[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 22 15:29:39 EDT 2008
[] list special day [] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN This is a syntax question, not a question about which reading is original. Metzger and Westcott both state that the reading found in Codex Sinaiticus*[c] and a few other manuscripts is impossible greek. G.Cooper (1:50.6.9) states “An article with … a substantivized sentence is usually neuter. However, in Plato … [a] sentence is sometimes used with an article of the gender of the substantive to which … the sentence stands in apposition. Example:Pl.Prm.128d hH hUPOQESIS, hH EI POLLA ESTIN, H hH TOU EN EINAICodex Sinaiticus*[c]JOHN 10:29 hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN, (hH ante EI om.BT)What if we were to read hO as an article, which makes the clause DEDWKEN MOI a substantive that stands in apposition to hO PATHR and then hO PATHR would be the subject of ESTIN?Probably not a NT idiom but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say this is improbable greek rather than impossible?Elizabeth Kline
[] list special day[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN James Ernest j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Tue Jul 22 22:57:16 EDT 2008
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN [] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN I don’t have a critical edition of the Parmenides here. I see that the textin TLG differs from what you quote: ἀντιλέγει δὴ οὖντοῦτο τὸ γράμμα πρὸς τοὺς τὰ πολλὰ λέγοντας, καὶ ἀντ-αποδίδωσι ταὐτὰ καὶ πλείω, τοῦτο βουλόμενον δηλοῦν, ὡςἔτι γελοιότερα πάσχοι ἂν αὐτῶν ἡ ὑπόθεσις, εἰ πολλάἐστιν, ἢ ἡ τοῦ ἓν εἶναι, εἴ τις ἱκανῶς ἐπεξίοι.ANTILEGEI DH OUNTOUTO TO GRAMMA PROS TOUS TA POLLA LEGONTAS, KAI ANT-APODIDWSI TAUTA KAI PLEIW, TOUTO BOULOMENON DHLOUN, HWSETI GELOIOTERA PASCHOI AN AUTWN hH hYPOTHESIS, EI POLLAESTIN, H hH TOU hEN EINAI, EI TIS EPEXIOI.Without the hH before EI POLLA ESTIN, EI POLLA ESTIN is not substantivized,it’s just a conditional clause.If the hH stands in the text (as in the form you quoted), it seems to thatthe clause is attributivized (is that a word?) rather than substantivized:”their hypothesis, namely, the if-there-are-many hypothesis, is morelaughable than the [hypothesis] of there being one. . . .” So no special andunexpected use of the feminine article here–just the normalarticle-noun-article-attributive pattern. Don’t know why Plato wouldn’t havewritten hH TOU POLLA EINAI rather than hH EI POLLA ESTIN, but I’m far frombeing an expert on Plato’s prose style. Maybe it’s just more vivid orlively.Does Cooper have another example?Anyway, in John 10:29, I don’t understand how DEDWKEN MOI could beunderstood as substantivized (“the ‘he gave me'”?) and in apposition to hOPATHR. Seems to me P66 and Byz are right with hOS and MEIZWN: it’s theFather who has given to the Son and the Father who is greater than all(i.e., greater than those who would snatch the sheep away fromJesus)–admittedly lectio facilior, but I always found unswerving adherenceto lectio difficilio to be based on an astonishingly implausible premise,namely, that scribes never just goofed–all their mistakes, withoutexception, somehow managed to be intelligent improvements! Certainly doesn’twork out that way with *my* mistakes.James ErnestOn Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> This is a syntax question, not a question about which reading is> original. Metzger and Westcott both state that the reading found in> Codex Sinaiticus*[c] and a few other manuscripts is impossible greek.