John 9:6 TAUTA EIPWN EPTUSEN CAMAI KAI EPOIHSEN PHLON EK TOU PTUSMATOS KAI EPECRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS
AUTOU is strange here. Is it possible that we have here a “dative-genitive”, a genitive with dative meaning, like in Modern Greek? D/05 has the dative here, actually. Or does it refer to PTUSMATOS: “the mud of it (the saliva)”?
Best wishes Wieland <><
Look just a few lines later: “EPECRISEN MOU TOUS OFQALMOUS” John 9:11 APEKRIQH EKEINOS· hO ANQRWPOS hO LEGOMENOS IHSOUS PHLON EPOIHSEN KAI EPECRISEN MOU TOUS OFQALMOUS KAI EIPEN MOI hOTI hUPAGE EIS TON SILWAM KAI NIYAI· APELQWN OUN KAI NIYAMENOS ANEBLEYA.
The genitive pretty clearly depends on the noun, even in 9:6. It may well be that this usage of the genitive in advance of its noun is a forerunner of the dative usage of the genitive form — I think these genitive pronouns preceding their head nouns ought to be studied, if they haven’t been already. I’ve cc’d Mike Aubrey, since this seems to be his Steckenpferd.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Isn’t there a difference to say
a) spread it me on the eyes or b) spread it on my eyes?
Best wishes Wieland <><
Yes, there certainly is — in English — or in German. But I would want to see considerably more evidence to accept that MOU in these two verses (John 9:6, 11) is intended to have a dative function.
Here are just a few instances of the first-person singular genitive personal pronoun preceding its head noun:
Matt. 7:24 PAS OUN hOSTIS AKOUEI MOU TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS … Matt. 7:26 KAI PAS hO AKOUWN MOU TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS … Matt. 8:8 OUK EIMI hIKANOS hINA MOU hUPO THN STEGHN EISELQHiS Matt. 17:15 KAI LEGWN· KURIE, ELEHSON MOU TON hUION, Matt. 24:48 CRONIZEI MOU hO KURIOS Mark 5:30 K TIS MOU hHYATO TWN hIMATIWN; Mark 9:24 PISTEUW· BOHQEI MOU THi APISTIAi.
To be sure, it is more common for the genitive pronoun to follow its head noun, but it quite frequently precedes it and even may be separated from it, as in Mt 8:8 and Mk 5:30.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
But isn’t the case Jo 9:6 a bit different? AUTOU is in front, but in front of TON PHLON. Do you really think that it belongs to TOUS OFQALMOUS? I’m surprised that you have no problem with it, since so many commentators (and scribes) are puzzled.
Best wishes Wieland <><
Yes, I do. I really do.
Maybe I should read the commentators, but what I read is the Greek text, and if the Greek text makes perfectly good sense as it stands, I don’t see a problem.
Perhaps my problem, if it is a problem is that I wrote a dissertation (half a century ago) on adjectives and pronouns separated from their head words. One of the common patterns is abVAB — where a and b are adjectives, V is a verb, and A and B are the head nouns with which the adjectives (or sometimes pronouns) construe.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
But AKOUW takes an accusative of the thing heard and a genitive of the person heard: HKOUSA AUTOU THN FWNHN. The verb EPICRIEIN appears only in the two verses of John 9 under discussion in the GNT. LSJ cites EPICRIEIN used with an accusative of the person or surface anointed and an instrumental dative of the mixture that is smeared (“smear X {acc} with Y {dat}). Unless someone attempts a TLG search for EPICRIEIN, the evidence available is rather sparse.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
I understand this, only I have tried to understand also the principle that might stand behind the fact that sometimes the subject of certain verbs may be in the genitive (AKOUW), or dative (AKOLOUW, PISTEUW), instead of the accusative, as in most of the other cases. The image that I have of such occurencies is that this construction indicates some kind of indirectness of the action: I do not really hear you, but I hear what you produce which my ears can receive (e.g., voice), or my brains can process (e.g., words), therefore I hear ‘something of you’; I do not really follow you, or believe you, but I follow perhaps, or believe, the teachings that I get from you.
Why not the same in the case of EPEXRISEN? Not enough evidence? I would not be sursprised to find out that this is a kind of construction which was mostly used in colloquial communication, which explains why it is not found in philosophers’ work or other kinds of elevated literature.
Vasile Stancu
2011/3/18 Carl Conrad:
I think that’s an astute and very likely an accurate suggestion. What we have in these two verses of John are the only Biblical instances of this verb meaning “smear X with Y.” These two verses use it with a double accusative (PHLON, OFQALMOUS) and a genitive of the person whose eyes are smeared (AUTOU, MOU). The LSJ evidence point to a usage of this verb with an accusative object of the person/thing smeared and an insrumental dative of the substance with which one smears. It does seem odd to me that we’d have a double accusative and a genitive personal pronoun that is NOT possessive. Wieland suggests that this might be a genitive usage that’s a precursor of the later Greek merging of genitive and dative usages in the genitive form, a proposition to which I’m open theoretically but rather skeptical. Nevertheless, when you suggest that we may have a construction in colloquial Greek that’s different from the usage of literary Greek, I must concede that pos- sibility — I’m reminded that the Latin verb UTOR is used by Cicero and Classical writers in the “sermo urbanus” with an instrumental ablative, but Plautus (ca 200 BC) and Vulgar Latin use UTOR with an accusative direct object. But where might we see this Johannine usage elsewhere? Where I would expect to see the language of smearing an ointment upon a bodily surface is in the medical writers — but I’d expect them to use the literary language! It just might be worth the effort to get a TLG check on any other extant usages of EPICRIEIN.
χαιρετε, παντες και τε πασαι,
If you put a gun to my head and said “explain the AUTOU,” I would say
1. Put the gun down. It’s not that important. All the explanations proposed have problems, but none affect the basic meaning of the passage.
2. I think the AUTOU refers to the spittle.
3. The Alexandrian text is possibly corrupt. The Byzantine text omits the AUTOU, though you would not know this from the NA apparatus. Did anyone check to see if SBL GNT omits it?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Mark,
The SBL GNT is like the NA here. In addition to removing the AUTOU the Byzantine text (RP) has added TOU TUFLOU at the end, and that solves any problem or ambiguity. NA mentions the addition at the end as supported by A, C and others, but a few mss have AUTOU in this position.
Iver Larsen
The discussion between Wielend (>>) and Carl ( < ) ended as: Wieland Willker wrote: < Yes, I do. I really do. < Maybe I should read the commentators, but what I read < is the Greek text, and if the Greek text makes perfectly < good sense as it stands, I don't see a problem. < Perhaps my problem, if it is a problem is that I wrote a < dissertation (half a century ago) on adjectives and pronouns < separated from their head words. One of the common < patterns is abVAB -- where a and b are adjectives, V < is a verb, and A and B are the head nouns with which < the adjectives (or sometimes pronouns) construe. < Carl W. Conrad I think that all about the μοῦ and σοῦ that Iver refers from John and Carl from Mathew are not related to the point that Wielend brings up. I would like to make few notes on this verse. HW use a different verb than all others. Tischendorf uses first this structure followed by NA27 and SBL GNT, while in Textus Receptus, Byzanine and the Ecclesiastical text there is no αὐτοῦ, but τοῦ τυφλοῦ at the end of the verse. With all respect, Carl, Tischendorf’s choice and his followers does not make sense in a Greek structure.
Colleagues, to add a bit to Iver’s e-mail:
Yes, the text of SBL GNT is the same as NA here, but its apparatus (unlike that of NA) reports in full the alternate reading of the Byzantine tradition. Combining the three variant readings in the SBL GNT apparatus into a single unit, it becomes clear that the MSS preserve at least 3 alternate forms of the verse:
1) EPEXRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS [Treg NA NIV (found in Aleph L + others)
2) EPEQHKEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS [WH, following Vaticanus
3) EPEXRISEN TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS TOU TUFLOU [RP; the Byzantine form of the verse
But at least three additional forms of the verse survive in the manuscript tradition:
4) EPEQHKEN TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS TOU TUFLOU [read by C
5) EPEXRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS TOU TUFLOU [read by Codex Alexandrinus and the corrector of C
6) EPEXRISEN AUTWi TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTOU [read by Codex Bezae
Note especially, in light of some of the earlier comments in this thread, the dative in the last variant.
This is one of those places where a presentation of the evidence such as Swanson offers (or Tischendorf’s apparatus, for that matter), which displays more of various forms of the verse, can illuminate the discussion of the syntax of the passage.
