John 8:25

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Scott Lawson
Posts: 361
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:25

Post by Scott Lawson » February 19th, 2012, 10:34 pm

David Lim wrote:But can you give the references for places where the Hebrew interrogative pronoun was rendered using "οτι" in the LXX?
Perhaps someone can cut and paste the relevant section:
BDF §§ 300, 2 introducing a direct question pages 157-58.

These are some of the texts cited but the discussion is involved:

1 Chronicles 17:6, Job 27:12, 2 Samuel 12:9, Jeremiah 22:28; 33 (26):9, 2 Kings 8:14

Scott
0 x


Scott Lawson

cwconrad
Posts: 2109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: John 8:25

Post by cwconrad » February 20th, 2012, 5:38 am

Scott Lawson wrote:Perhaps someone can cut and paste the relevant section:
BDF §§ 300, 2 introducing a direct question pages 157-58.

These are some of the texts cited but the discussion is involved:

1 Chronicles 17:6, Job 27:12, 2 Samuel 12:9, Jeremiah 22:28; 33 (26):9, 2 Kings 8:14

Scott
Here's the section under consideration:
BDF §300 (2) wrote:(2) Ὅ τι introducing a direct question is especially Markan: 2:16 (διὰ τί SDW, τί Θ, τί ὅτι AC al.); 9:11 (τί οὖν WΘ lat); 9:28 (διὰ τί D 33 al.); to these should be added Mk 2:7 (with BΘ, WH margin; cf. Black, Aramaic Approach2 47, 88) and possibly 8:12 (with C Or; C. H. Turner, JTS 27 [1926] 58; Taylor, The Gospel of St Mark (1953) 61, 362, Black, Aramaic Approach2 89 and Katz take it as exclamatory מָה here). It is also possible in A 11:3 ‘Why did you go …’ (RSV; s. Beginnings III 102f., IV 124; Moule 159; Haenchen12 299 takes it as ὅτι recitativum). In Jn 8:25 ὅ τι may be taken in the sense of מָה ‘that I speak with you at all!’ (τὴν ἀρχήν = ὅλως), or interrogatively ‘why do I speak with you at all?’ Blass interprets acc. to class. usage (not attested in the NT): ‘(You ask,) why (an indefinite relative is commonly used when a question is repeated by the respondent before his reply; scil. ἐρωτᾷς [Smyth §2670]) do I speak to you at all?’ (but they have not asked this question). Or ‘(You reproach me,) that (ὅτι) I speak with you at all?’ Cf. the direct question in Homil Clem 6.11.4 τί καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν διαλέγομαι; 19.6.6 ἐπεὶ τί καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ζητεῖ; R. W. Funk, HTR 51 (1958) 95–100 and E. R. Smothers, HTR 51 (1958) 111–22 independently adopt the reading of p (from the margin): ειπον υμιν την αρχην … ‘I told you at the beginning’, which gives good grammar and sense; rejected by C. K. Barrett, ET 66 (1957) 176. Cf. Bultmann (Das Evangelium des Johannes [Meyer Kom.] 1941) 267f. for full discussion. Barn 7.9 has the sequence τί …; καὶ ὅ τι …; In 8.5 ὅ τι δέ is parallel to διὰ τί δέ in 8.4 and 8.6, but in the latter SH read καὶ ὅ τι as do all MSS in 7.9 (gap in H), the διότι of the acephali being corrupt as everywhere in the LXX (Ziegler, Beiträge zur Jeremias-Septuaginta 15). All known examples in the LXX are in direct questions. Representing לָמָּה: 2 Km 7:7 ὅ τι B, τί ὅτι L(ucian), τί O(rigen), with the par. 1 Chr 17:6; Job 27:12 (Katz, ThLZ 1957, 114 n. 4). מַדּוּעַ: 2 Km 12:9 ὅ τι BO-A, τί A, τί ὅτι pc.; Jer 22:28; 33(26): 9. מָה: 4 Km 8:14; Jer 2:36; in 30 (49): 4 ὅ τι is a variant of τί, just as in 22:23 Lucian adds ὅ τι and Origen τί (Katz in Ziegler, op. cit. 15). In Gen 18:13 A alone has ὅ τι, the remainder τί ὅτι for לָמָּה זֶּה (= τί τοῦτο in 25:22); this τί ὅτι is frequently used to render מָה … כִּי (§299(4)) and is not therefore to be read as τί ὅ τι. W.–S. §24, 18a observes that to explain ὅτι as an abbreviation of τί ὅτι is odd because it leaves out what is essential; moreover, in τί ὅτι the second word is ὅτι, not ὅ τι. מַדּוּעַ in Judg 5:28 twice introduces questions which are answered; A correctly has διὰ τί in both cases, while διότι B is corrupt, for it is not to be interpreted as διʼ ὅ τι since this διότι is always a poor variant in the LXX. Interrogative ὅ τι was postulated for Jn 8:25 by Lachmann in his edition of 1832 I, praef. xliii, then by Buttmann 218 (for the LXX also); it is accepted by Mlt. 94; Rob. 729f.; C. H. Turner, JTS 27 (1926) 58–62 (who finds in it a characteristic of Markan usage); Katz, ThLZ 1957, 114; 1958, 318. As the parallels in the LXX and early Christian literature indicate, ὅ τι with direct questions is a piece of ‘biblical Greek’.—Controversial Mt 26:50 ἑταῖρε ἐφʼ ὃ (inferior v.l. ἐφʼ ᾧ) πάρει: hardly a direct question ‘For what?’; the easiest solution is to take it as a painful, ironic reminiscence of a toast like the one attested on a goblet from Syria: εὐφραίνου ἐφʼ ὃ (ᾧ) πάρει ‘Enjoy yourself! for that’s why you are here’ (on the aposiopesis cf. Iambl., VP 145 ὅσα βούλει, παρὰ τῶν θεῶν [scil. γένοιτό σοι], cf. ibid. βουλοίμην μᾶλλον, ὅσʼ ἄν μοι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν γένηται). Biblio.: Debrunner, Jahresb. Altertumsw. 236 (1932) 220; 261 (1938) 189; Deissmann, LO 104 [LAE 125–31]; Schwartz, ByzZ 25 (1925) 154f.; Crönert, Gnomon 4 (1928) 90 n. 3 (who sees in it an expression of eastern colloquial speech without sufficient reason); Klostermann, ZNW 29 (1930) 311 (he compares Acta Carpi 44 ἐγὼ δὲ ἐφʼ ὃ πάρειμι scil. ποιήσω); Sedgwick, ClR 46 (1932) 12 (he also compares ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου [error for εὐφραίνου?] on an epitaph [Musici scriptores ed. Jan p. 452]). Abbott §2231e is against interrogative ἐφʼ ὅ; but ἀνθʼ ὅτου and the like appear in direct questions in the Church Fathers (Jannaris §2038; Usener, Der heilige Tychon 50). Ὧν ἕνεκα Eus., Praep. Ev. 6.7 p. 257 D (I 316.10 Mras) is probably not interrogative, but ‘why did I come to speak about it—the reason is that …’ (Abbott, loc. cit.). Also cf. Ljungvik 4; Deissmann, LO4 101 n. 4 [LAE 126 n. 4]; Bauer s.v. ὅς 2a, 2b β, and 9b with references cited there; Zerwick, Graec. bibl. 51.
Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (157–158). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: John 8:25

