Syntax of 2 John 2b

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.
Post Reply
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Syntax of 2 John 2b

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I'm having a tough time figuring out how 2 John 2b syntactically relates to its context, at least according to the punctuation of the NA27 and USB4 text:
2 John 1-2 wrote:1 Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 2 διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
The basic problem in v.2 is that it has a participle μένουσαν in apparent coordination with a finite verb ἔσται. Most translations seem to treat this apparent coordination as real, almost as if ἔσται can be replaced by a future participle (perhaps ἐσομένην as in Classical Attic?), or, as BDF § 442(6) suggests, as if the participle τὴν μένουσαν read ἣ . . . μένει. Thus, they translate accordingly: "because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever" (NRSV).

BDF further claims that the use of καί to coordinate words with independent clauses is "Hebraizing." An alternative explanation in BDF § 468(3) is that it is an example of an anacoluthon between a participle and a finite verb. These explanations seem to be beg the question that the NA27/USB4 punctuation is correct, but however close in thought v.2b is to the participial clause, it is syntactically manifested as an independent clause and the I feel the punctuation should reflect that. I don't think it is necessary to appeal to a supposed Hebraizing or anacoluthon to account for the syntax.

Thus, it seems more straightforward to me if the v.2b was simply treated as a separate independent clause: "And it will forever be with us." Remarkably, this option is rarely adopted in the translations I consult, only the ASV and the ERV of the late 19th century (plus the New International Reader's Version), even among the usual "dynamic equivalent" suspects who are used to chopping up the Greek sentence.

Thoughts?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Syntax of 2 John 2b

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen,
It would seem to be an example of oratio variata and thus in accord with ancient Greek idiom, so no need to look for a Hebraizing effect or anacoluthon just as you have pointed out. This would also suggest continuity and reason for the punctuation in NA27/ USB4. (Robertson pg. 441)
Last edited by Scott Lawson on May 22nd, 2012, 11:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
Scott Lawson
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Syntax of 2 John 2b

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Carlson wrote:I'm having a tough time figuring out how 2 John 2b syntactically relates to its context, at least according to the punctuation of the NA27 and USB4 text:
2 John 1-2 wrote:1 Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 2 διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
Thoughts?
Granted that the text presented to us is anomalous, it seems (as does much that we deem anomalous in the Johannine corpus) perfectly intelligible. I don't see any reason why the text requires any syntactic analysis, but if I were put to the test on it, I think I'd prefer to say that τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα lacks the expected concinnity of expression much as does the celebrated Thucydidean formulation in Pericles' Funeral Speech,
Φιλοκαλοῦμέν τε γὰρ μετ’ εὐτελείας καὶ φιλοσοφοῦμεν ἄνευ μαλακίας
where parallelism is clearly intended but the formulation of the parallel phrases μετ’ εὐτελείας and ἄνευ μαλακίας is somewhat jarring. In 1 Jn 2 I am content with the explanation that ἔσται is intended as equivalent to ἐσομένην and that the subject of ἔσται is implicitly the same as that of the substantival participle τὴν μένουσαν. Call it an anacoluthon if you like, but it's the kind of anacoluthon that I find in my own unproofread email, in many a blog entry, and, to an annoying extent, in news reports. I don't know if there's been a formal study of the anacolutha (pl.?) of the GNT, but should one ever be done, my guess is that the majority of instances may be attributed to unrevised -- i.e. un-proofread -- composition. I rather think I've seen something like this in telegraph formulations: "Joe arriving at noon tomorrow and will be with us for a week." Does that really need to be parsed?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Syntax of 2 John 2b

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Scott Lawson wrote:It would seem to be an example of oratio variata and thus in accord with ancient Greek idiom, so no need to look for a Hebraizing effect or anacoluthon just as you have pointed out. This would also suggest continuity and reason for the punctuation in NA27/ USB4. (Robertson pg. 441)
Thanks for the pointer to Robertson. I overlooked that. It looks like "oratio variata" is a kind of anacoluthon that is less harsh. I'm not sure I buy the distinction or the category, which looks like a hodge-podge of constructions that are deemed rhetorically inartful according to some standard.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Syntax of 2 John 2b

Post by Stephen Carlson »

cwconrad wrote:In 1 Jn 2 I am content with the explanation that ἔσται is intended as equivalent to ἐσομένην and that the subject of ἔσται is implicitly the same as that of the substantival participle τὴν μένουσαν. Call it an anacoluthon if you like, but it's the kind of anacoluthon that I find in my own unproofread email, in many a blog entry, and, to an annoying extent, in news reports. I don't know if there's been a formal study of the anacolutha (pl.?) of the GNT, but should one ever be done, my guess is that the majority of instances may be attributed to unrevised -- i.e. un-proofread -- composition. I rather think I've seen something like this in telegraph formulations: "Joe arriving at noon tomorrow and will be with us for a week." Does that really need to be parsed?
I guess it's becoming for me a question of editorial practice: do we punctuate according to what the author meant or what he wrote? In this case, I think both are fairly clear, but it is also clear that they are also not quite consistent with one another.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”