[B-Greek] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 23 01:38:28 EDT 2008


Thank you James,
some comments below.

On Jul 22, 2008, at 7:57 PM, James Ernest wrote:

> 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?

Cooper notes (cryptically) that he is not following the standard text  
of Plato. There are other examples and I have extracted one of them  
from TLG rather than try and type it.

Polit”, 1.304.2.1
ἢ ἐκείνας ταύτης, ἢ ταύτην δεῖν  
ἐπιτροπεύουσαν ἄρχειν 2 συμπασῶν  
τῶν ἄλλων;

H EKEINAS TAUTHS, H TAUTHN DEIN EPITROPEUOUSAN ARCEIN 2 SUMPASWN TWN  
ALLW;

{ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Ταύτην ἐκείνων.
TAUTHN EKEINWN.

{ΞΕ.} «Τὴν» εἰ δεῖ μανθάνειν ἢ μὴ τῆς  
μανθανομένης καὶ 5 διδασκούσης ἄρα  
σύ γε ἀποφαίνῃ δεῖν ἡμῖν ἄρχειν;

THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH THS MANQANOMENHS KAI 5 DIDASKOUSHS ARA SU GE  
APOFAINHi DEIN hHMIN ARCEIN

{ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Σφόδρα γε.

SFODRA GE.

{ΞΕ.} Καὶ τὴν εἰ δεῖ πείθειν ἄρα ἢ μὴ  
τῆς δυναμένης 8 πείθειν;

KAI THN EI DEI PEIQEIN ARA H MH THS DUNAMENHS 8 PEIQEIN

Cooper appears to be focusing on THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH ... KAI THN  
EI DEI PEIQEIN [ARA] H MH (Cooper omits ARA).

I cannot follow his logic here since I have zero experience reading  
Plato.

>
>
> 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.

Perhaps not. That's why I asked. I hadn't attempted to 'English it'  
but perhaps it would be something like 'the giving to me Father'. It  
is entirely possible that I am confusing 'substantivized' with  
relativized, in other words, hO functioning as a relative introducing  
a clause with a finite verb. N.Turner claims that NT Greek doesn't use  
the article as a relative.

> Seems to me P66 and Byz are right with hOS and MEIZWN:

Yes, this reading is much easier and would solve everything.

> 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.

I totally agree. I guess my question could be restated in the  
abstract, do we ever see an article in NT Greek used to make a  
finite[1] verb clause function as a substantive?

Thank you for your help with this,

Elizabeth Kline
[1] I am not talking about TO with an infinitive.

>
>
> 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
>>
> ---
> 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