[B-Greek] John 3:13

Randall Buth randallbuth at gmail.com
Fri Feb 27 06:33:51 EST 2009


agreeing with what Carl has answered, and considering it more solid than
he was claiming, I have a couple of notes to add
see ** below.

>
> I know this sounds weird, but I run into all sorts of things.
>
> John 3:13 (Majority Text): OUDEIS ANABEBHKEN... EI MH hO EK TOU
> OURANOU KATABAS hO hUIOs TOU ANQRWPOU hO WN EN TW OURANW
>
> I guy I'm blogging with has a theological agenda which he wishes to
> facilitate by taking hO WN EN TW OURANW as referring to ANQRWPOU
> rather than to hUIOs. I explained to him the notion of case concord,
> but he came back with the Nominative of Appellation, citing
> Revelation 1:4, APO QEOU hO WN.
>
> Other than simple common sense, is there a solid reason to reject
> this in favor of understanding hO WN as referring to hUIOs?

A solid reason? No. I can readily imagine some fanciful compounded
propositions such as that (1) the same author composed both the gospel
of John and the book of Revelation, and (2) as Henry James in his
earlier years wrote a simpler and more instantly intelligible English
style (Portrait of a Lady, Daisy Miller), in his later years he
developed a much more complex, audaciously opaque style (The
Ambassadors, The Beast in the Jungle), so the author of John's gospel
experimented in his later years with phrases that are intelligible as
they are bizarre, such as APO hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS. On the
other hand it is a commonly-held observation that the author of
Revelation was (a) not identical with the author of the gospel, and
(b) is notorious for employing solecisms -- expressions significantly
deviating from what seems to be standard Hellenistic Greek usage. Some
hold, however, to a variant view: the author of Revelation knew very
well that he was deviating from standard Hellenistic Greek usage and
did it deliberately for its striking effect on the reader/listener. My
own (more sober?) judgment is that we ought to understand the syntax
of John 3:13 in terms of the standard rather than of the exceptional
Hellenistic usage.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

**
One could adopt the strange suggestion by re-writing John 3:13
OS ESTIN . . .
That would allow linking with ANQRWPOY, but of course, that
is not what John 3:13 says.

Also, 'the son of man' is a title in the Greek gospels and should
normally be treated as a unit.
PS: I am in the process of writing a review on Casey Solution to
SofM 2007 this month and am very much aware of Casey's
objection to an underlying בר אנש being a title. Casey's linguistics
are shaky at best, so I do not recommend the book for students.
However,  I will not spend bandwidth reviewing here.

ERRWSQE
IWANHS

--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth at gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life



More information about the B-Greek mailing list