Mike Holmes
Look just a few lines later: “EPECRISEN MOU TOUS OFQALMOUS” John 9:11 APEKRIQH EKEINOS· hO ANQRWPOS hO LEGOMENOS IHSOUS PHLON EPOIHSEN KAI EPECRISEN MOU TOUS OFQALMOUS KAI EIPEN MOI hOTI hUPAGE EIS TON SILWAM KAI NIYAI· APELQWN OUN KAI NIYAMENOS ANEBLEYA.
The genitive pretty clearly depends on the noun, even in 9:6. It may well be that this usage of the genitive in advance of its noun is a forerunner of the dative usage of the genitive form — I think these genitive pronouns preceding their head nouns ought to be studied, if they haven’t been already. I’ve cc’d Mike Aubrey, since this seems to be his Steckenpferd.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Isn’t there a difference to say
a) spread it me on the eyes or b) spread it on my eyes?
Best wishes Wieland <><
Yes, there certainly is — in English — or in German. But I would want to see considerably more evidence to accept that MOU in these two verses (John 9:6, 11) is intended to have a dative function.
Here are just a few instances of the first-person singular genitive personal pronoun preceding its head noun:
Matt. 7:24 PAS OUN hOSTIS AKOUEI MOU TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS … Matt. 7:26 KAI PAS hO AKOUWN MOU TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS … Matt. 8:8 OUK EIMI hIKANOS hINA MOU hUPO THN STEGHN EISELQHiS Matt. 17:15 KAI LEGWN· KURIE, ELEHSON MOU TON hUION, Matt. 24:48 CRONIZEI MOU hO KURIOS Mark 5:30 K TIS MOU hHYATO TWN hIMATIWN; Mark 9:24 PISTEUW· BOHQEI MOU THi APISTIAi.
To be sure, it is more common for the genitive pronoun to follow its head noun, but it quite frequently precedes it and even may be separated from it, as in Mt 8:8 and Mk 5:30.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
But isn’t the case Jo 9:6 a bit different? AUTOU is in front, but in front of TON PHLON. Do you really think that it belongs to TOUS OFQALMOUS? I’m surprised that you have no problem with it, since so many commentators (and scribes) are puzzled.
Best wishes Wieland <><
Yes, I do. I really do.
Maybe I should read the commentators, but what I read is the Greek text, and if the Greek text makes perfectly good sense as it stands, I don’t see a problem.
Perhaps my problem, if it is a problem is that I wrote a dissertation (half a century ago) on adjectives and pronouns separated from their head words. One of the common patterns is abVAB — where a and b are adjectives, V is a verb, and A and B are the head nouns with which the adjectives (or sometimes pronouns) construe.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
But AKOUW takes an accusative of the thing heard and a genitive of the person heard: HKOUSA AUTOU THN FWNHN. The verb EPICRIEIN appears only in the two verses of John 9 under discussion in the GNT. LSJ cites EPICRIEIN used with an accusative of the person or surface anointed and an instrumental dative of the mixture that is smeared (“smear X {acc} with Y {dat}). Unless someone attempts a TLG search for EPICRIEIN, the evidence available is rather sparse.
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
I understand this, only I have tried to understand also the principle that might stand behind the fact that sometimes the subject of certain verbs may be in the genitive (AKOUW), or dative (AKOLOUW, PISTEUW), instead of the accusative, as in most of the other cases. The image that I have of such occurencies is that this construction indicates some kind of indirectness of the action: I do not really hear you, but I hear what you produce which my ears can receive (e.g., voice), or my brains can process (e.g., words), therefore I hear ‘something of you’; I do not really follow you, or believe you, but I follow perhaps, or believe, the teachings that I get from you.
Why not the same in the case of EPEXRISEN? Not enough evidence? I would not be sursprised to find out that this is a kind of construction which was mostly used in colloquial communication, which explains why it is not found in philosophers’ work or other kinds of elevated literature.
Vasile Stancu
2011/3/18 Carl Conrad:
I think that’s an astute and very likely an accurate suggestion. What we have in these two verses of John are the only Biblical instances of this verb meaning “smear X with Y.” These two verses use it with a double accusative (PHLON, OFQALMOUS) and a genitive of the person whose eyes are smeared (AUTOU, MOU). The LSJ evidence point to a usage of this verb with an accusative object of the person/thing smeared and an insrumental dative of the substance with which one smears. It does seem odd to me that we’d have a double accusative and a genitive personal pronoun that is NOT possessive. Wieland suggests that this might be a genitive usage that’s a precursor of the later Greek merging of genitive and dative usages in the genitive form, a proposition to which I’m open theoretically but rather skeptical. Nevertheless, when you suggest that we may have a construction in colloquial Greek that’s different from the usage of literary Greek, I must concede that pos- sibility — I’m reminded that the Latin verb UTOR is used by Cicero and Classical writers in the “sermo urbanus” with an instrumental ablative, but Plautus (ca 200 BC) and Vulgar Latin use UTOR with an accusative direct object. But where might we see this Johannine usage elsewhere? Where I would expect to see the language of smearing an ointment upon a bodily surface is in the medical writers — but I’d expect them to use the literary language! It just might be worth the effort to get a TLG check on any other extant usages of EPICRIEIN.
χαιρετε, παντες και τε πασαι,
If you put a gun to my head and said “explain the AUTOU,” I would say
1. Put the gun down. It’s not that important. All the explanations proposed have problems, but none affect the basic meaning of the passage.
2. I think the AUTOU refers to the spittle.
3. The Alexandrian text is possibly corrupt. The Byzantine text omits the AUTOU, though you would not know this from the NA apparatus. Did anyone check to see if SBL GNT omits it?
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
Mark,
The SBL GNT is like the NA here. In addition to removing the AUTOU the Byzantine text (RP) has added TOU TUFLOU at the end, and that solves any problem or ambiguity. NA mentions the addition at the end as supported by A, C and others, but a few mss have AUTOU in this position.
Iver Larsen
Colleagues, to add a bit to Iver’s e-mail:
Yes, the text of SBL GNT is the same as NA here, but its apparatus (unlike that of NA) reports in full the alternate reading of the Byzantine tradition. Combining the three variant readings in the SBL GNT apparatus into a single unit, it becomes clear that the MSS preserve at least 3 alternate forms of the verse:
1) EPEXRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS [Treg NA NIV (found in Aleph L + others)
2) EPEQHKEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS [WH, following Vaticanus
3) EPEXRISEN TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS TOU TUFLOU [RP; the Byzantine form of the verse
But at least three additional forms of the verse survive in the manuscript tradition:
4) EPEQHKEN TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS TOU TUFLOU [read by C
5) EPEXRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS TOU TUFLOU [read by Codex Alexandrinus and the corrector of C
6) EPEXRISEN AUTWi TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTOU [read by Codex Bezae
Note especially, in light of some of the earlier comments in this thread, the dative in the last variant.
This is one of those places where a presentation of the evidence such as Swanson offers (or Tischendorf’s apparatus, for that matter), which displays more of various forms of the verse, can illuminate the discussion of the syntax of the passage.
Mike Holmes
The discussion between Wielend (>>) and Carl ( < ) ended as: Wieland Willker wrote: < Yes, I do. I really do. < Maybe I should read the commentators, but what I read < is the Greek text, and if the Greek text makes perfectly < good sense as it stands, I don't see a problem. < Perhaps my problem, if it is a problem is that I wrote a < dissertation (half a century ago) on adjectives and pronouns < separated from their head words. One of the common < patterns is abVAB -- where a and b are adjectives, V < is a verb, and A and B are the head nouns with which < the adjectives (or sometimes pronouns) construe. < Carl W. Conrad I think that all about the μοῦ and σοῦ that Iver refers from John and Carl from Mathew are not related to the point that Wielend brings up. I would like to make few notes on this verse. HW use a different verb than all others. Tischendorf uses first this structure followed by NA27 and SBL GNT, while in Textus Receptus, Byzanine and the Ecclesiastical text there is no αὐτοῦ, but τοῦ τυφλοῦ at the end of the verse. With all respect, Carl, Tischendorf's choice and his followers does not make sense in a Greek structure.
What about this (im)possibility: AUTOU works with EPEXRISEN as it would with HKOUSEN, for example. EPEXRISEN AUTOU would therefore mean ‘he anointed him’, as HKOUSEN AUTOU means ‘he heard him’. Why not EPEXRISEN AUTON? Because Jesus anointed somewhat ‘a part of him’, i.e., his eyes, as in the case of HKOUSEN AUTOU, where he heard something of him, e.g., his voice, or his words. If he had wanted to refer directly to the ‘object’ of the anointment, he would have said, ‘EXRISEN TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTOU’, as in the case of AKOUW, where we may have HKOUSEN TON LOGON.