> G.Cooper (1:50.6.9) states “An article with … a substantivized> sentence is usually neuter. However, in Plato … [a] sentence is> sometimes used with an article of the gender of the substantive to> which … the sentence stands in apposition. Example:> > Pl.Prm.128d hH hUPOQESIS, hH EI POLLA ESTIN, H hH TOU EN EINAI> > Codex Sinaiticus*[c]> JOHN 10:29 hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN, (hH ante> EI om.BT)> > What if we were to read hO as an article, which makes the clause> DEDWKEN MOI a substantive that stands in apposition to hO PATHR and> then hO PATHR would be the subject of ESTIN?> > Probably not a NT idiom but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say this> is improbable greek rather than impossible?> > > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 23 01:38:28 EDT 2008
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN [] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN Thank you James,some comments below.On Jul 22, 2008, at 7:57 PM, James Ernest wrote:> I don’t have a critical edition of the Parmenides here. I see that > the text> in TLG differs from what you quote:> > ἀντιλέγει δὴ οὖν> τοῦτο τὸ γράμμα πρὸς τοὺς τὰ πολλὰ > λέγοντας, καὶ ἀντ-> αποδίδωσι ταὐτὰ καὶ πλείω, τοῦτο > βουλόμενον δηλοῦν, ὡς> ἔτι γελοιότερα πάσχοι ἂν αὐτῶν ἡ > ὑπόθεσις, εἰ πολλά> ἐστιν, ἢ ἡ τοῦ ἓν εἶναι, εἴ τις > ἱκανῶς ἐπεξίοι.> > ANTILEGEI DH OUN> TOUTO TO GRAMMA PROS TOUS TA POLLA LEGONTAS, KAI ANT-> APODIDWSI TAUTA KAI PLEIW, TOUTO BOULOMENON DHLOUN, HWS> ETI GELOIOTERA PASCHOI AN AUTWN hH hYPOTHESIS, EI POLLA> ESTIN, H hH TOU hEN EINAI, EI TIS EPEXIOI.> > Without the hH before EI POLLA ESTIN, EI POLLA ESTIN is not > substantivized,> it’s just a conditional clause.> > If the hH stands in the text (as in the form you quoted), it seems > to that> the clause is attributivized (is that a word?) rather than > substantivized:> “their hypothesis, namely, the if-there-are-many hypothesis, is more> laughable than the [hypothesis] of there being one. . . .” So no > special and> unexpected use of the feminine article here–just the normal> article-noun-article-attributive pattern. Don’t know why Plato > wouldn’t have> written hH TOU POLLA EINAI rather than hH EI POLLA ESTIN, but I’m > far from> being an expert on Plato’s prose style. Maybe it’s just more vivid or> lively.> > Does Cooper have another example?Cooper notes (cryptically) that he is not following the standard text of Plato. There are other examples and I have extracted one of them from TLG rather than try and type it.Polit”, 1.304.2.1ἢ ἐκείνας ταύτης, ἢ ταύτην δεῖν ἐπιτροπεύουσαν ἄρχειν 2 συμπασῶν τῶν ἄλλων;H EKEINAS TAUTHS, H TAUTHN DEIN EPITROPEUOUSAN ARCEIN 2 SUMPASWN TWN ALLW;{ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Ταύτην ἐκείνων.TAUTHN EKEINWN.{ΞΕ.} «Τὴν» εἰ δεῖ μανθάνειν ἢ μὴ τῆς μανθανομένης καὶ 5 διδασκούσης ἄρα σύ γε ἀποφαίνῃ δεῖν ἡμῖν ἄρχειν;THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH THS MANQANOMENHS KAI 5 DIDASKOUSHS ARA SU GE APOFAINHi DEIN hHMIN ARCEIN{ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Σφόδρα γε.SFODRA GE.{ΞΕ.} Καὶ τὴν εἰ δεῖ πείθειν ἄρα ἢ μὴ τῆς δυναμένης 8 πείθειν;KAI THN EI DEI PEIQEIN ARA H MH THS DUNAMENHS 8 PEIQEINCooper appears to be focusing on THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH … KAI THN EI DEI PEIQEIN [ARA] H MH (Cooper omits ARA).I cannot follow his logic here since I have zero experience reading Plato.> > > Anyway, in John 10:29, I don’t understand how DEDWKEN MOI could be> understood as substantivized (“the ‘he gave me'”?) and in apposition > to hO> PATHR.Perhaps not. That’s why I asked. I hadn’t attempted to ‘English it’ but perhaps it would be something like ‘the giving to me Father’. It is entirely possible that I am confusing ‘substantivized’ with relativized, in other words, hO functioning as a relative introducing a clause with a finite verb. N.Turner claims that NT Greek doesn’t use the article as a relative.> Seems to me P66 and Byz are right with hOS and MEIZWN:Yes, this reading is much easier and would solve everything.