From: Nichael Cramer (nichael@sover.net)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 21:05:04 EST
> ... [ if John had meant <X> he would have written <Y> ] ...
Since everyone seems to be getting into the act here, let me ask a
question that has always bothered me: How much of the structure of these
verses --in particular how much of the tortured syntax-- is simply a
result of the requirements of prosody?
The metrical/hymnal nature of the first few verse of John has long been
understood. To what extent, then, should _this_ be understood as the
--finally-- governing principle of composition?
To take one obvious example, it doesn't take too much imagination to hear
the opening lines of the fourth Gospel as a classic call-and-response:
Minister: en arxh ...
Audience: ...HN O LOGOS!!
Minister: kai o logos hn...
Audience: ...PROS TON QEON!!
Minister: kai qeos...
Audience: ...HN O LOGOS!!
Minister: outos hn en arxh
Audience: ...PROS TON QEON!!
...ktl.
(Not to mention the inner-echoes "en arxh... en arxh..." Or that
beautiful chiasm: "logos hn .. qeon... ...qeos... hn..logos")
In short, I guess, my question is this: Are we missing the --hymnodic--
forest for the sake of the --syntactic-- trees?
-- Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT