From: Nichael Cramer (nichael@sover.net)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 21:05:04 EST
>  ... [ if John had meant <X> he would have written <Y> ] ...
Since everyone seems to be getting into the act here, let me ask a
question that has always bothered me:  How much of the structure of these
verses --in particular how much of the tortured syntax-- is simply a
result of the requirements of prosody? 
The metrical/hymnal nature of the first few verse of John has long been
understood.  To what extent, then, should _this_ be understood as the 
--finally-- governing principle of composition?
To take one obvious example, it doesn't take too much imagination to hear
the opening lines of the fourth Gospel as a classic call-and-response: 
  Minister: en arxh ...
  Audience:                   ...HN O LOGOS!!
  Minister: kai o logos hn...
  Audience:                   ...PROS TON QEON!!
  Minister: kai qeos... 
  Audience:                   ...HN O LOGOS!!
  Minister: outos hn en arxh
  Audience:                   ...PROS TON QEON!!
                      ...ktl.
(Not to mention the inner-echoes "en arxh... en arxh..."   Or that 
beautiful chiasm:  "logos hn   .. qeon... ...qeos...  hn..logos")
In short, I guess, my question is this:  Are we missing the --hymnodic-- 
forest for the sake of the --syntactic-- trees?
-- Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT