[B-Greek] John 11:21b & 11:32c: Does the MOU make a difference?
Vasile Stancu
stancu.c.vasile at gmail.com
Sun Apr 3 03:41:59 EDT 2011
I propose that the difference between the two passages - if any - should
lie in emphasizing the effect/affect of the death: in the first case,
the weight is moved towards the one who died, i.e., Lazarus (he was not
living anymore), whereas in the second, it is the sister of the dead
that receives emphasis (she was now withouth brother).
Vasile Stancu
On 4/3/2011 9:26 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> ----- 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
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list