[B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Aug 5 05:41:29 EDT 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Dent" <dentm42 at yahoo.com>
To: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 5. august 2009 04:01
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 6:40 - PAS - "ALL" or "ALL THOSE WHO" ?
>
> ----- 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" ?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
<snip>
[CC:]
>> 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.
>
IL: Once you get more used to John's style of writing, I think you will be
convinced. His use of hOUTOS is interesting and somewhat special to him among
the NT writers.
You find the same initial TOUTO in v. 39:
τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ
αὐτοῦ
TOUTO DE ESTIN TO QELHMA TOU PEMYANTOS ME, hINA PAN hO\ DEDWKEN MPI MH APOLESW
EX AUTOU
What the demonstrative TOUTO does here is to anticipate and put a spotlight on
the hINA clause. What is God's will? It is this, namely that every thing(person)
that he has given to me, I won't lose any of it/them. Of course, God's will does
not contain only one thing, so in v. 40 another part of God's will is
highlighted by another anticipatory TOUTO. Again the hINA clause is the
highlighted content of God's will.
> 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.
As Carl has said the construction implies a condition and consequence. It is a
common expression with or without PAS in John, even in the immediate context,
e.g.
v. 36 ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ hO ERCOMENOS PROS EME OU MH PEINASHi
The one who comes to me shall not hunger = if anyone comes to me, he shall not
hunger
ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσει hO PISTEUWN EIS EME OU MH DIYHSEI
the one who believes in me shall not thirst = if anyone believes in me, he shall
not thirst
Whether a PAS is there or not doesn't significantly alter the sense, it only
gives a bit of emphasis and explicitness to what is implicit anyway:
v. 40b πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον
PAS hO QEWRWN TON hUION KAI PISTEUWN EIS AUTON ECHi ZWHN AIWNION
Every he/she who contemplates the son and believes in him has eternal life
All of these hO's are not the relative pronoun but the article with an implicit
relative, and that is why we translate an articular participle in English with a
relative pronoun after the personal pronoun - (every) he who...
>
> 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.")
No, as I said earlier, the hINA introduces the clause anticipated by TOUTO. This
is quite common.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list