Re: Question on John 17:3

From: Dan Parker (stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: Tue Dec 28 1999 - 15:41:59 EST


Daniel L. Christiansen wrote [snipped]:

> Sharp's desire to demonstrate Christ's deity on purely grammatical
> grounds was unfortunate. This desire caused him to narrow down the
> applicability of his rules to a handful of passages, laying so many
> limitations on the construction that, IMO, it becomes almost useless.
> Much better to remove all the limitations as to personality, propriety,
> and plurality, and describe what the article-substantive-KAI-substantive
> then represents: a contextually-determined unity of expression. To
> describe this unity, I prefer the phrase "a certain intimate relation."

This relates to a question I posed earlier:

        According to Smyth (2493) hOS can "refer to a particular and
        individual person or thing." Would it not then be the equivalant
        to a "personal noun?"

Daniel L. Christiansen wrote:
> Actually, the presence of a proper name is not the issue in either of
> these verses, since in neither instance is that proper name immediately
> following the KAI. In each instance, the name stands in apposition to
> another phrase, which phrase immediately follows the KAI. In Titus
> 2:13, the word in question is SWTHROS, while in John 17:3, it is hON.
> SWTHROS qualifies under GS1, while hON is questionable. The problem
> with hON, is that Sharp never addresses the issue of pronouns, though he
> appears to exclude them by non-mention.

Would it not be true that if hON functions as a noun at John 17:3 that
it takes on all the properties of a noun and that if it refers to a person
it is then a "personal noun" that fits the description Granville Sharp
gives? Is not a pronoun a category or sub-class of noun?

> An application of Bishop
> Middleton's discussion regarding pronouns would seem to clinch the
> argument: hON is as specific as an article, and therefore does not
> qualify under GS1.

That is an interesting thought. I did a quick search of this phrase and
found hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS at John 6:29. (Also see 5:38) Since the
Christ is not the only one sent from God (John 1:6), it might seem that
the pronoun hON, as governed by the verb APOSTELLW needs further
clarification to identify the one who was sent and cannot be used as
a substitue for the definite article. I think I would like to read up
on Middleton's theories. Do you have a reference?

> If anyone is really interested, I can send a short article (only about
> 2,000 words) which I prepared for my students. It lays out the method I
> prefer, and its results when applied to various passages.
>
> Dan

I'd certainly be interested. I am also interested in any subsequent
refinements to Sharp's rule that specifically mention an exclusion
of pronouns. Otherwise, it looks like John 17:3 might really be a
legitimate exception.

Sincerely,
Dan

-- 
Dan Parker stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org

--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:52 EDT