From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Feb 20 1998 - 13:01:50 EST
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 05:31:10 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
>At 8:34 PM -0600 2/19/98, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>>The majority of manuscripts, and translations, tend to support the
>>in Jn 14:7 that Christ did not believe His disciples knew (GINWSKW
>>[EGNWKATE]) Him. The existence of AN in the apodosis of these
>>manuscripts renders this a contrary to fact conditional.
>>Both the UBS and NA favor the reading supported by p66, aleph, D, etc,
>>EGNWKATE ME, KAI TON PATERA MOU GNWSESQE, "if you know >>(intensive
perfect) Me, you will also know my Father." (cf. NRSV)
>>There is a big difference, of course. It seems the whole argument
>>upon this reading, well, in a sense. Indeed, Christ goes on
>>to announce, KAI AP' ARTI GINWSKETE AUTON KAI hEWRAKATE AUTON. >>This
is true, because they have known (and seen) Christ. If so, then it
>>from verse 7.
>Just this: I'm not a textual critic, but I've looked at the critical
>apparatus and at Metzger's note on this. What's particularly
>me is that the shape of a counterfactual condition here seems marred
>perfect indicative in the protasis (EGNWKATE): we normally have a
>tense (imperfect or aorist, possibly pluperfect) in both halves of the
>counterfactual condition. The alternative readings do make the verb in
>apodosis appropriate in pluperfect forms (EGNWKEITE AN, AN HiDEITE).
>one might conceivably argue that the perfect tense form in the
>(EGNWKATE) shows a Hellenistic (Latinate?) conflation of perfect and
>aorist, that seems very unlikely for this gospel with its numerous
>perfect tense expressions (e.g. TETELESTAI; hO GEGRAFA GEGRAFA). I'm
>sure that I understand the purport of Kurt Aland's appended note in
>Metzger's textual commentary: "The purpose of the Evangelist as well
>laws of textual development have been misunderstood. If a negative and
>positive statement about the Apostles stand side by side in the
>tradition, the positive one is usually the later." This appears to be
>against the majority committee view explained in Metzger's preceding
>Looks to me like this is a pretty sticky wicket. At any rate, I'd
>like to see an explanation for the perfect tense in the protasis of a
Thanks, Carl, for your excellent comments. I especially appreciated your
remarks regarding the normality of secondary tenses in both halves of a
contrary-to-fact conditional. That had eluded me.
Yes, Aland's comments do run contrary to the committee's. I suppose
there was a tendency for subsequent scribes to paint the disciples in a
more favorable light, but so much of scripture clearly paints them as
they really were anyhow, typically human with all the accompanying
I am still rather struck, however, by the fact that the vast majority of
translations seem to support the contrary to fact variant readings.
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:05 EDT