> it’s the> Father who has given to the Son and the Father who is greater than all> (i.e., greater than those who would snatch the sheep away from> Jesus)–admittedly lectio facilior, but I always found unswerving > adherence> to lectio difficilio to be based on an astonishingly implausible > premise,> namely, that scribes never just goofed–all their mistakes, without> exception, somehow managed to be intelligent improvements! Certainly > doesn’t> work out that way with *my* mistakes.I totally agree. I guess my question could be restated in the abstract, do we ever see an article in NT Greek used to make a finite[1] verb clause function as a substantive?Thank you for your help with this,Elizabeth Kline[1] I am not talking about TO with an infinitive.> > > James Ernest> > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Elizabeth Kline <> kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> >> This is a syntax question, not a question about which reading is>> original. Metzger and Westcott both state that the reading found in>> Codex Sinaiticus*[c] and a few other manuscripts is impossible greek.>> G.Cooper (1:50.6.9) states “An article with … a substantivized>> sentence is usually neuter. However, in Plato … [a] sentence is>> sometimes used with an article of the gender of the substantive to>> which … the sentence stands in apposition. Example:>> >> Pl.Prm.128d hH hUPOQESIS, hH EI POLLA ESTIN, H hH TOU EN EINAI>> >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]>> JOHN 10:29 hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN, (hH >> ante>> EI om.BT)>> >> What if we were to read hO as an article, which makes the clause>> DEDWKEN MOI a substantive that stands in apposition to hO PATHR and>> then hO PATHR would be the subject of ESTIN?>> >> Probably not a NT idiom but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say this>> is improbable greek rather than impossible?>> >> >> Elizabeth Kline>> >> >> >> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN James Ernest j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Wed Jul 23 23:15:15 EDT 2008
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN [] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN OK, I had to look up a bigger chunk of context, but I think I see whatCooper is getting at, and also (finally) what you were suggesting. In thefirst example (Parmenides), we hadhH hUPOTHESIS hH EI POLLA ESTINCooper says says EI POLLA ESTIN is appositive to hH hUPOTHESIS. (I saidattributive. Whatever.) Which hypothesis? –the EI POLLA ESTIN hypothesis.In the second example (from Politicus), we have (implied):THN EPISTHMHN THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MHSame deal. Which science? –the EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH science.So you were wondering whether the Sinaiticus* reading in John 10:29 isanalogous:hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTINWell, it doesn’t look likely to me. In both of Cooper’s examples, the noun(hUPOTHESIS or EPISTHMH) refers to verbal content which has to be specified,and Plato specifies it by spelling it out in the clause that is madeattributive (or appositive) to said noun by repetition of the article. “Thehypothesis that there are many things” and “the science of whether or notone ought to learn” make sense to me–each noun is defined by the followingclause, which in each case begins with a conjunction (“that” or “whether”,EI). In John, there’s no conjunction, and the clause (“he gave to me”) doesnot define the noun (“father”). PATHR is not a noun that indicatesdiscourse.James Ernest2008/7/23 Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>:> Thank you James,> some comments below.> > <snip>> Cooper notes (cryptically) that he is not following the standard text of> Plato. There are other examples and I have extracted one of them from TLG> rather than try and type it.