Re: OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR again again corrected

John M. Moe (John.M.Moe-1@tc.umn.edu)
Sat, 05 Jul 1997 10:49:59 +0000

Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> Dare I throw yet another indecisive factor into the undecided question? The
> FORM of SOU in John 4:18 is printed in UBS4 as an enclitic (SOU, not SOU=).
> IF that's correct, then it should mean that SOU belongs with OUK ESTIN
> rather than with ANHR. I would then guess that we have a construction that
> imitates a common Latin construction where the subject is hON ECEIS
> (EKEINOS) ... ANHR and the predicate is OUK ESTIN SOU: "The one
> (man/husband) you have (he) isn't YOURS. It seems to me that this reading
> makes the SOU, even if it is an enclitic, really pretty emphatic and we
> SHOULD translate it as "YOURS." I think this is probably right--at any
> rate, I think the enclitic form SOU really ought to be taken with OUK ESTIN
> rather than with ANHR. And if that's the case, then we probably SHOULD
> understand ANHR as "husband" rather than simply "man."

Thanks Carl! My ignorance/ignoring of pointing betrays me again. A (9.
Auflage 1912) edition of Nestle's text which I have in my library also
leaves SOU unpointed. I supose the enclitic/not enclitic choice is
strictly an editorial decission? It does nicely answer the problem of
the odd word order, and it fits nicely with the results of my LXX
search.
Surely you mean this is a parallel to a Latin connstruction don't
you? Greek wouldn't "imitate" Latin would it? Wouldn't any imitation
be likely to be the other way aroun? Or does my ignorance of the
history of Gr. and Latin betray me also?
The more light you gentelmen cast on this phrase, the more it seems
that the emphas is on SOU. Now, my problem is I can't my thinking get
beyond the conotation that would have in English. "He is not YOUR man."
means he is sombody else's. Is there any way of knowing if the emphasis
on SOU here would carry the same conotation? (Can't seem to get out of
the thinking in English mood)

Thanks again for the persistence!

John M. Moe