Skip to content

2 John 12

cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:So is it (πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν) (γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος) or (πολλὰ ἔχων) (ὑμῖν γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος)?
Even if γράφειν is to be understood fundamentally with οὐκ ἐβουλήθην, it would seem that there's an implicit λέγειν or the equivalent that must be understood with πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν; that is to say, is it conceivable that πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν could stand alone without an implicit infinitive construed with it? I don't see how the ὑμῖν can construe directly with πολλὰ ἔχων.We have to assume an ellipsis, don't we?
I similarly read an ellipsis: "( { πολλὰ } ἔχων ( ὑμῖν ) γράφειν ) { οὐκ ἐβουλήθην [γράφειν] ( διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος ) }" "having many things to write to you, I did not want to do so through paper and ink" Statistics: Posted by David Lim — February 9th, 2014, 11:40 am
In the negative form of this construction, οὐ is added to the ἔχειν as in
οὐχ ὡς τοῦ ἔθνους μου ἔχων τι κατηγορῆσαι "and that in no way implies that I had anything that I wanted to bring a charge against my own people about."
But here the construction with κατηγορεῖν, of course, naturally takes a genitive with its verb of speaking. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — February 8th, 2014, 12:40 am
 
cwconrad wrote: Even if γράφειν is to be understood fundamentally with οὐκ ἐβουλήθην...
On the subject of concessions, I would add, Even if ἔχω were to be construed with the dative... I think that, "I have something for you" (= There is something that I want to give you) is good English idiom. For this verse, compare
Luke 7:40 wrote: Σίμων, ἔχω σοί τι εἰπεῖν
In which verse I think the dative personal pronoun is in-your-face emphatic. And
Acts 25:26 wrote: Περὶ οὗ ἀσφαλές τι γράψαι τῷ κυρίῳ οὐκ ἔχω.
where I think the dative is with the verb to communicate (by writing). Those two verses suggest perhaps that ἔχων ὑμῖν τι γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος may have been an expected way of writing this, but the writer used πολλά and had to drop out the τι. [Other ways of understanding this construction that I think would come about because of cross-linguistic interference, would be using "have" as an auxiliary + the infinitive to mean what "have to..." means in English. And for cross-linguistic interference from Modern Greek, ἔχω γράφειν is not like a periphrastic perfect. cf. English "Having written ... ". [I think that following the loss of the perfect in Byzantine times, it wasnt till later that the Modern Greek forms developed - in the period of interaction with the (Latin) West (especially) Venice].] Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — February 7th, 2014, 8:56 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote: So is it (πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν) (γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος) or (πολλὰ ἔχων) (ὑμῖν γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος)?
Even if γράφειν is to be understood fundamentally with οὐκ ἐβουλήθην, it would seem that there's an implicit λέγειν or the equivalent that much be understood with πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν; that is to say, is it conceivable that πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν could stand alone without an implicit infinitive construed with it? I don't see how the ὑμῖν can construe directly with πολλὰ ἔχων.We have to assume an ellipsis, don't we? Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — February 6th, 2014, 11:50 am
So is it (πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν) (γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος) or (πολλὰ ἔχων) (ὑμῖν γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος)? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 6th, 2014, 9:44 am
 
2 John 12 wrote: Πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος, ...
I'm interested in resolving the ambiguity of ὑμῖν here, whether it construes with πολλἀ ἔχων (i.e., "having many things for you") or γράφειν (i.e., "to write to you"). I'm also interested in the word order of this, particularly whether ὑμῖν is emphasized or deemphasized. This is the word order of both the Nestle-Aland text and the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine text, though the latter edition includes an editorial comma: Πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν, οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος. I'm not sure I agree with the comma, however, as it seems to imply that there are other ways of writing than by papyrus and ink. No, the point seems rather that the presbyter of 2 John has many things to tell the recipients but does not want to so by writing a letter; presumably he'd rather tell them in person. Some Byzantine MSS, not cited in either NA28 or RP, resolve the ambiguity as Πολλὰ ἔχων γράφειν ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος, and I ask if that resolution is the best way to construe the verse. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 31st, 2014, 4:54 am