>
> This rings bells for me in two ways. Remember our discussion (was it
> off list?) where I mentioned my concern that too often "stylistic
> differences" may be simply the easy way out of a tough nut to crack?
> An example of what I meant, that IMHO fairly throbs with polysemy
> follows.
> John 1:39 (ERCESQE KAI OYESQE) and John 1:46 (ERCOU KAI IDE) are used
> as examples to show that the future indicative often functions as
> imparative. it is said that the difference here is "stylistic" I
> maintain that the difference here is far more than stylistic. In Verse
> 46 Philip instructs the cynical Nathanial, since he won't take Philip's
> word for it, to come and satisfy his scepticism himself. The Imparative
> IDE conveys the thrust of his intentions clearly. In Verse 39, Jesus
> answers the somewhat nebulas, but I think leading, question of the
> disciples of John "where are you staying" with an invitation (in the
> imparative ERCESQE) and a promise (in the future indicative OYESQE). If
> you give alittle thought to what John has to say about how that promise
> was to be filled out (begining with that ARCHN TWN SHMEIWN of chapter 2
> where He EFANERWSEN THN DOXAN AUTOU) that promise "OYESQE" peals like a
> many layered onion. "You will" see by the light of TO FWS TO ALHQINON
> hO FWTIZEI PANTWN ANQROPWN (1:9). The promise is "OYESQE" and I think
> John's whole Gospel is summarized in 1:14 where the human result of hO
> LOGOS SARX EGENETO is EQAESAMEQA.... I could go on to the man born
> blind in chapter 9 and the leaders who see but don't SEE and on and on
> and on, but I leave the onion for those who see what I see to peal for
> themselves.
> I don't know if "polysemy is considered to be an aspect of Johannine
> style in general" but I sure think it IS.
John
I read your post with care and looked at the passages you referenced. I think
I understand your argument, but a few questions remain.
I wonder if we are both using the word polysemy in the same way? When I
used this word in reference to John 1:29, I was making specific reference to
AIRWN in that context. I am suggesting that the phrase O AIRWN THN
AMARTIAN TOU KOSMOU may have been intended by the author of John to
have two meanings. One; the meaning of the Baptist who utters the words and
Two; the meaning of the evangelist who understands the words in light of the
atonement. I am suggesting that this phrase in a single instance in a single
context has two meanings. This is what I am calling polysemy.
Now someone may take issue with my use of this word and others may take
issue with the idea presented here. It is the idea that is important, if there is
another word for it I would be willing to change the term. I am suggesting
that a single instance of a semantic token (e.g., a word, phrase, or clause) can
have more than one sense in a single context.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
Postscript: Before getting too excited about OYESQE in John 1:39 you should
note that this reading is not too solid. It is supported by P66, P75, B, C . . .
But the variant IDETE is supported by Aleph, A, Q F13, Maj, Latt.
Having noted this, I don't think your argument would be damaged much by
reading IDETE in John 1:39. Your are arguing a larger issue that what is
reflected in this passage. Your argument could be advanced without
reference to this verse.