[B-Greek] Punctuation of John 9:3-4
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Sep 25 14:25:39 EDT 2009
On Sep 25, 2009, at 1:39 PM, Daniel, Robert S wrote:
> OK, thanks! I'm sure your ear for what is and isn't awkward in Greek
> is vastly superior to mine. But we are supposed to only discuss
> grammar on this list, right?
Greek language or Greek text, yes.
> And it sounds like, setting aside the sense of the passage, you are
> not entirely disagreeing with me, that is, it is grammatically
> possible to shift the position of the period as I have suggested
Grammatically possible, but contextually highly improbable.
> and that leaving it in place requires that the reader supply a
> missing word. Perhaps that is a common occurrence, i.e. there are
> many passages in the NT where a word is left out because it is
> understood, just as in English we often drop words because everyone
> knows what we mean anyway?
I don't know that it's really a matter of suppletion of a missing
word; I think it's more a matter of common usage. The combination
"ALL' hINA" appears 38 in the GNT, 22 in John's gospel. Comparable to
our text are the following Johannine texts wherein ALL' hINA must be
seen as more or less idiomatically elliptical:
John 1:8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾿
ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ περὶ τοῦ φωτός. [OUK HN
EKEINOS TO FWS, ALL᾿ hINA MARTURHSHi PERI TOU FWTOS.]
"John was not himelf the Light; rather, he was to bear witness to the
Light."
John 13:18 Οὐ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν λέγω· ἐγὼ
οἶδα τίνας ἐξελεξάμην· ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα ἡ
γραφὴ πληρωθῇ· ὁ τρώγων μου τὸν
ἄρτον ἐπῆρεν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ τὴν πτέρναν
αὐτοῦ. [OU PERI PANTWN hUMWN LEGW· EGW OIDA TINAS EXELEXAMHN·
ALL᾿ hINA hH GRAFH PLHRWQHi· hO TRWGWN MOU TON ARTON EPHREN EP᾿
EME THN PTERNAN AUTOU. ]
"I'm not talking abut all of you; I know which ones I have chosen;
rather, the scripture must be fulfilled, 'He who eats my bread has
turned against me.'"
John 15:25 ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐν
τῷ νόμῳ αὐτῶν γεγραμμένος ὅτι
ἐμίσησάν με δωρεάν. [ALL᾿ hINA PLHRWQHi hO LOGOS hO
EN TWi NOMWi AUTWN GEGRAMMENOS hOTI EMISHSAN ME DWREAN.]
"But the proposition that is written in their law must be fulfilled:
'They hated me for nothing.'"
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
> Rob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Conrad [mailto:cwconrad2 at mac.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:12 AM
> To: Daniel, Robert S
> Cc: B-Greek
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Punctuation of John 9:3-4
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Daniel, Robert S wrote:
>
>> Well, so you are saying that you have to supply a missing word in
>> order to read the ALLA clause as part of the preceding sentence? But
>> no missing word needs to be supplied if you read the ALLA clause as
>> part of the following question, does it?
>
> I don't quite see how you can say that. It would yield the sense: "But
> in order that God's works should be manifested in him, we need to do
> the works of Him who sent me, while it's daytime. Nighttime is coming
> on, when nobody can work." For my part, I think that creates an
> exceedingly awkward sequence, while at the same time it leaves Jesus'
> answer to the disciples' question unanswered. For which reason I think
> that all those editions of the Greek texts and translations that you
> consulted have got this punctuation right in the first place.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>> It is hard to try to justify the resulting reading without getting
>> into theological questions, which are off limits to the list, but I
>> would say that in the resulting reading Jesus still answers the
>> disciples' question. It is simply a "No, sin did not cause the man's
>> congenital blindness." He doesn't offer an alternative explanation,
>> but why should he? He has more serious business to attend to, which
>> is healing the man, thereby bringing to light the blindness of the
>> Pharisees who refuse to believe all of the evidence, etc. etc.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Carl Conrad [mailto:cwconrad2 at mac.com]
>> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:22 AM
>> To: Daniel, Robert S
>> Cc: B-Greek
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Punctuation of John 9:3-4
>>
>>
>> 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."
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list