Post by David Lim » February 20th, 2012, 9:44 am

Scott Lawson wrote:It also points out that in the LXX ὅτι is always used to render certain Hebrew interrogative pronouns (which I cannot print out) meaning ‘why’.
Far from always actually. And BDF does not seem to imply what you said either.
Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:But can you give the references for places where the Hebrew interrogative pronoun was rendered using "οτι" in the LXX?
Perhaps someone can cut and paste the relevant section:
BDF §§ 300, 2 introducing a direct question pages 157-58.

These are some of the texts cited but the discussion is involved:

1 Chronicles 17:6, Job 27:12, 2 Samuel 12:9, Jeremiah 22:28; 33 (26):9, 2 Kings 8:14

Scott
2 Sam 12:9 actually supports me directly because "τι οτι" is used to translate an interrogative, so I shall ignore that example. 2 Kings 8:14 has a Hebrew interrogative pronoun that means "what" and not "why" and is translated as "τι" and not "οτι", so it is also not involved. I checked the other places with the Hebrew interrogative pronoun in 1 Chr 17:6, Job 27:12, which means "to" + "what [purpose]" and imply "for what", and the other interrogative pronoun in Jer 22:28, 26:9, which means "why" (sorry I had to make it larger so that the vowels can be seen):

All occurrences of "לָמָּה" in Genesis
[Gen 4:6] "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־קָיִן לָמָּה חָרָה לָךְ וְלָמָּה נָפְלוּ פָנֶֽיךָ׃" / "και ειπεν κυριος ο θεος τω καιν ινα τι περιλυπος εγενου και ινα τι συνεπεσεν το προσωπον σου"
[Gen 12:18-19] "וַיִּקְרָא פַרְעֹה לְאַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר מַה־זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לִּי לָמָּה לֹא־הִגַּדְתָּ לִּי כִּי אִשְׁתְּךָ הִֽוא׃ לָמָה אָמַרְתָּ אֲחֹתִי הִוא וָאֶקַּח אֹתָהּ לִי לְאִשָּׁה וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה אִשְׁתְּךָ קַח וָלֵֽךְ׃" / "καλεσας δε φαραω τον αβραμ ειπεν τι τουτο εποιησας μοι οτι ουκ απηγγειλας μοι οτι γυνη σου εστιν ινα τι ειπας οτι αδελφη μου εστιν και ελαβον αυτην εμαυτω εις γυναικα και νυν ιδου η γυνη σου εναντιον σου λαβων αποτρεχε" (actually I think "οτι" here is just the conjunction and not an interrogative pronoun given that it would be easily understood that way if the Hebrew original was not known and also given that the interrogative "ινα τι" is used in the next sentence.)
[Gen 18:13] "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־אַבְרָהָם לָמָּה זֶּה צָחֲקָה שָׂרָה לֵאמֹר הַאַף אֻמְנָם אֵלֵד וַאֲנִי זָקַֽנְתִּי׃" / "και ειπεν κυριος προς αβρααμ τι οτι εγελασεν σαρρα εν εαυτη λεγουσα αρα γε αληθως τεξομαι εγω δε γεγηρακα"
[Gen 24:31] "וַיֹּאמֶר בּוֹא בְּרוּךְ יְהוָה לָמָּה תַעֲמֹד בַּחוּץ וְאָנֹכִי פִּנִּיתִי הַבַּיִת וּמָקוֹם לַגְּמַלִּֽים׃" / "και ειπεν αυτω δευρο εισελθε ευλογητος κυριος ινα τι εστηκας εξω εγω δε ητοιμακα την οικιαν και τοπον ταις καμηλοις"
[Gen 25:22] "וַיִּתְרֹֽצֲצוּ הַבָּנִים בְּקִרְבָּהּ וַתֹּאמֶר אִם־כֵּן לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי וַתֵּלֶךְ לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת־יְהוָֽה׃" / "εσκιρτων δε τα παιδια εν αυτη ειπεν δε ει ουτως μοι μελλει γινεσθαι ινα τι μοι τουτο επορευθη δε πυθεσθαι παρα κυριου"
[Gen 25:32] "וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ לָמוּת וְלָמָּה־זֶּה לִי בְּכֹרָֽה׃" / "ειπεν δε ησαυ ιδου εγω πορευομαι τελευταν και ινα τι μοι ταυτα τα πρωτοτοκια"
[Gen 27:46] "וַתֹּאמֶר רִבְקָה אֶל־יִצְחָק קַצְתִּי בְחַיַּי מִפְּנֵי בְּנוֹת חֵת אִם־לֹקֵחַ יַעֲקֹב אִשָּׁה מִבְּנֽוֹת־חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה מִבְּנוֹת הָאָרֶץ לָמָּה לִּי חַיִּֽים׃" / "ειπεν δε ρεβεκκα προς ισαακ προσωχθικα τη ζωη μου δια τας θυγατερας των υιων χετ ει λημψεται ιακωβ γυναικα απο των θυγατερων της γης ταυτης ινα τι μοι ζην"
