[B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
John Sanders
john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Wed Aug 5 02:17:16 EDT 2009
I am probably venturing into an area that I ought not.
I also do not believe that the hINA phrase is directly in apposition to
TOUTO. This TOUTO and the TOUTO of verse 38 are equivalent to TO QELHMA.
The hINA clause, as I read it, is in apposition to TO QELHMA (the equivalent
of TOUTO).
Instead of thinking of hO as an article, I now generally think it as a
demonstrative. So in this case I think of PASA hO as the substantive with
the participial clauses modifying the substantive. Theoretically this
should be equivalent, it just makes reading the Greek easier for me.
If I may gloss this phrase as "each one, discovering ...and believing....
The question from Matthew Dent, as I understand it, is whether the
participial phrases limits the PASA hO or just describe the PASA hO. In
other words, is it: "only those discovering and believing", or is it "each
one, after discovering and believing."
Grammar only goes so far, and seldom does a single sentence answer all
questions that may arise from its construction. I presume that is why we
have extended narratives. I do not believe the grammar can answer that
question and one will be required to read the full text of John to do so.
Of course, the answer may be a function of what presumptions or axioms we
begin with.
John Sanders
Suzhou, China
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Matthew Dent <dentm42 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
> > To: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
> > Cc: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 6:19:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
> >
> >
> > On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Matthew Dent wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> TOUTO GAR ESTIN
> > >> TO QELHMA TOU PATROS MOU INA
> > >> PAS O QEWRWN TON UION KAI
> > >> PISTEUWN EIS AUTON EXH ZWHN AIWNION
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Specifically, I'm wondering whether "O QEWRWN ... KAI PISTEUWN EIS
> > >> AUTON" in the phrase "INA PAS O QEWRWN TON UION KAI PISTEUWN EIS
> > >> AUTON EXH ZWHN AIWNION" creates a bounded set which limits the scope
> > >> of the "PAS" or whether it describes the desired state of being of
> > >> the "PAS".
> > >
> > > John 6:40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
> > > πατρός μου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν
> > > υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ
> > > ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν
> > > ἐγὼ [ἐν] τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
> > >
> > > I would go with the notion of "bounded set". However I have some
> > > misgivings about using math metaphors for doing analysis of of
> > > natural language since it is easy to fall into a fatal error of
> > > assuming that language functions according to some known set of fixed
> > > laws that can be worked out in some strictly mechanical fashion.
>
> Elizabeth -
>
> Your misgivings are both noted and shared... but I needed some sort of
> metaphor to explain the concept my brain was working in and math seemed the
> closest one I could come up with on short notice.
>
> >
> > For what it's worth, I think that the substantive participial phrase,
> > PAS hO QEWRWN ... KAI PISTEUWN ... is equivalent to EAN TIS
> > QEWRHi ...KAI PISTEUHi ... or hOSTIS AN QEWRHi ... KAI PISTEUHi ... --
> > a generalized clause. The substantivized participle is easier to fit
> > into the hINA clause, itself a substantive clause perhaps best viewed
> > as appostional to the TOUTO. It's equivalent to QELEI hO PATHR MOU
> > hINA, EAN TIS QEWRHi ... KAI PISTEUHi, ECHi ZWHN AIWNION. The
> > substantival paraticiple obviates the need for a subjunctive in two
> > successive clauses dependent upon the introductory TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO
> > QELHMA TOU PATROS MOU.
> >
> > Carl W. Conrad
> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> >
>
> Carl -
>
> ---QUOTE---
> > The substantivized participle is easier to fit
> > into the hINA clause, itself a substantive clause perhaps best viewed
> > as appostional to the TOUTO.
> ---ENDQUOTE---
>
> I concur with the first part (easier to fit - or, put another way, more
> elegant), but I'm not sold on making it appositional to TOUTO.
>
> I guess ultimately my question regarding your proposal is, why the
> injection of the conditional in the equivalence you propose...
>
> Why not, instead, an equivalence something like:
> TOUTO QELEI hO PATHR MOU hINA PAS QEWRHi ... KAI PAS PISTEUHi KAI PAS ECHi
> ZWHN AIWNION.
>
> To paraphrase: My Father desires this in order that all would see, believe,
> and have eternal life.
>
> If the resultant ECHi ZWHN AIWNION is to be understood as dependent upon hO
> QEWRWN ... KAI PISTEUWN wouldn't it be introduced with OTI (to express the
> content of the desire) rather than hINA (expressing the result of the
> desiring)? Especially since, at least according to LSJ, hINA never appears
> with
> AN?
> (
> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2350493
> )
> Rather, hINA seems to introduce a FINAL CLAUSE (GOODWIN & GULICK,
> 1930, par. 1371, 1372) or even a PURE FINAL CLAUSE (par. 1374) (note
> also, par. 1376, "The adverb AN (KE) is sometimes joined with WS, OPWS,
> and OFRA (never with hINA) before the subjunctive in final clauses.")
>
> I hope I'm not coming across as just being difficult... I just want to know
> the WHY to the answer and WHY NOT other alternatives - or at least whether
> or not my alternative is defensible from the standpoint of the grammar
> involved.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Matt Dent
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
--
John Sanders
Suzhou, China
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list