ...
> PAS hO EN AUTWi MENWN OUC hAMARTANEI ...
>
> The basic question is about the difference in sense between hAMARTANO
> and POIEW + hAMARTIA, but I actually wonder more about method - how
> would I go about answering the question for myself?
4 Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν
ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία
ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. 5 καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι
ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς
ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν
αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν. 6 πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ
μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ
ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν
οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν. 7 Τεκνία,
μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς· ὁ ποιῶν τὴν
δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς
ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν· 8 ὁ ποιῶν
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου
ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος
ἁμαρτάνει. εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη ὁ
υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα
τοῦ διαβόλου. 9 Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος
ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι
σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ
οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ
θεοῦ γεγέννηται. 10 ἐν τούτῳ
φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ
τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου· πᾶς ὁ μὴ
ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ
θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν
αὐτοῦ.
4 PAS hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN KAI THN ANOMIAN POIEI, KAI hH hAMARTIA
ESTIN hH ANOMIA. 5 KAI OIDATE hOTI EKEINOS EFANERWQH, hINA TAS
hAMARTIAS ARHi, KAI hAMARTIA EN AUTWi OUK ESTIN. 6 PAS hO EN AUTWi
MENWN OUC hAMARTANEI: PAS hO hAMARTANWN OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDE
EGNWKEN AUTON. 7 TEKNIA, MHDEIS PLANATW hUMAS: hO POIWN THN
DIKAIOSUNHN DIKAIOS ESTIN, KAQWS EKEINOS DIKAIOS ESTIN: 8 hO POIWN
THN hAMARTIAN EK TOU DIABOLOU ESTIN, hOTI AP' ARCHS hO DIABOLOS
hAMARTANEI. EIS TOUTO EFANERWQH hO hUIOS TOU QEOU, hINA LUSHi TA ERGA
TOU DIABOLOU. 9 PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI,
hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN, hOTI EK
TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI. 10 EN TOUTWi FANERA ESTIN TA TEKNA TOU QEOU KAI
TA TEKNA TOU DIABOLOU: PAS hO MH POIWN DIKAIOSUNHN OUK ESTIN EK TOU
QEOU, KAI hO MH AGAPWN TON ADELFON AUTOU.
Martin Culy (Handbook Jn Epistles) suggests that there is no
difference in meaning between hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN v.4 and hO
hAMARTANWN v.6. He notes that the verb form of ANOMIA isn't found in
the NT. To make the rhetoric elegant and simple John used the
paraphrastic O POIWN THN hAMARTIAN.
My first inclination was to be sceptical about Culy's explanation.
The LXX uses ANOMEW 34 times LEH and cognate noun and adjective
combined 334 times. Even if the LXX favored the noun/adj over the
verb, it does not follow that ANOMEW was unknown to John or the other
NT authors. If we are looking for a strictly semantic (not
rhetorical) justification for the periphrastic construction hO POIWN
THN DIKAIOSUNHN is certainly not the equivalent of hO DIKAIWN.
In summary there are probably both semantic and rhetorical forces at
work here.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list