Vasile Stancu
George F Somsel
My apologies. It didn’t occur to me that the font would be changed from SPIonic to whatever. Of course, the result is that it doesn’t appear as Greek even if the recipient has SPIonic on his computer.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Carl Conrad
I think it’s true enough that NT Koine doesn’t conform with regularity to rules observed in Classsical Attic regarding AKOUW and its complements. Our problem here is whether we have sufficient evidence for CRIEIN with two accusatives and a genitive that’s not a possessive. But usage of CRIEIN with two accusatives and a genitive that’s not a possessive is still not comparable to usage of AKOUEIN with an accusative and a genitive.
It appears to me that opinions on this construction in John 9:6 are widely divergent. Personally I affirm yet once again that I don’t find problematic AUTOU as possessive genitive construing with TOUS OFQALMOUS in the text EPECRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS. I personally think that the Byzantine/Majority text displays a text that has been “corrected” by later scribes to conform better to what is thought to be preferable structure. I think it’s also worth noting here that, for all the differences in the ways list-members have set forth and expounded this text, there is nevertheless not an ounce of difference regarding the MEANING of the clause in question. The question we continue to squabble over is, I guess, what did the original author actually write and what did he mean by writing it that way?
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
George F Somsel
This article illustrates ONE of the reasons that legacy fonts should no longer be used. The words a0ntakou/w, diakou/w, ei0sakou/w, e0nakou/w, e0pakou/w, parakou/w, and u9pakou/w appear with spaces in the middle of words whenever any accent or breathing precedes. They should be ἁντακούω, διακούω, εἰσακούω, ἐνακούω, ἐπακούω, παρακούω and ὑπακούω. I don’t transliterate since it might be meaningless to anyone not using unicode.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
What about this (im)possibility: AUTOU works with EPEXRISEN as it would with HKOUSEN, for example. EPEXRISEN AUTOU would therefore mean ‘he anointed him’, as HKOUSEN AUTOU means ‘he heard him’. Why not EPEXRISEN AUTON? Because Jesus anointed somewhat ‘a part of him’, i.e., his eyes, as in the case of HKOUSEN AUTOU, where he heard something of him, e.g., his voice, or his words. If he had wanted to refer directly to the ‘object’ of the anointment, he would have said, ‘EXRISEN TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTOU’, as in the case of AKOUW, where we may have HKOUSEN TON LOGON.
Vasile Stancu
George F Somsel
My apologies. It didn’t occur to me that the font would be changed from SPIonic to whatever. Of course, the result is that it doesn’t appear as Greek even if the recipient has SPIonic on his computer.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Carl Conrad
I think it’s true enough that NT Koine doesn’t conform with regularity to rules observed in Classsical Attic regarding AKOUW and its complements. Our problem here is whether we have sufficient evidence for CRIEIN with two accusatives and a genitive that’s not a possessive. But usage of CRIEIN with two accusatives and a genitive that’s not a possessive is still not comparable to usage of AKOUEIN with an accusative and a genitive.
It appears to me that opinions on this construction in John 9:6 are widely divergent. Personally I affirm yet once again that I don’t find problematic AUTOU as possessive genitive construing with TOUS OFQALMOUS in the text EPECRISEN AUTOU TON PHLON EPI TOUS OFQALMOUS. I personally think that the Byzantine/Majority text displays a text that has been “corrected” by later scribes to conform better to what is thought to be preferable structure. I think it’s also worth noting here that, for all the differences in the ways list-members have set forth and expounded this text, there is nevertheless not an ounce of difference regarding the MEANING of the clause in question. The question we continue to squabble over is, I guess, what did the original author actually write and what did he mean by writing it that way?
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
George F Somsel
This article illustrates ONE of the reasons that legacy fonts should no longer be used. The words a0ntakou/w, diakou/w, ei0sakou/w, e0nakou/w, e0pakou/w, parakou/w, and u9pakou/w appear with spaces in the middle of words whenever any accent or breathing precedes. They should be ἁντακούω, διακούω, εἰσακούω, ἐνακούω, ἐπακούω, παρακούω and ὑπακούω. I don’t transliterate since it might be meaningless to anyone not using unicode.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus