[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 22 15:29:39 εδτ 2008
[] list special day [] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν 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. γ.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 ει πολλα εστιν, η hH του εν EINAICodex Sinaiticus*[c]ψοην 10:29 hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν, (hH ante ει om.βτ)What if we were to read hO as an article, which makes the clause δεδωκεν μοι a substantive that stands in apposition to hO παθρ and then hO παθρ would be the subject of εστιν?Probably not a ντ idiom but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say this is improbable greek rather than impossible?Elizabeth Kline
[] list special day[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν James Ernest j.d.ernest at bc.edu
Tue Jul 22 22:57:16 εδτ 2008
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν [] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν ι don’t have a critical edition of the Parmenides here. ι see that the textin τλγ 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.αντιλεγει δη ουντουτο το γραμμα προσ τουσ τα πολλα λεγοντασ, και αντ–αποδιδωσι ταυτα και πλειω, τουτο βουλομενον δηλουν, ηωσετι γελοιοτερα πασχοι αν αυτων hH hYPOTHESIS, ει πολλαεστιν, η hH του hEN ειναι, ει τισ επεχιοι.Without the hH before ει πολλα εστιν, ει πολλα εστιν 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 του πολλα ειναι rather than hH ει πολλα εστιν, but ι‘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, ι don’t understand how δεδωκεν μοι could beunderstood as substantivized (“the ‘he gave me'”?) and in apposition to hOPATHR. Seems to me P66 and Byz are right with hOS and μειζων: 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 ι 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 πμ, 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.> γ.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 ει πολλα εστιν, η hH του εν ειναι> > Codex Sinaiticus*[c]> ψοην 10:29 hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν, (hH ante> ει om.βτ)> > What if we were to read hO as an article, which makes the clause> δεδωκεν μοι a substantive that stands in apposition to hO παθρ and> then hO παθρ would be the subject of εστιν?> > Probably not a ντ 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/>
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν
Wed Jul 23 01:38:28 εδτ 2008
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν [] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν Thank you James,some comments below.On Jul 22, 2008, at 7:57 πμ, James Ernest wrote:> ι don’t have a critical edition of the Parmenides here. ι see that > the text> in τλγ 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.> > αντιλεγει δη ουν> τουτο το γραμμα προσ τουσ τα πολλα λεγοντασ, και αντ–> αποδιδωσι ταυτα και πλειω, τουτο βουλομενον δηλουν, ηωσ> ετι γελοιοτερα πασχοι αν αυτων hH hYPOTHESIS, ει πολλα> εστιν, η hH του hEN ειναι, ει τισ επεχιοι.> > Without the hH before ει πολλα εστιν, ει πολλα εστιν 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 του πολλα ειναι rather than hH ει πολλα εστιν, but ι‘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 ι have extracted one of them from τλγ rather than try and type it.Polit”, 1.304.2.1ἢ ἐκείνας ταύτης, ἢ ταύτην δεῖν ἐπιτροπεύουσαν ἄρχειν 2 συμπασῶν τῶν ἄλλων;η εκεινασ ταυθσ, η ταυθν δειν επιτροπευουσαν αρξειν 2 συμπασων των αλλω;{ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Ταύτην ἐκείνων.ταυθν εκεινων.{ΞΕ.} «Τὴν» εἰ δεῖ μανθάνειν ἢ μὴ τῆς μανθανομένης καὶ 5 διδασκούσης ἄρα σύ γε ἀποφαίνῃ δεῖν ἡμῖν ἄρχειν;θν ει δει μανθανειν η μη θσ μανθανομενησ και 5 διδασκουσησ αρα συ γε APOFAINHi δειν hHMIN αρξειν{ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Σφόδρα γε.σφοδρα γε.{ΞΕ.} Καὶ τὴν εἰ δεῖ πείθειν ἄρα ἢ μὴ τῆς δυναμένης 8 πείθειν;και θν ει δει πειθειν αρα η μη θσ δυναμενησ 8 PEIQEINCooper appears to be focusing on θν ει δει μανθανειν η μη … και θν ει δει πειθειν [αρα] η μη (Cooper omits αρα).ι cannot follow his logic here since ι have zero experience reading Plato.> > > Anyway, in John 10:29, ι don’t understand how δεδωκεν μοι could be> understood as substantivized (“the ‘he gave me'”?) and in apposition > to hO> παθρ.Perhaps not. That’s why ι asked. ι hadn’t attempted to ‘English it’ but perhaps it would be something like ‘the giving to me Father’. It is entirely possible that ι am confusing ‘substantivized’ with relativized, in other words, hO functioning as a relative introducing a clause with a finite verb. ν.Turner claims that ντ Greek doesn’t use the article as a relative.> Seems to me P66 and Byz are right with hOS and μειζων: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 ι 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.ι totally agree. ι guess my question could be restated in the abstract, do we ever see an article in ντ Greek used to make a finite[1] verb clause function as a substantive?Thank you for your help with this,Elizabeth Kline[1] ι am not talking about το with an infinitive.> > > James Ernest> > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:29 πμ, 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.>> γ.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 ει πολλα εστιν, η hH του εν ειναι>> >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]>> ψοην 10:29 hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν, (hH >> ante>> ει om.βτ)>> >> What if we were to read hO as an article, which makes the clause>> δεδωκεν μοι a substantive that stands in apposition to hO παθρ and>> then hO παθρ would be the subject of εστιν?>> >> Probably not a ντ 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/
Wed Jul 23 23:15:15 εδτ 2008
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν [] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν οκ, ι had to look up a bigger chunk of context, but ι think ι see whatCooper is getting at, and also (finally) what you were suggesting. In thefirst example (Parmenides), we hadhH hUPOTHESIS hH ει πολλα ESTINCooper says says ει πολλα εστιν is appositive to hH hUPOTHESIS. (ι saidattributive. Whatever.) Which hypothesis? –the ει πολλα εστιν hypothesis.In the second example (from Politicus), we have (implied):θν επισθμην θν ει δει μανθανειν η MHSame deal. Which science? –the ει δει μανθανειν η μη science.So you were wondering whether the Sinaiticus* reading in John 10:29 isanalogous:hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων ESTINWell, it doesn’t look likely to me. In both of Cooper’s examples, the noun(hUPOTHESIS or επισθμη) 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”,ει). In John, there’s no conjunction, and the clause (“he gave to me”) doesnot define the noun (“father”). παθρ 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 ι have extracted one of them from τλγ> rather than try and type it.> > Polit”, 1.304.2.1> ἢ ἐκείνας ταύτης, ἢ ταύτην δεῖν ἐπιτροπεύουσαν ἄρχειν 2 συμπασῶν τῶν ἄλλων;> > η εκεινασ ταυθσ, η ταυθν δειν επιτροπευουσαν αρξειν 2 συμπασων των αλλω;> > {ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Ταύτην ἐκείνων.> ταυθν εκεινων.> > {ΞΕ.} «Τὴν» εἰ δεῖ μανθάνειν ἢ μὴ τῆς μανθανομένης καὶ 5 διδασκούσης ἄρα σύ> γε ἀποφαίνῃ δεῖν ἡμῖν ἄρχειν;> > θν ει δει μανθανειν η μη θσ μανθανομενησ και 5 διδασκουσησ αρα συ γε> APOFAINHi δειν hHMIN αρξειν> > {ΝΕ. ΣΩ.} Σφόδρα γε.> > σφοδρα γε.> > {ΞΕ.} Καὶ τὴν εἰ δεῖ πείθειν ἄρα ἢ μὴ τῆς δυναμένης 8 πείθειν;> > και θν ει δει πειθειν αρα η μη θσ δυναμενησ 8 πειθειν> > Cooper appears to be focusing on θν ει δει μανθανειν η μη … και θν ει> δει πειθειν [αρα] η μη (Cooper omits αρα).> > <snip>>
Thu Jul 24 15:33:39 εδτ 2008
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν [] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν On Jul 23, 2008, at 8:15 πμ, James Ernest wrote:> οκ, ι had to look up a bigger chunk of context, but ι think ι see what> Cooper is getting at, and also (finally) what you were suggesting. > In the> first example (Parmenides), we had> > hH hUPOTHESIS hH ει πολλα εστιν> > Cooper says says ει πολλα εστιν is appositive to hH hUPOTHESIS. (ι > said> attributive. Whatever.) Which hypothesis? –the ει πολλα εστιν > hypothesis.> > In the second example (from Politicus), we have (implied):> > θν επισθμην θν ει δει μανθανειν η μη> > Same deal. Which science? –the ει δει μανθανειν η μη science.> > So you were wondering whether the Sinaiticus* reading in John 10:29 is> analogous:> > hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν> > Well, it doesn’t look likely to me. In both of Cooper’s examples, > the noun> (hUPOTHESIS or επισθμη) 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”,> ει). In John, there’s no conjunction, and the clause (“he gave to > me”) does> not define the noun (“father”). παθρ is not a noun that indicates> > discourse.Thank you James,ι 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 βδφ #267, Turner p182 and ατρ 766. So if we just set aside that issue, and forget about Cooper, βδφ, Turner and ατρ. Returning to Codex Sinaiticus ψν 10:29 and Westcott and Metzger’s statements that this is impossible greek which cannot be construed:>> >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]>> ψοην 10:29 hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστινMy 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, δεδωκεν μοι, as something that qualifies hO παθρ. ι don’t seem to have any problem reading this sentence[1]. The relative hOS δεδωκεν μοι is an easier read but calling hO δεδωκεν μοι “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 ν.Turner’s blanket denial that hO can function as a relative in ντ greek.