[Gen 29:25] "וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וְהִנֵּה־הִוא לֵאָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־לָבָן מַה־זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לִּי הֲלֹא בְרָחֵל עָבַדְתִּי עִמָּךְ וְלָמָּה רִמִּיתָֽנִי׃" / "εγενετο δε πρωι και ιδου ην λεια ειπεν δε ιακωβ τω λαβαν τι τουτο εποιησας μοι ου περι ραχηλ εδουλευσα παρα σοι και ινα τι παρελογισω με"
[Gen 31:27] "לָמָּה נַחְבֵּאתָ לִבְרֹחַ וַתִּגְנֹב אֹתִי וְלֹא־הִגַּדְתָּ לִּי וָֽאֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְשִׁרִים בְּתֹף וּבְכִנּֽוֹר׃" / "και ει ανηγγειλας μοι εξαπεστειλα αν σε μετ ευφροσυνης και μετα μουσικων τυμπανων και κιθαρας" (the Hebrew interrogative pronoun is not rendered at all because the whole sentence has been rephrased)
[Gen 31:30] "וְעַתָּה הָלֹךְ הָלַכְתָּ כִּֽי־נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ לָמָּה גָנַבְתָּ אֶת־אֱלֹהָֽי׃" / "νυν ουν πεπορευσαι επιθυμια γαρ επεθυμησας απελθειν εις τον οικον του πατρος σου ινα τι εκλεψας τους θεους μου"
[Gen 32:30] "וַיִּשְׁאַל יַעֲקֹב וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּֽידָה־נָּא שְׁמֶךָ וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה תִּשְׁאַל לִשְׁמִי וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ שָֽׁם׃" / "ηρωτησεν δε ιακωβ και ειπεν αναγγειλον μοι το ονομα σου και ειπεν ινα τι τουτο ερωτας το ονομα μου και ηυλογησεν αυτον εκει"
[Gen 33:15] "וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אַצִּֽיגָה־נָּא עִמְּךָ מִן־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתִּי וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִֽי׃" / "ειπεν δε ησαυ καταλειψω μετα σου απο του λαου του μετ εμου ο δε ειπεν ινα τι τουτο ικανον οτι ευρον χαριν εναντιον σου κυριε"
[Gen 42:1] "וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב כִּי יֶשׁ־שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו לָמָּה תִּתְרָאֽוּ׃" / "ιδων δε ιακωβ οτι εστιν πρασις εν αιγυπτω ειπεν τοις υιοις αυτου ινα τι ραθυμειτε"
[Gen 44:4] "הֵם יָֽצְאוּ אֶת־הָעִיר לֹא הִרְחִיקוּ וְיוֹסֵף אָמַר לַֽאֲשֶׁר עַל־בֵּיתוֹ קוּם רְדֹף אַחֲרֵי הָֽאֲנָשִׁים וְהִשַּׂגְתָּם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לָמָּה שִׁלַּמְתֶּם רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָֽה׃" / "εξελθοντων δε αυτων την πολιν ουκ απεσχον μακραν και ιωσηφ ειπεν τω επι της οικιας αυτου αναστας επιδιωξον οπισω των ανθρωπων και καταλημψη αυτους και ερεις αυτοις τι οτι ανταπεδωκατε πονηρα αντι καλων"
[Gen 44:7] "וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו לָמָּה יְדַבֵּר אֲדֹנִי כַּדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה חָלִילָה לַעֲבָדֶיךָ מֵעֲשׂוֹת כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּֽה׃" / "οι δε ειπον αυτω ινα τι λαλει ο κυριος κατα τα ρηματα ταυτα μη γενοιτο τοις παισιν σου ποιησαι κατα το ρημα τουτο"
[Gen 47:15] "וַיִּתֹּם הַכֶּסֶף מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם וּמֵאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ כָל־מִצְרַיִם אֶל־יוֹסֵף לֵאמֹר הָֽבָה־לָּנוּ לֶחֶם וְלָמָּה נָמוּת נֶגְדֶּךָ כִּי אָפֵס כָּֽסֶף׃" / "και εξελιπεν παν το αργυριον εκ γης αιγυπτου και εκ γης χανααν ηλθον δε παντες οι αιγυπτιοι προς ιωσηφ λεγοντες δος ημιν αρτους και ινα τι αποθνησκομεν εναντιον σου εκλελοιπεν γαρ το αργυριον ημων"
[Gen 47:19] "לָמָּה נָמוּת לְעֵינֶיךָ גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ גַּם אַדְמָתֵנוּ קְנֵֽה־אֹתָנוּ וְאֶת־אַדְמָתֵנוּ בַּלָּחֶם וְנִֽהְיֶה אֲנַחְנוּ וְאַדְמָתֵנוּ עֲבָדִים לְפַרְעֹה וְתֶן־זֶרַע וְנִֽחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת וְהָאֲדָמָה לֹא תֵשָֽׁם׃" / "ινα ουν μη αποθανωμεν εναντιον σου και η γη ερημωθη κτησαι ημας και την γην ημων αντι αρτων και εσομεθα ημεις και η γη ημων παιδες φαραω δος σπερμα ινα σπειρωμεν και ζωμεν και μη αποθανωμεν και η γη ουκ ερημωθησεται" (the Hebrew interrogative pronoun is not rendered at all because the whole sentence has been rephrased)

