From: Jay Adkins (JAdkins264@aol.com)
Date: Thu Oct 14 1999 - 07:08:15 EDT
Can someone please explain why in the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 the
subjunctive verbs are translated like an indicative or an infinitive by so
The phrases are:
1 John 3:5 ....EFANERWQH, INA TAS AMARTIAS ARH
1 John 3:8 ....EFANERWQH O UIOS TOU QEOU INA LUSH TA ERGA TOU DIABOLOU
1Joh 3:5 (DBY) .... *he* has been manifested that he might take away our
1Joh 3:8 (DBY) .... To this end the Son of God has been manifested, that he
might undo the works of the devil
1Joh 3:5 (NEB) .... Christ appeared, as you know, to do away with sins....
1Joh 3:8 (NEB) .... the Son of God appeared for the very purpose of undoing
the devil's work.
I have counted 9 translations that treat verse 5 as an indicative or an
infinitive and 8 as subjunctive. In verse 8 the same translations treat it
as an indicative or an infinitive 14 times and only 3 as subjunctive. I
understand that the subjunctive in an Indefinite Relative Clause is often
translated like an indicative, but why in a purpose clause would you do so?
Is it because there is a futuristic aspect in the English phrasing which
accounts for the degree of doubt represented by the subjunctive? That is
my only guess as I really do not know the answer. There is no hidden
Always Under Grace!
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:42 EDT