[B-Greek] JOHN 21:10 ... hWN EPIASATE NUN

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 17 14:40:04 EDT 2009


Iver,

You've made some interesting observations. I agree that BDAG is  
generally clueless about the pragmatic function of constituent order.  
Joining  NUN in 21:10 with ENEGKATE doesn't help my proposed reading,  
however, you could be right. The fishing story in my (tentative)  
proposal functions as a background for the restoration of Peter's  
"call" after he denied and abandoned Jesus. The fishing story itself  
has been understood (a few scholars) as an example of Peter's  
forsaking his call where he leads astray a significant group of  
apostles. In this reading, the failure of the fishing trip is more  
than just a set up for a miracle story. It represents the emptiness of  
apostasy (perhaps apostasy is too strong a word here). Jesus is about  
to restore Peter after his lapse and in my reading the contrast  
between Peter's failed fishing venture and Jesus' providing a net full  
of fish is underlined in v21 by a semantically redundant relative  
clause hWN EPIASATE NUN. The referent of TWN OYARIWN would be  
perfectly clear without this clause. It isn't John's general pattern  
to over encoded referential identity in quoted speech. If anything he  
tends in the other direction to leave referential identity ambiguous  
[1], so when we find it over encoded it draws attention.


[1] an example of underdetermined referential identity, the several  
variant readings of this verse illustrate attempts to resolve the  
referential identity of  TWi PATRI and TOU PATROS

Jn 8:38 hA EGW hEWRAKA PARA TWi PATRI LALW: KAI hUMEIS OUN hA HKOUSATE  
PARA TOU PATROS POIEITE.


Elizabeth Kline


On Mar 16, 2009, at 9:24 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:

>>
>>
>> JOHN 21:10 LEGEI AUTOIS hO IHSOUS: ENEGKATE APO TWN OYARIWN hWN
>> EPIASATE NUN.
>>
>> What is the pragmatic function of  hWN EPIASATE NUN?
>
> The position of NUN at the end caught my attention.
> As I looked at the 29 instances of NUN in John, I noticed that only  
> twice does NUN occur after the verb. When it precedes the verb,  
> there seems to be a clear contrast between "now" and another time.  
> The only other place where NUN occurs after the verb is with an  
> imperative in 2:8:
>
> ANTLHSATE NUN KAI FERETE (draw now and bring)
>
> Here the NUN does not so much contrast with another time as it  
> strengthens the imperative, something like "do it right away".
>
> Because of this parallel, I prefer to take NUN in 21:10 with  
> ENEGKATE - bring now some of the fish you have caught.
> If the NUN was to mean the fish you have just now caught, I would  
> have expected:
> ENEGKATE APO TWN OYARIWN hWN NUN EPIASATE.
>
> Maybe I am putting too much weight on word order? I don't see  
> English translations following my suggestion, although several leave  
> out the NUN altogether. I don't get support in BAGD, but I think  
> they tend to ignore the function of word order. All the examples  
> listed of NUN as an immediately preceding time has the NUN before  
> the verb. Whereas NUN can often follow an imperative and sometimes a  
> participle, it is rare that it follows an aorist indicative. The  
> only instance I found was in 1 Pet 2:25:
> ALLA EPESTRAFHTE NUN  (but you have RETURNED now).
> Here there is a strong contrast between having gone astray in the  
> previous clause and having returned, and this explains why the verb  
> is here more prominent than NUN.











More information about the B-Greek mailing list