[B-Greek] John 11:21b & 11:32c: Does the MOU make a difference?
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Apr 3 02:26:23 EDT 2011
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric S. Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
To: "b-greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 2. april 2011 23:14
Subject: [B-Greek] John 11:21b & 11:32c: Does the MOU make a difference?
> In comparing the Greek texts of John 11:21b & 11:32c:
>
> 21...KURIE, EI HS hWDE OUK AN APEQANEN hO ADELFOS MOU
>
> 32...KURIE, EI HS hWDE OUK AN MOU APEQANEN hO ADELFOS
>
> Is the slight difference - the shifting of the position of the MOU - a
> nuance that should be brought out in translations? (Most probably
> don't.) And if so, how?
>
> - - -
> Eric S. Weiss
That is a nuance I had not noticed. If my understanding of the function of word
order is correct, it does show a small difference. Martha in v. 21 talks about
"my brother" without any particular emphasis. She seems somewhat businesslike.
Mary was crying when she knelt before Jesus. She seems more emotional and had a
closer relationship to Jesus. She may also have had a closer relationship to
Lazarus, at least more emotional. That might explain why she in John's
recounting does not simply say "my brother", but "MY brother". I would put "my"
in italics to indicate that emphasis, since the word could then be spoken with
greater stress in English (and Danish) - and with a crying voice.
There are several textual uncertainties in v. 21. The Majority text may
represent the original here:
KURIE, EI HS hWDE hO ADELFOS MOU OUK AN ETEQNHKEI
(if you had been here, my brother would not have been dead now)
Is there a difference between QNHiSKW and APOQNHiSKW? If so, the first seems
more matter-of-fact, clinical, less emotional. The second is more intensive and
may focus on the loss that results from the death. Even animals and crops can
die from the owner.
I really don't know if these nuances are just imagined. In Luke 8:42 the young
girl is APEQHNiSKEN. The messenger in v. 49 gives an objective, unemotional
report: Your daughter TEQNHiKEN. In v. 52 Jesus said that she did not APEQANEN.
He could have used TEQNHiKEN like the messenger. Why didn't he (in John's
recounting)?
It may be worth noting that QNHiSKW only occurs in the perfect in the NT (and
pluperfect in 11:21 in Majority text), whereas APOQNHiSKW never does, although
the perfect does occur outside the NT. Are they in complementary distribution
without any difference in meaning? Or it could be that the (plu+)perfect forms
of QNHiSKW focus on a state of being dead that belongs to clinical, detached
language?
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list