[B-Greek] John 11:24

James Ernest j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Fri Oct 29 18:14:40 EDT 2010


Right, the Latin (of the protasis, at least until you go on to read the
apodosis) is ambiguous. So maybe the translation was based on or abetted by
the Latin. It would be interesting (though, I know, sigh, off-topic to this
list, which isn't about explaining historical translations) to check the
history of interpretation of this verse--Albertus, Aquinas, whoever. Pulling
Calvin (in English) off my shelf: "Accordingly, they who believe in Christ,
though they were formerly dead, begin to live, because faith is a spiritual
resurrection of the soul, and--so to speak--animates the soul itself that it
may live to God; according to that passage, The dead shall hear the voice of
the Son of God, and they who hear shall live."

If you have some such interpretation firmly lodged in your head, and you
also have "si mortuus fuerit" firmly lodged in your head, then maybe you can
look at KAN APOQANHi and write "though he be dead" (with Wycliffe &
Douay-Rheims, and similarly in other English versions of the period)--even
though to us it seems clearly wrong. I suspect it's respect for the history
of interpretation rather than any uncertainty regarding the gist of the
Greek that leads Ray Brown to say that the aorist APOQANHi "discourages"
(rather than rules out) the older translation we've been puzzling over.
Sometimes the history of interpretation may moderate our confidence in our
own readings. But in this case I'd bet Carl has it right and the early
English versions got it wrong. A good meaning, but from the wrong verse.

James Ernest


On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:

> On Oct 29, 2010, at 5:20 PM, James Ernest wrote:
> >> I make no pretense of explaining what the KJV translators intended
> >
> > Same phrase (though he were dead) in Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible,
> > if the online texts are reliable, and similar in Wycliffe (though he
> > be dead). Makes me wonder whether whoever first Englished the verse in
> > this way was looking at the Greek (KAN APOQANHi) or the Latin (si
> > mortuus fuerit).
>
> Well, in fact the Latin is ambiguous, since mortuus fuerit could be
> either perfect subjunctive or future perfect indicative. As a future
> perfect indicative, mortuus fuerit would be a proper Latin equivalent
> of APOQANHi in a future more vivid protasis, but the perfect
> subjunctive might be conveyed as "if he has died." The problem is:
> that protasis really doesn't fit with the apodosis "he will live."
> On the other hand, "si mortuus fuerit vivet" can rightly mean
> "if he ever dies (will have died), he will live."
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
>



More information about the B-Greek mailing list