From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 29 2001 - 07:37:44 EDT
In the message I sent a few minutes ago, I now realize that I never did
clearly answer the chief question: I DON'T think that readers should assume
that what's cited in the hOTI clause is believed by the writer himself to
be true; he's simply reporting or telling what he thinks the reasoning
behind their action was.
At 6:30 AM -0500 6/29/01, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 7:35 PM -0700 6/28/01, Richard Allan Stauch wrote:
>>I have a question concerning the Greek grammatical construction of John
>>5:18b, and the import that someone has insisted the construction implies.
>>Here is the text according to the UBS GNT3:
>>
>> DIA TOUTO OUN MALLON EZHTOUN AUTON hOI IOUDAIOI APOKTEINAI,
>> hOTI OU MONON ELUEN TO SABBATON,
>> ALLA KAI PATERA IDION ELEGEN TON QEON ISON hEAUTON POIWN TWi QEWi.
>>
>>The second line above is what we were talking about. To state his case in
>>short (and I sincerely hope that this is not considered "out of bounds" as a
>>matter of interpretation, but my correspondent insists that this is actually
>>a matter of Greek grammar): The construction of hOTI with the indicative
>>verb (ELUEN in this case) necessarily means that the author believes what
>>follows hOTI within its clause to be true. That is, not that it was believed
>>to be true by those mentioned in the primary clause, but that on John's
>>authority ELUEN TO SABBATON was in fact true.
>
>No, that isn't so. While classical Attic tends to use the optative after
>hOTI when the quoted statement follows an introductory verb in a past
>tense, the indicative is not at all uncommon--EVEN in classical Attic--in
>such a case; that is to say, the practice of Greek speakers and writers was
>by no means rigidly restricted in reported past discourse. You might want
>to look at Smyth's grammar (#2614) at Perseus:
>
>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007&query=head%3D%23610
>
>>Additionally, I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that John's grammar
>>was, to some degree, unsophisticated by comparison with (for instance) Paul
>>and Luke. That is to say, in the Gospel at any rate, the number of
>>grammatical forms are limited. Is it possible, considering the answer to the
>>last is "yes," that 1st-Century Galilean provincials understood this type of
>>construction differently than 6th-Century Greeks did?
>
>6th-century A.D. or B.C.? I really don't think so. There are stylistic
>differences, to be sure, between GJn, GLk, and the Pauline letters,
>Nevertheless, the most remarkable thing about John's narrative style is
>that it is quite readable, probably more readily readable than any other
>narrative style in the GNT. I would not think that Greek-speakers/writers
>five hundred years later would have had any difficulty understanding what
>he wrote.
>--
>
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics, Washington University
>Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
>cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:00 EDT