Re: OUK ESTIN SOU ANHR again again corrected
Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Sat, 5 Jul 1997 12:51:44 -0400
At 6:49 AM -0400 7/5/97, John M. Moe wrote:
>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.
I think the answer here is: Yes, this is an editor's choice; I don't know
what the later, punctuated MSS, may have, but the editor (so far as I
know--and I don't feel overly confident about this) might theoretically
have written OUK E)/ESTIN SOU=.
> 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?
At least parallel; but this is something I've become increasingly curious
about. There are several NT Greek constructions that are curiously like
Latin idiomatic constructions. BDF has an index listing "Latinisms" and a
brief discussion at #5. One of my favorites (not listed in BDF) is Lk 9:58
OUK ECEI POU THN KEFALHN KLINHi which appears to me to be a ringer for
Latin NON HABET UBI CAPUT PONAT (indirect question with subordinating
subjunctive).
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/