In comparing the Greek texts of John 11:21b & 11:32c:
21…KURIE, EI HS hWDE OUK AN APEQANEN hO ADELFOS MOU
32…KURIE, EI HS hWDE OUK AN MOU APEQANEN hO ADELFOS
Is the slight difference – the shifting of the position of the MOU – a nuance that should be brought out in translations? (Most probably don’t.) And if so, how?
– – – Eric S. Weiss
Eric, the variation in the Byzantine text is also in the verb of the first tense.
21 Κύριε, εἰ ἦς ὧδε, ὁ ἀδελφός μου οὐκ ἂν ἐτεθνήκει. 32 Κύριε, εἰ ἦς ὧδε, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανέ μου ὁ ἀδελφός.
href=”mailto:B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org
I propose that the difference between the two passages – if any – should lie in emphasizing the effect/affect of the death: in the first case, the weight is moved towards the one who died, i.e., Lazarus (he was not living anymore), whereas in the second, it is the sister of the dead that receives emphasis (she was now withouth brother).
Vasile Stancu
href=”mailto:B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org
[IVER]: That is a nuance I had not noticed. If my understanding of the function of word
order is correct, it does show a small difference. Martha in v. 21 talks about “my brother” without any particular emphasis. She seems somewhat businesslike. Mary was crying when she knelt before Jesus. She seems more emotional and had a closer relationship to Jesus. She may also have had a closer relationship to Lazarus, at least more emotional. That might explain why she in John’s recounting does not simply say “my brother”, but “MY brother”. I would put “my” in italics to indicate that emphasis, since the word could then be spoken with greater stress in English (and Danish) – and with a crying voice.
[MIKE]: This cannot be the case. MOU is enclitic and thus by definition cannot receive greater stress–it, in fact, cannot receive *any* stress.
Mike Aubrey http://evepheso.wordpress.com
Eric, the variation in the Byzantine text is also in the verb of the first tense.
21 Κύριε, εἰ ἦς ὧδε, ὁ ἀδελφός μου οὐκ ἂν ἐτεθνήκει. 32 Κύριε, εἰ ἦς ὧδε, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανέ μου ὁ ἀδελφός.
href=”mailto:B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org
I propose that the difference between the two passages – if any – should lie in emphasizing the effect/affect of the death: in the first case, the weight is moved towards the one who died, i.e., Lazarus (he was not living anymore), whereas in the second, it is the sister of the dead that receives emphasis (she was now withouth brother).
Vasile Stancu
href=”mailto:B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org
[IVER]: That is a nuance I had not noticed. If my understanding of the function of word
order is correct, it does show a small difference. Martha in v. 21 talks about “my brother” without any particular emphasis. She seems somewhat businesslike. Mary was crying when she knelt before Jesus. She seems more emotional and had a closer relationship to Jesus. She may also have had a closer relationship to Lazarus, at least more emotional. That might explain why she in John’s recounting does not simply say “my brother”, but “MY brother”. I would put “my” in italics to indicate that emphasis, since the word could then be spoken with greater stress in English (and Danish) – and with a crying voice.
[MIKE]: This cannot be the case. MOU is enclitic and thus by definition cannot receive greater stress–it, in fact, cannot receive *any* stress.
Mike Aubrey http://evepheso.wordpress.com