The first three occurrences of "לָמָּה" in Exodus
[Exo 2:13] "וַיֵּצֵא בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי וְהִנֵּה שְׁנֵֽי־אֲנָשִׁים עִבְרִים נִצִּים וַיֹּאמֶר לָֽרָשָׁע לָמָּה תַכֶּה רֵעֶֽךָ׃" / "εξελθων δε τη ημερα τη δευτερα ορα δυο ανδρας εβραιους διαπληκτιζομενους και λεγει τω αδικουντι δια τι συ τυπτεις τον πλησιον"
[Exo 2:20] "וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־בְּנֹתָיו וְאַיּוֹ לָמָּה זֶּה עֲזַבְתֶּן אֶת־הָאִישׁ קִרְאֶן לוֹ וְיֹאכַל לָֽחֶם׃" / "ο δε ειπεν ταις θυγατρασιν αυτου και που εστι και ινα τι ουτως καταλελοιπατε τον ανθρωπον καλεσατε ουν αυτον οπως φαγη αρτον"
[Exo 5:4] "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לָמָּה מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן תַּפְרִיעוּ אֶת־הָעָם מִמַּֽעֲשָׂיו לְכוּ לְסִבְלֹתֵיכֶֽם׃" / "και ειπεν αυτοις ο βασιλευς αιγυπτου ινα τι μωυση και ααρων διαστρεφετε τον λαον μου απο των εργων απελθατε εκαστος υμων προς τα εργα αυτου"

