[B-Greek] Punctuation of John 9:3-4
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Sep 25 12:22:23 EDT 2009
On Sep 25, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Daniel, Robert S wrote:
> Wow, that was a quick response! Thanks! So this gives me permission
> to question the location of the punctuation in the editions BUT I
> still have a question as to whether the place I have suggested for
> the period is an improvement over where the editions place it, on
> the basis of grammar and style?
> Rob
>
> From: Sarah Madden [mailto:sarah.r.madden at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:55 AM
> To: Daniel, Robert S
> Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Punctuation of John 9:3-4
>
> Rob --
> Not only did the original Greek autographs not have punctuation,
> they did not distinguish uppercase from lowercase letters because
> they were written in all caps, and with no spaces between the words
> (kind of like this: THEYWEREWRITTENINALLCAPS). So, as you surmised,
> the punctuation was a later addition.
>
> Sarah ><>
> Maryland
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Daniel, Robert S
> <rob.daniel at hp.com<mailto:rob.daniel at hp.com>> wrote:
>
> APEKRIQH hO IHSOUS OUTE hOUTOS hHMARTEN OUTE hOI GONEIS AUTOU ALL'
> hINA FANERWQH TA ERGA TOU QEOU EN AUTW EME/hHMEIS DEI ERGAZESQAI TA
> ERGA TOU PEMYANTOS ME hEWS hHEMERA ESTIN ERCETAI NUX hOTE OUDEIS
> DUNATAI ERGAZESQAI
NA27/UBS4: John 9:3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· οὔτε
οὗτος ἥμαρτεν οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ,
ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ
ἐν αὐτῷ. 4 ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ
ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με ἕως ἡμέρα
ἐστίν· ἔρχεται νὺξ ὅτε οὐδεὶς
δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι.
Verse 4 should begin with the accusative pronoun hHMAS, not the
nominative hHMEIS; the accusative form is required to construe with
DEI and ERGAZESQAI.
> All of the Greek editions and translations I've looked at put the
> first period after AUTW and before EME/hHMEIS (19th and 20th word
> above). Is that really the right place for it? Does the phrase ALL'
> hINA FANERWQH TA ERGA TOU QEOU EN AUTW belong with the sentence
> before or the sentence after? Translating it as literally as
> possible into English it seems awkward or even ungrammatical when it
> is included as part of the preceding sentence but smoother when
> attached to the following sentence. Is it really an awkward
> construction in the original Greek? Also, the word ERGA seems to
> connect it to the following sentence with its repetition of ERGA and
> then its verb ERGAZESQAI.
>
> So on the basis of grammar and/or style can a case be made for
> punctuating it as I have suggested rather than as the Greek editions
> and translations do?
>
> I'm assuming that the manuscripts do not include punctuation, so
> that the punctuation is a later addition. Is that a safe assumption?
For my part, I think the punctuation of NA27/UBS4 is correct, nor can
I see any legitimate alternative. Verse 3 ending in EN AUTWi is an
answer to the question of verse 2: τίς ἥμαρτεν, οὗτος
ἢ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα τυφλὸς
γεννηθῇ; [TIS hHMARTEN, hOUTOS H hOI GONEIS AUTOU, hINA TUFLOS
GENNHQHi; ] The disciples have asked the question why the man was born
blind with the assumption that somebody must have sinned for that to
happen. Jesus rejects the alternatives of the question and offers his
own accounting. I think most readers/listeners to the narrative would
supply an EGENETO with the ALLA clause:
"Was it the man himself or his parents that sinned, that he shold be
born blind?"
"Neither of them sinned; to the contrary, it happened for the
manifestation of God's working in him."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list