> > Polit”, 1.304.2.1> ἢ ἐκείνας ταύτης, ἢ ταύτην δεῖν ἐπιτροπεύουσαν ἄρχειν 2 συμπασῶν τῶν ἄλλων;> > H EKEINAS TAUTHS, H TAUTHN DEIN EPITROPEUOUSAN ARCEIN 2 SUMPASWN TWN ALLW;> > {ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Ταύτην ἐκείνων.> TAUTHN EKEINWN.> > {ΞΕ.} «Τὴν» εἰ δεῖ μανθάνειν ἢ μὴ τῆς μανθανομένης καὶ 5 διδασκούσης ἄρα σύ> γε ἀποφαίνῃ δεῖν ἡμῖν ἄρχειν;> > THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH THS MANQANOMENHS KAI 5 DIDASKOUSHS ARA SU GE> APOFAINHi DEIN hHMIN ARCEIN> > {ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Σφόδρα γε.> > SFODRA GE.> > {ΞΕ.} Καὶ τὴν εἰ δεῖ πείθειν ἄρα ἢ μὴ τῆς δυναμένης 8 πείθειν;> > KAI THN EI DEI PEIQEIN ARA H MH THS DUNAMENHS 8 PEIQEIN> > Cooper appears to be focusing on THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH … KAI THN EI> DEI PEIQEIN [ARA] H MH (Cooper omits ARA).> > <snip>>
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 24 15:33:39 EDT 2008
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN [] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN On Jul 23, 2008, at 8:15 PM, James Ernest wrote:> OK, I had to look up a bigger chunk of context, but I think I see what> Cooper is getting at, and also (finally) what you were suggesting. > In the> first example (Parmenides), we had> > hH hUPOTHESIS hH EI POLLA ESTIN> > Cooper says says EI POLLA ESTIN is appositive to hH hUPOTHESIS. (I > said> attributive. Whatever.) Which hypothesis? –the EI POLLA ESTIN > hypothesis.> > In the second example (from Politicus), we have (implied):> > THN EPISTHMHN THN EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH> > Same deal. Which science? –the EI DEI MANQANEIN H MH science.> > So you were wondering whether the Sinaiticus* reading in John 10:29 is> analogous:> > hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN> > Well, it doesn’t look likely to me. In both of Cooper’s examples, > the noun> (hUPOTHESIS or EPISTHMH) refers to verbal content which has to be > specified,> and Plato specifies it by spelling it out in the clause that is made> attributive (or appositive) to said noun by repetition of the > article. “The> hypothesis that there are many things” and “the science of whether > or not> one ought to learn” make sense to me–each noun is defined by the > following> clause, which in each case begins with a conjunction (“that” or > “whether”,> EI). In John, there’s no conjunction, and the clause (“he gave to > me”) does> not define the noun (“father”). PATHR is not a noun that indicates> > discourse.Thank you James,I agree that Cooper is not describing what is going on in the Sinaiticus reading for John 10:29. What Cooper is describing is similar to what we find in BDF #267, Turner p182 and ATR 766. So if we just set aside that issue, and forget about Cooper, BDF, Turner and ATR. Returning to Codex Sinaiticus JN 10:29 and Westcott and Metzger’s statements that this is impossible greek which cannot be construed:>> >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]>> JOHN 10:29 hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTINMy question is a linguistic one. Is this a well formed sentence? What is the function of hO? It seems to me that hO marks what follows, DEDWKEN MOI, as something that qualifies hO PATHR. I don’t seem to have any problem reading this sentence[1]. The relative hOS DEDWKEN MOI is an easier read but calling hO DEDWKEN MOI “impossible greek” appears to me unwarranted. The corrector [c] of Sinaiticus didn’t have a problem with it. That should give us a sufficient reason to go looking for a way to make sense out of the syntax of this text, not to just declare it ungreek.Elizabeth Kline[1] My current inclination is to question N.Turner’s blanket denial that hO can function as a relative in NT greek.
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN James Ernest j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Fri Jul 25 00:25:42 EDT 2008
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN [] hAPTW > Is this a well formed sentence?As you suggest, Elizabeth, it would seem that most of the scribes who wrotehO DEDWKEN must have been content to read hO as functionally equivalent tohOS; also that the scribe of D thought it awkward or solecistic and changedDEDWKEN to DEDWKWS. The NA editors clearly believe (as Metzger’s textualcommentary explicitly claims) that the hOS reading cannot be originalbecause no one would have ever changed it to the more difficult hO. If hOwas original, then the scribes who changed it to hOS seem to agree with theNA editors, Turner, and Metzger that hO . . . MEIZWN is (in Metzger’s words)”impossible Greek, and cannot be construed.”I’m more inclined to judge that MEIZON (which has to boil down to saying thesheep [what my father gave to me] are greater than all) rather than MEIZWN(the father is greater than all) is more definitely impossible Johanninetheology than hO . . . MEIZWN is impossible grammar.So I think I agree with your bottom line: scribes who wrote hO . . . MEIZWNsomehow managed to be content basically to construe hO as a relativepronoun. How many of them thought it was good grammar (or had any concept ofgood grammar, for that matter) we’ll never know.I have no difficulty imagining either that the urtext had hO because theurscribe made a mistake or that the urtext had hOS and a later scribeaccidentally dropped a sigma (and subsequent scribes followed along like[Johannine or non-Johannine] sheep). Actually, how about this: a scribemisread hOS EDWKEN as hO DEDWKEN because the sigma was messed up?Anyway, the Ernest edition of the GNT would read hOS . . . MEIZWN, but thatedition will never exist, so I’m content to read hO MEIZWN and sign on tothe Elizabethan understanding thereof (to which I think Cooper finally endsup contributing nothing). hO . . . MEIZON is what you get from scribes whomisheard the (either ungrammatical or doubtfully grammatical) masculine hOas neuter hO and are therefore heard masc. MEIZWN as neuter MEIZON, and frommodern critics who in establishing their text rely too much on analysis oftranscriptional probabilities, assuming that scribal mistakes always followa tidy logic and are never the inexplicable random goof-ups that the rest ofus see and perform every day. 😉 I’d give more weight to content: the pointhas to be that the Father has given the sheep to the Son, and because theFather is greater than anyone, no one will be able to pluck the sheep out ofthe Son’s hand.Of the commentaries I have here, Barrett and Temple discuss the variants andtheir meanings; so also, more briefely, Whitacre.James ErnestOn Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> > > > I agree that Cooper is not describing what is going on in the> Sinaiticus reading for John 10:29. What Cooper is describing is> similar to what we find in BDF #267, Turner p182 and ATR 766. So if we> just set aside that issue, and forget about Cooper, BDF, Turner and> ATR. Returning to Codex Sinaiticus JN 10:29 and Westcott and Metzger’s> statements that this is impossible greek which cannot be construed:> > >>> >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]> >> JOHN 10:29 hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN> > > My question is a linguistic one. Is this a well formed sentence? What> is the function of hO? It seems to me that hO marks what follows,> DEDWKEN MOI, as something that qualifies hO PATHR. I don’t seem to> have any problem reading this sentence[1]. The relative hOS DEDWKEN> MOI is an easier read but calling hO DEDWKEN MOI “impossible greek”> appears to me unwarranted. The corrector [c] of Sinaiticus didn’t> have a problem with it. That should give us a sufficient reason to go> looking for a way to make sense out of the syntax of this text, not to> just declare it ungreek.> > > Elizabeth Kline> > [1] My current inclination is to question N.Turner’s blanket denial> that hO can function as a relative in NT greek.> > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN[] hAPTW
[] JN 10:20 hO PATHR hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Wed Jul 30 15:58:55 EDT 2008
[] Matt 16:18 — Two Questions [] divine passive? Hello Folks,I am in substantial agreement with the conclusions reached by Elizabethand James. I agree that hO… MEIZWN is at worst improbable Greek, butnot impossible. I also agree that hO can be construed as the masc nom defart pinch-hitting for the relative. Finally, I agree with James that”what [the sheep] the Father has given me is [are] greater than all” isimpossible Johannine theology. Besides creating an inconcinnity with thefollowing clause, hO… MEIZON is itself highly improbable Greek with itsexplicit subject fronted outside the relative clause, Metzger’sinvocation of hyperbaton notwithstanding. I may be wrong about this, butwhere else in the GNT do we find the explicit subject of a relativeclause fronted outside its clause?May I suggest one other possible alternative?Accepting the reading hO… MEIZWN and taking hO as a neut acc rel, wemay construe the acc as that of specification and translate literallythus:My Father, with respect to what he has given me, is greater than all.or more paraphrastically,My Father is greater than everyone else when it comes to the sheep he hasentrusted to my care.PWS hUMIN DOKEI;Yours in His grace,Richard Ghilardi – qodeshlayhvh at juno.comWest Haven, Connecticut USA============================================================================On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:25:42 -0400 “James Ernest” <j.d.ernest at bc.edu>writes:> > Is this a well formed sentence?