The rest in the Hebrew writings
"לָמָּה" is always rendered consistently as "ινα τι" or a close alternative (as indicated) in Exo 5:15,22, 17:3, 32:11,12*, Num 9:7*, 11:11,20, 14:41, 22:37(δια τι), 27:4*, 32:7, Deut 5:25*, Josh 7:10, 9:22(δια τι), Jdg 5:16,17, 6:13, 13:18, Ruth 1:11,21, 1 Sam 2:23,29, 1 Sam 4:3(κατα τι), 6:3*,6, 9:21, 17:8(τι),28(not in LXX), 19:5,17, 20:32, 21:15, 22:13, 24:10, 26:15(δια τι),18, 27:5, 28:12,15,16, (and I stopped here because this should be more than enough evidence of how LXX renders "לָמָּה")
(* denotes rephrasing)
(Anyway is 1 Sam 6:3 "εξιλασθησεται υμιν μη ουκ αποστη η χειρ αυτου αφ υμων" a negative question?)

All occurrences of "מַדּוּעַ" from Genesis to 2 Samuel
"מַדּוּעַ" is always rendered consistently as "τι οτι" or "δια τι" or a close alternative in Gen 26:27(ινα τι), Gen 40:7(τι οτι), Exo 1:18(τι οτι), 2:18(τι οτι), 3:3(τι οτι), 5:14(δια τι), 18:14(δια τι), Lev 10:17(δια τι), Num 12:8(δια τι), 16:3(δια τι), Josh 17:14(δια τι), Jdg 5:28(δια τι), 9:28(τι οτι), 11:7(τι οτι),26(τι οτι), 12:1(τι οτι), Ruth 2:10(τι οτι), 1 Sam 20:2(τι οτι),27(τι οτι), 21:1(τι οτι), 2 Sam 3:7(τι οτι), 11:10(τι οτι),20(τι οτι), 12:9(τι οτι), 13:4(τι σοι οτι), 16:10(ως τι), 18:11(τι οτι), 19:42(τι οτι),43(ινα τι), 24:21(τι οτι)
All occurrences of "מַדּוּעַ" in Jeremiah
Jer 2:14(δια τι),31(δια τι), 8:5(δια τι),19(δια τι),22(δια τι), 12:1(τι οτι), 13:22(δια οτι), 14:19(ινα τι), 22:28*, 30:6*, 32:3(δια τι), 36:29(δια τι), 46:5(τι οτι),15(δια τι), 49:1(δια τι).
(It seems to me that "οτι" in Jer 22:28 has simply the normal meaning of "that (conj.)" and has nothing to do with the interrogative pronoun in the original phrase. Likewise "οτι" in Jer 26:9 simply means "because (conj.)" and does not correspond to the Hebrew interrogative.)


So the LXX does not follow your claim at all. Whether or not "οτι" in Mark was used as an interrogative is another issue though.
BDF wrote:to explain ὅτι as an abbreviation of τί ὅτι is odd because it leaves out what is essential
Why does BDF say it is odd? The fact that the conjunction does not usually stand at the start of a sentence could be a reason why an implicit ellipsis would be the obvious meaning, so naturally it would mean "[why is it] that ...".
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: John 8:25

Post by Mark Lightman » February 20th, 2012, 10:46 am

There is very little disagreement about WHAT ὅτι means in Mark’s Gospel. (σημαίνει δὴ τὸ «διὰ τί?») But there is lots of disagreement, there can be no consensus, about WHY it means this, HOW it came to mean this (Semitism, ellipsis, name that meta-language esotericon.) I’ve noticed this pattern on B-Greek since the late 1970’s.

In ESL, on the other hand, students never ask, and teachers never tell, WHY an English word or phrase means this, or HOW it came to mean this. The students have so much English to learn that they just want to get a basic sense of the meaning and move on to learning more English. Remember what they used to say about Atlanta, “the city too busy to hate.” ESL learners are too busy learning English to get into these types of disputes.

Now, I know Ancient Greek is not English, and I’m not suggesting that we learn it the way ESL learners learn English (well, actually, I AM suggesting that, but I’m not suggesting that right now.) It’s just that I’m struck by the difference. But: διάφορα καλόν ἐστιν.
0 x

Scott Lawson
Posts: 361
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:25

Post by Scott Lawson » February 20th, 2012, 5:28 pm

David Lim wrote:Far from always actually. And BDF does not seem to imply what you said either.
David, the statement is not mine but comes directly from BDF. Perhaps Carl would be so kind as to print the statement which is found at § 300 (1) (b) in BDF. Why the statement is so dogmatic is beyond me. And my purpose in posting it in reply to Mark was just to respond to his mild curiosity about the use of ὅτι outside of the book of Mark. I am, however, certainly glad that it stirred you to look into it.

I'm not wedded to any particular view (yet) but I am very interested in getting the views of those who are better versed than I am on this subject. In fact my prime interest is on how to understand John 8:25. Perhaps if you wouldn’t mind David, you could opine on that verse.

Thank you, David, for your hard work and attention to my post.

Scott
0 x
Scott Lawson

cwconrad
Posts: 2109
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: John 8:25

Post by cwconrad » February 20th, 2012, 5:43 pm

Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Far from always actually. And BDF does not seem to imply what you said either.
David, the statement is not mine but comes directly from BDF. Perhaps Carl would be so kind as to print the statement which is found at § 300 (1) (b) in BDF. Why the statement is so dogmatic is beyond me. And my purpose in posting it in reply to Mark was just to respond to his mild curiosity about the use of ὅτι outside of the book of Mark. I am, however, certainly glad that it stirred you to look into it.
Okay, here's all of §300 and the subparagraph (2):
BDF §300 wrote: 300. Ὅστις. (1) Ὅστις, ὁποῖος, etc., which also serve as relatives, were frequently used in classical Greek in indirect questions besides the direct interrogative pronouns τίς, ποῖος, etc. This use of ὅστις is confined in the NT to the neuter ὅ τι in addition to ὁποῖος (besides ποῖος) and once (Lk 24:20) ὅπως. (2) Ὅ τι is used more frequently, however, to introduce a direct question with the meaning ‘why’. Blass found this incredible, except that he regarded ὅ τι as an abbreviation for τί ὅ τι (s. infra): (a) In the NT, variants for ὅ τι, viz. τί ὅτι, διὰ τί, (διότι), mean ‘why’; they were introduced because ΟΤΙ was ambiguous in scriptio continua, as the spelling device ὅ τι (earlier ὅ, τι) was not feasible. In Mk, where most of the examples are found, variants are corrections introduced from parallel passages (thus bringing the Greek of Mk closer to classical standards). (b) In the LXX this ὅ τι always renders interrogative pronouns meaning ‘why’ such as מָה, לָמָּה, מַדּוּעַ. This usage represents the same obliteration of the distinction between direct and indirect questions as the use of εἰ = הֲ in direct questions (§440(3)). It is characteristic of popular speech in general and of Semitic usage in particular, both of which tend to avoid indirect speech as much as complex periods.

(1) Ὅ τι introducing an indirect question: ὅ τι σε δεῖ ποιεῖν A 9:6 (τι RE pm.; Blass rejected ὅ τι on the basis of general usage). Rob. 731: a mark of the literary language in Lk. For Mk 14:60 = Mt 26:62 s. §298(4). Herm Sim 8.1.4 s. §267(2). Ὅστις in indirect questions is infrequent in the pap.; Mayser II 1, 79.—Ὁποῖος 1 C 3:13, G 2:6 (ὁποῖοί ποτε), 1 Th 1:9, Ja 1:24; οἵου πνεύματος Lk 9:55 is a spurious reading (ποίου D minusc. 700 Chr; the best MSS [even p45W] leave the saying out entirely; cf. also §304).


Blass, F., Debrunner, A., & Funk, R. W. (1961). A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (157). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: John 8:25

Post by David Lim » February 20th, 2012, 11:09 pm

Scott Lawson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Far from always actually. And BDF does not seem to imply what you said either.
David, the statement is not mine but comes directly from BDF. Perhaps Carl would be so kind as to print the statement which is found at § 300 (1) (b) in BDF. Why the statement is so dogmatic is beyond me. And my purpose in posting it in reply to Mark was just to respond to his mild curiosity about the use of ὅτι outside of the book of Mark. I am, however, certainly glad that it stirred you to look into it.

I'm not wedded to any particular view (yet) but I am very interested in getting the views of those who are better versed than I am on this subject. In fact my prime interest is on how to understand John 8:25. Perhaps if you wouldn’t mind David, you could opine on that verse.

Thank you, David, for your hard work and attention to my post.

Scott
Oh really sorry then. I too hastily assumed that your statement was a rephrasing of something in BDF, but I see that it did really make that erroneous claim! Also, you will notice that some of the examples I found where the Hebrew text was rephrased in the LXX use "ει" meaning simply "if", which again has nothing to do with the original interrogative. Back to your original question then. :)
[John 8] [25] ελεγον ουν αυτω συ τις ει και ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους την αρχην οτι και λαλω υμιν
As I translated it in my first post, I understand "την αρχην" to function as an adverb meaning "from the beginning" which modifies "λαλω υμιν" and "οτι" to be the object of "λαλω υμιν". I believe the "και" just means that Jesus is trying to say that he not only is speaking to them now about who he is but had also been telling them the same thing from the start, which could be interpreted as either the start of his current discourse or the first time he spoke to them.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: John 8:25

Post by Mark Lightman » February 22nd, 2012, 1:48 pm

One bit of trivia. The Douay Rheims version of 1582 translates the verse
They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them, the beginning, who also speak to you.
as if the text had the nominative

ἡ ἀρχὴ ὅστις καὶ λαλῶ ἡμῖν.

This translation is based on the Vulgate, and I don’t know if that text is ambiguous enough to support such a translation. Actually could one justify this translation by claiming that there is what Smyth (hi, Herbert Weir) would call “inverse attraction” of the nominative into the accusative case of the relative?

ἡ ἀρχὴ ἣν καὶ λαλῶ ἡμῖν can become, can it not, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἣν (or ὃν or ὃ) καὶ λαλῶ ἡμῖν? This would also explain the word order. Smyth 2533 “The attracted antecedent is often prefixed for emphasis to the relative clause…”
0 x

Scott Lawson
Posts: 361
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:25

Post by Scott Lawson » February 22nd, 2012, 5:29 pm

Mark Lightman wrote:as if the text had the nominative
Under the entry ἀρχή 1 a, BDAG states: τὴν ἀ. J 8:25, as nearly all the Gk. Fathers understood it, is emphatically used adverbially = ὅλως


Scott
0 x
Scott Lawson

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: John 8:25

Post by David Lim » February 23rd, 2012, 1:39 am

Scott Lawson wrote:
Mark Lightman wrote:as if the text had the nominative
Under the entry ἀρχή 1 a, BDAG states: τὴν ἀ. J 8:25, as nearly all the Gk. Fathers understood it, is emphatically used adverbially = ὅλως


Scott
Does LSJ mention "wholly" as a possible meaning of the adverbial "την αρχην"? (The one on Perseus does not seem to.)
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Post Reply