OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR again

John M. Moe (John.M.Moe-1@tc.umn.edu)
Thu, 03 Jul 1997 20:08:25 +0000

Mark Obrian and Clayton Bartholomew have discussed the possible
inferences of word order OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR. It was the significance of
that word order which prompted me to post my original question. SOU
ANHR struck me as odd and I thought someone on the list might have the
answer. I have been pursuing that feeling of oddity through the Greek
of the NT and LXX and will present the results of my resurch bellow. I
will not fill everyones mail boxes with lists of verses, but will
summarize. If anyone would like a copy of the resurch let me know and
I'll mail it off list.

SOU ANHR certianly seems to be an oddity as word order goes. In every
case where ANHR (I checked all cases of the singular) is modified by
the genative case of the first or third person (feminine in the 3rd
person) personal pronoun, the pronoun follows the noun ANHR.
In the NT SOU preceeds ANHR only in our verse except for the possible
exception of a varriant reading at John 4:16 where FWNHSON TON ANDRA
SOU is FWNHSON SOU TON ANDRA in a varriant which is not well attested
but followed by Wescott and Hort.
I did a quick look at the Perseus papyri but it seems to confirm what I
found in the Biblical Greek.
When ANHR is used in contexts where our English "Husband" is undeniably
the idea, it is almost always accompanied by the article or, as someone
else has pointed out in conection with this thread, IDIOS. the most
common form is attested in verse 16 - TON ANDRA SOU.
It may not be possible to uncover just what the significance of the
strange word order here is. What is as sure as sure can be, however, is
that SOU ANHR sure is strange word order!

It seems to me that the odd word order here and the lack of the article
should not be written off as insignificant. My problem is to understand
just what that significance is. My poor fevered brain is further
troubled in its attempt to put it all together by the fact that
whatever the significance of the phrase SOU ANHR, it is turned upside
down by the negation OUK ESTIN. Let me put forth my attempt for your
critique.
The context of this discussion of the woman's ANAR begins in v. 16 with
Jesus' imparative FWNHSON TON ANDRA SOU, The usual way to say "call your
husband/ the man that is yours alone" In Verse 18 he responds to her
confession that she has no ANHR and spells out just why that is true
even though she "has a man" (in the English sense of those words). hON
EXEIN OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR. TON ANHR SOU is the usual way of saying "your
husband/man. The emphasis here seems clearly to be on SOU and there is
not the usual artical = YOUR man/husband. the one you have is not YOUR
man, seems to me to imply that he IS someone else's. Reactions anyone?

John M. Moe