From: Iver Larsen (iver_larsen@sil.org)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 03:33:53 EST
> JOHN 18:15 HKOLOUQEI DE TWi IHSOU SIMWN PETROS KAI [hO] ALLOS
> MAQHTHS. hO DE
> MAQHTHS EKEINOS HN GNWSTOS TWi ARCIEREI KAI SUNEISHLQEN TWi IHSOU EIS THN
> AULHN TOU ARCIEREWS
>
> One might argue that hO ALLOS MAQHTHS is a new participant being
> introduced here (Jn 18:15) for the first time and for that reason hO
would
> be omitted at this point but included in the subsequent references (Jn
18:16, 20:2,
> 20:3, 20:4, 20:8).
>
> However, one might also argue that hO ALLOS MAQHTHS (Jn 18:15) is not
> really a new participant, rather a new label for an old
> participant. The use of the article might be an intentional signal to
indicate that the reader
> should know who this person is. In other words the article here
> might serve a significant discourse function, identifying a previously
active
> participant.
>
> JN 13:23 HN ANAKEIMENOS hEIS EK TWN MAQHTWN AUTOU EN TWi KOLPWi TOU IHSOU,
> hON HGAPA hO IHSOUS.
>
> JN 20:2 TRECEI OUN KAI ERCETAI PROS SIMWNA PETRON KAI PROS TON
> ALLON MAQHTHN
> HON EFILEI HO IHSOUS KAI LEGEI AUTOIS: HRAN TON KURION EK TOU MNHMEIOU KAI
> OUK OIDAMEN POU EQHKAN AUTON.
>
> JN 19:26 IHSOUS OUN IDWN THN MHTERA KAI TON MAQHTHN PARESTWTA hON HGAPA,
> LEGEI THi MHTRI: GUNAI, IDE hO hUIOS SOU. 19:27 EITA LEGEI TWi
> MAQHTHi: IDE
> hH MHTHR SOU. KAI AP' EKEINHS THS hWRAS ELABEN hO
>
> ALLOS MAQHTHS would naturally raise the question: who?, but hO ALLOS
> MAQHTHS would indicate that this information should be self-evident.
(snip)
> Anyway, I am suggesting that the presence or absence of hO in JN 18:15
> should be analyzed according to discourse function, specifically patterns
> of encoding participant reference and marking old/new information. This
> analysis might prove useful for predicting the intrinsic
> probability of this reading.
Clay, I agree completely that one needs to analyze this according to
discourse considerations. If the article was original, it would refer to an
already known participant who had been earlier introduced as "another"
disciple. But John has not done so. This person has so far only been
introduced in 13:33 as you noted by "the disciple Jesus loved". He was
introduced as "one of the disciples" which indicates a first introduction.
If 18:15 had said "the Jesus-loved disciple" or similar, we would have a
clear back reference. The expression "other disciple" is first introduced
here in 18 and referred to in chapter 20 several times.
From a discourse perspective I would say that your first argument wins. hO
is very unlikely to be original. It was apparently introduced by a scribe
who was familiar with the title "other disciple" because he had already read
chapter 20.
Iver Larsen
---
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 - 15:37:23 EDT