> > As you suggest, Elizabeth, it would seem that most of the scribes > who wrote> hO DEDWKEN must have been content to read hO as functionally > equivalent to> hOS; also that the scribe of D thought it awkward or solecistic and > changed> DEDWKEN to DEDWKWS. The NA editors clearly believe (as Metzger’s > textual> commentary explicitly claims) that the hOS reading cannot be > original> because no one would have ever changed it to the more difficult hO. > If hO> was original, then the scribes who changed it to hOS seem to agree > with the> NA editors, Turner, and Metzger that hO . . . MEIZWN is (in > Metzger’s words)> “impossible Greek, and cannot be construed.”> > I’m more inclined to judge that MEIZON (which has to boil down to > saying the> sheep [what my father gave to me] are greater than all) rather than > MEIZWN> (the father is greater than all) is more definitely impossible > Johannine> theology than hO . . . MEIZWN is impossible grammar.> > So I think I agree with your bottom line: scribes who wrote hO . . . > MEIZWN> somehow managed to be content basically to construe hO as a > relative> pronoun. How many of them thought it was good grammar (or had any > concept of> good grammar, for that matter) we’ll never know.> > I have no difficulty imagining either that the urtext had hO because > the> urscribe made a mistake or that the urtext had hOS and a later > scribe> accidentally dropped a sigma (and subsequent scribes followed along > like> [Johannine or non-Johannine] sheep). Actually, how about this: a > scribe> misread hOS EDWKEN as hO DEDWKEN because the sigma was messed up?> Anyway, the Ernest edition of the GNT would read hOS . . . MEIZWN, > but that> edition will never exist, so I’m content to read hO MEIZWN and sign > on to> the Elizabethan understanding thereof (to which I think Cooper > finally ends> up contributing nothing). hO . . . MEIZON is what you get from > scribes who> misheard the (either ungrammatical or doubtfully grammatical) > masculine hO> as neuter hO and are therefore heard masc. MEIZWN as neuter MEIZON, > and from> modern critics who in establishing their text rely too much on > analysis of> transcriptional probabilities, assuming that scribal mistakes always > follow> a tidy logic and are never the inexplicable random goof-ups that the > rest of> us see and perform every day. 😉 I’d give more weight to content: > the point> has to be that the Father has given the sheep to the Son, and > because the> Father is greater than anyone, no one will be able to pluck the > sheep out of> the Son’s hand.> > Of the commentaries I have here, Barrett and Temple discuss the > variants and> their meanings; so also, more briefely, Whitacre.> > James Ernest> > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Elizabeth Kline <> kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> > >> >> >> > I agree that Cooper is not describing what is going on in the> > Sinaiticus reading for John 10:29. What Cooper is describing is> > similar to what we find in BDF #267, Turner p182 and ATR 766. So > if we> > just set aside that issue, and forget about Cooper, BDF, Turner > and> > ATR. Returning to Codex Sinaiticus JN 10:29 and Westcott and > Metzger’s> > statements that this is impossible greek which cannot be > construed:> >> > >>> > >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]> > >> JOHN 10:29 hO PATHR [MOU] hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN> >> >> > My question is a linguistic one. Is this a well formed sentence? > What> > is the function of hO? It seems to me that hO marks what follows,> > DEDWKEN MOI, as something that qualifies hO PATHR. I don’t seem > to> > have any problem reading this sentence[1]. The relative hOS > DEDWKEN> > MOI is an easier read but calling hO DEDWKEN MOI “impossible > greek”> > appears to me unwarranted. The corrector [c] of Sinaiticus > didn’t> > have a problem with it. That should give us a sufficient reason to > go> > looking for a way to make sense out of the syntax of this text, > not to> > just declare it ungreek.> >> >> > Elizabeth Kline> >> > [1] My current inclination is to question N.Turner’s blanket > denial> > that hO can function as a relative in NT greek.____________________________________________________________Earn more money. Click here to be certified as a personal trainer.http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nlvVt5KOR4Zo7U7jUzUmwJqXmmq6uhXgDyRr2hpg2MFTx6o/
[] Matt 16:18 — Two Questions[] divine passive?