[B-Greek] AUTOU in Jo 9:6

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 19 09:24:40 EDT 2011


χαιρετε, παντες και τε πασαι,

If you put a gun to my head and said "explain the AUTOU," I would say

1.  Put the gun down.  It's not that important.  All the explanations proposed 
have problems, but none affect the basic meaning of the passage.

2.  I think the AUTOU refers to the spittle.

3.  The Alexandrian text is possibly corrupt.  The Byzantine text omits the 
AUTOU, though you would not know this from the NA apparatus. Did anyone check to 
see if SBL GNT omits it? 



 Mark L



FWSFOROS MARKOS




________________________________
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: Vasile Stancu <stancu.c.vasile at gmail.com>; Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sat, March 19, 2011 6:32:08 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] AUTOU in Jo 9:6

----- Original Message ----- From: "Vasile Stancu" <stancu.c.vasile at gmail.com>
To: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 19. marts 2011 09:14
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] AUTOU in Jo 9:6


> I understand this, only I have tried to understand also the principle
> that might stand behind the fact that sometimes the subject of certain
> verbs may be in the genitive (AKOUW), or dative (AKOLOUW, PISTEUW),
> instead of the accusative, as in most of the other cases. The image
> that I have of such occurencies is that this construction indicates
> some kind of indirectness of the action: I do not really hear you,  but
> I hear what you produce which my ears can receive (e.g., voice), or my
> brains can process (e.g., words), therefore I hear 'something of you';
> I do not really follow you, or believe you, but I follow perhaps, or
> believe, the teachings that I get from you.
> 
> Why not the same in the case of EPEXRISEN? Not enough evidence? I
> would not be sursprised to find out that this is a kind of
> construction which was mostly used in colloquial communication, which
> explains why it is not found in philosophers' work or other kinds of
> elevated literature.
> 
> Vasile Stancu

Although the verb EPICRIW is not common, the underlying verb CRIW is very 
common. The person or thing being anointed is always in the accusative. The 
substance (oil, fat, mud) used for the anointing may be in the dative, often but 
not necessarily with an EN. (E.g. Acts 10:38 and several in the LXX.) The  same 
applies to EPICRIW.

When you add a preposition to the verb, the combined verb normally (always?) 
governs the same case as the preposition. EPI can potentially govern three 
cases, but the text we have here uses an accusative:
EPECRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS.

So, we might have expected (EN) TWi PHLWi, but it also makes good sense to think 
of PHLOS as the direct object for the smearing or putting on. The mud undergoes 
the action of smearing, while the eyes are the destination where the mud ends 
up.

EPI (upon) with accusative is used when the substance actually arrives on and 
touches the destination as here. I don't see that AUTOU can mean anything than 
"his" (eyes). It cannot grammatically mean "he smeared mud on him, i.e. upon the 
eyes," even though the meaning comes out more or less the same in the end as "he 
smeared mud upon his eyes."

The fronting of the pronoun makes it relatively more prominent, but I  doubt 
that there is agreement on how best to describe the pragmatic function of the 
fronting.

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