Fri Jul 25 00:25:42 εδτ 2008
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν [] hAPTW > Is this a well formed sentence?As you suggest, Elizabeth, it would seem that most of the scribes who wrotehO δεδωκεν must have been content to read hO as functionally equivalent tohOS; also that the scribe of δ thought it awkward or solecistic and changedDEDWKEN to δεδωκωσ. The να 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 . . . μειζων is (in Metzger’s words)”impossible Greek, and cannot be construed.”ι‘m more inclined to judge that μειζον (which has to boil down to saying thesheep [what my father gave to me] are greater than all) rather than μειζων(the father is greater than all) is more definitely impossible Johanninetheology than hO . . . μειζων is impossible grammar.So ι think ι 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.ι 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 εδωκεν as hO δεδωκεν because the sigma was messed up?Anyway, the Ernest edition of the γντ would read hOS . . . μειζων, but thatedition will never exist, so ι‘m content to read hO μειζων and sign on tothe Elizabethan understanding thereof (to which ι think Cooper finally endsup contributing nothing). hO . . . μειζον is what you get from scribes whomisheard the (either ungrammatical or doubtfully grammatical) masculine hOas neuter hO and are therefore heard masc. μειζων as neuter μειζον, 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. 😉 ι‘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 ι have here, Barrett and Temple discuss the variants andtheir meanings; so also, more briefely, Whitacre.James ErnestOn Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:33 πμ, Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> > > > ι 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 βδφ #267, Turner p182 and ατρ 766. So if we> just set aside that issue, and forget about Cooper, βδφ, Turner and> ατρ. Returning to Codex Sinaiticus ψν 10:29 and Westcott and Metzger’s> statements that this is impossible greek which cannot be construed:> > >>> >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]> >> ψοην 10:29 hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν> > > 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,> δεδωκεν μοι, as something that qualifies hO παθρ. ι don’t seem to> have any problem reading this sentence[1]. The relative hOS δεδωκεν> μοι is an easier read but calling hO δεδωκεν μοι “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 ν.Turner’s blanket denial> that hO can function as a relative in ντ greek.> > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν[] hAPTW
[] ψν 10:20 hO παθρ hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Wed Jul 30 15:58:55 εδτ 2008
[] Matt 16:18 — Two Questions [] divine passive? Hello Folks,ι am in substantial agreement with the conclusions reached by Elizabethand James. ι agree that hO… μειζων is at worst improbable Greek, butnot impossible. ι also agree that hO can be construed as the masc nom defart pinch-hitting for the relative. Finally, ι 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… μειζον is itself highly improbable Greek with itsexplicit subject fronted outside the relative clause, Metzger’sinvocation of hyperbaton notwithstanding. ι may be wrong about this, butwhere else in the γντ do we find the explicit subject of a relativeclause fronted outside its clause?May ι suggest one other possible alternative?Accepting the reading hO… μειζων 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.πωσ hUMIN δοκει;Yours in His grace,Richard Ghilardi – qodeshlayhvh at juno.comWest Haven, Connecticut υσα============================================================================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 δεδωκεν must have been content to read hO as functionally > equivalent to> hOS; also that the scribe of δ thought it awkward or solecistic and > changed> δεδωκεν to δεδωκωσ. The να 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> να editors, Turner, and Metzger that hO . . . μειζων is (in > Metzger’s words)> “impossible Greek, and cannot be construed.”> > ι‘m more inclined to judge that μειζον (which has to boil down to > saying the> sheep [what my father gave to me] are greater than all) rather than > μειζων> (the father is greater than all) is more definitely impossible > Johannine> theology than hO . . . μειζων is impossible grammar.> > So ι think ι agree with your bottom line: scribes who wrote hO . . . > μειζων> 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.> > ι 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 εδωκεν as hO δεδωκεν because the sigma was messed up?> Anyway, the Ernest edition of the γντ would read hOS . . . μειζων, > but that> edition will never exist, so ι‘m content to read hO μειζων and sign > on to> the Elizabethan understanding thereof (to which ι think Cooper > finally ends> up contributing nothing). hO . . . μειζον is what you get from > scribes who> misheard the (either ungrammatical or doubtfully grammatical) > masculine hO> as neuter hO and are therefore heard masc. μειζων as neuter μειζον, > 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. 😉 ι‘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 ι 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 πμ, Elizabeth Kline <> kline_dekooning at earthlink.net> wrote:> > >> >> >> > ι 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 βδφ #267, Turner p182 and ατρ 766. So > if we> > just set aside that issue, and forget about Cooper, βδφ, Turner > and> > ατρ. Returning to Codex Sinaiticus ψν 10:29 and Westcott and > Metzger’s> > statements that this is impossible greek which cannot be > construed:> >> > >>> > >> Codex Sinaiticus*[c]> > >> ψοην 10:29 hO παθρ [μου] hO δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζων εστιν> >> >> > 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,> > δεδωκεν μοι, as something that qualifies hO παθρ. ι don’t seem > to> > have any problem reading this sentence[1]. The relative hOS > δεδωκεν> > μοι is an easier read but calling hO δεδωκεν μοι “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 ν.Turner’s blanket > denial> > that hO can function as a relative in ντ 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?