[B-Greek] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN
James Ernest
j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Tue Jul 22 22:57:16 EDT 2008
I don't have a critical edition of the Parmenides here. I see that the text
in TLG differs from what you quote:
ἀντιλέγει δὴ οὖν
τοῦτο τὸ γράμμα πρὸς τοὺς τὰ πολλὰ λέγοντας, καὶ ἀντ-
αποδίδωσι ταὐτὰ καὶ πλείω, τοῦτο βουλόμενον δηλοῦν, ὡς
ἔτι γελοιότερα πάσχοι ἂν αὐτῶν ἡ ὑπόθεσις, εἰ πολλά
ἐστιν, ἢ ἡ τοῦ ἓν εἶναι, εἴ τις ἱκανῶς ἐπεξίοι.
ANTILEGEI DH OUN
TOUTO TO GRAMMA PROS TOUS TA POLLA LEGONTAS, KAI ANT-
APODIDWSI TAUTA KAI PLEIW, TOUTO BOULOMENON DHLOUN, HWS
ETI GELOIOTERA PASCHOI AN AUTWN hH hYPOTHESIS, EI POLLA
ESTIN, H hH TOU hEN EINAI, EI TIS EPEXIOI.
Without the hH before EI POLLA ESTIN, EI POLLA ESTIN is not substantivized,
it's just a conditional clause.
If the hH stands in the text (as in the form you quoted), it seems to that
the clause is attributivized (is that a word?) rather than substantivized:
"their hypothesis, namely, the if-there-are-many hypothesis, is more
laughable than the [hypothesis] of there being one. . . ." So no special and
unexpected use of the feminine article here--just the normal
article-noun-article-attributive pattern. Don't know why Plato wouldn't have
written hH TOU POLLA EINAI rather than hH EI POLLA ESTIN, but I'm far from
being an expert on Plato's prose style. Maybe it's just more vivid or
lively.
Does Cooper have another example?
Anyway, in John 10:29, I don't understand how DEDWKEN MOI could be
understood as substantivized ("the 'he gave me'"?) and in apposition to hO
PATHR. Seems to me P66 and Byz are right with hOS and MEIZWN: it's the
Father who has given to the Son and the Father who is greater than all
(i.e., greater than those who would snatch the sheep away from
Jesus)--admittedly lectio facilior, but I always found unswerving adherence
to lectio difficilio to be based on an astonishingly implausible premise,
namely, that scribes never just goofed--all their mistakes, without
exception, somehow managed to be intelligent improvements! Certainly doesn't
work out that way with *my* mistakes.
James Ernest
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Elizabeth Kline <
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:
> This is a syntax question, not a question about which reading is
> original. Metzger and Westcott both state that the reading found in
> Codex Sinaiticus*[c] and a few other manuscripts is impossible greek.
> G.Cooper (1:50.6.9) states "An article with ... a substantivized
> sentence is usually neuter. However, in Plato ... [a] sentence is
> sometimes used with an article of the gender of the substantive to
> which ... the sentence stands in apposition. Example:
>
> Pl.Prm.128d hH hUPOQESIS, hH EI POLLA ESTIN, H hH TOU EN EINAI
>
> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]
> JOHN 10:29 hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN, (hH ante
> EI om.BT)
>
> What if we were to read hO as an article, which makes the clause
> DEDWKEN MOI a substantive that stands in apposition to hO PATHR and
> then hO PATHR would be the subject of ESTIN?
>
> Probably not a NT idiom but wouldn't it be more accurate to say this
> is improbable greek rather than impossible?
>
>
> Elizabeth Kline
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list