Advanced Trichotomy (was: Re: John 3:2)

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 04 1999 - 06:06:49 EDT


Perhaps this is not worth the effort, since it appears that we all seem to
be in agreement about the implied sense of the nominative DIDASKALOS in the
verse, but the longer I reflect over the matter, I find myself wondering
whether perhaps we haven't transformed the question from one of how we
understand the Greek grammar to one of how best to express the intended
sense of the Greek in English grammar. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but
I'd like to pursue the question a bit further. Here are the original
question and the three responses to date:

>At 5:22 PM +1000 8/2/99, Richard A. Creighton wrote:
>>How is the nominative DIDASKALOS functioning in John 3:2?
>>
>>RABBI, OIDAMEN hOTI APO QEOU ELHLUQAS DIDASKALOS

At 6:29 AM -0400 8/2/99, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>It is a predicate nominative, in agreement with the subject implicit in the
>verb, and functioning adverbially: "... we know that you have come AS A
>TEACHER."

At 11:54 AM -0400 8/2/99, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote:
>Predicate nominative of an implied EIMI

At 2:42 PM -0500 8/2/99, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>Richard, I read both Carl's and Kevin's answer to this and they make good
>sense, but I like to take a simpler route that produces the same result. I
>like to see DIDASKALOS as in apposition to the subject of the verb
>ELHLUQAS. A noun (or implied noun or pronoun) in any case can have another
>noun (or noun substitute) in the same case in apposition. Hence, "We know
>that you, a teacher, have come from God." It's like we do in English when
>we say "this is my brother, Joe."

Where we agree is in relating the nominative DIDASKALOS to the subject of
ELHLUQAS; where we disagree, I think, is in how we understand the
relationship of DIDASKALOS to the verb ELHLUQAS. I really think that
DIDASKALOS functions adverbially with ELHLUQAS, i.e., our clause is
equivalent in meaning to ELHLUQAS hINA DIDASKHiS (or hINA DIDAXHiS). At any
rate, it seems to me that the RSV's "We know that you are a teacher come
from God" rightly underscores the tightness of this association of ELHLUQAS
and DIDASKALOS although it seems to introduce a copula ("you are") that is
not actually present in the Greek; personally I think this is one of GJn's
very distinctive stative perfects that emphasizes both present state and
the underlying verbal basis of that present state. I think that Paul
expresses a very similar notion in Gal 1:1 PAULOS APOSTOLOS OUK AP'
ANQRWPWN OUDE DI' ANQRWPWN ALLA DIA IHSOU CRISTOU KAI QEOU PATROS TU
EGEIRANTOS AUTON EK NEKRWN, where APOSTOLOS has so powerful a verbal
(almost participial = APOSTALEIS?) force that, although a noun, it is
qualified by adverbial prepositional phrases.

It seems to me, moreover, that both Kevin's understanding and Carlton's
understanding of the grammatical function of DIDASKALOS fall short of
recognizing its adverbial relationship to ELHLUQAS, and I am strongly
inclined to think (admittedly this is very subjective, a matter of feel for
"natural" Greek expression) that the construction as understood by Kevin
and Carlton might require different formulation in the Greek.

(a: Kevin): If DIDASKALOS is predicate nominative of an implied EIMI, I
rather think that the Greek would more normally have a participial form of
EIMI, namely WN: OIDAMEN hOTI DIDASKALOS WN ELHLUQAS. Compare GJn 1:6
EGENETO ANQRWPOS APESTALMENOS PARA QEOU, ONOMA AUTWi IWANNHS. I'm a little
bit more ready to accept Kevin's interpretation, however, because I think
it IS conceivable that the participial WN is elliptical and because the
adverbial relationship of DIDASKALOS to ELHLUQAS remains intact thus; my
inclination is to think that WN would NOT have been omitted here, but my
inclination may be more a matter of what I think would have obtained in
classical Attic.

(b: Carlton): If DIDASKALOS is an appositive to the subject of ELHLUQAS,
then it seems to me that the subject of ELHLUQAS ought rather to be
_explicit_ rather than implicit, and I'm inclined to think we'd more likely
have OIDAMEN hOTI SU DIDASKALOS ELHLUQAS APO QEOU. Would the SU remain
suppressed, if it must be emphatic enough to call for an appositive?
Compare GJn 1:19-22: (19) SU TIS EI? (20) EGW OUK EIMI hO CRISTOS. (21) SU
ELIAS EI? ... hO PROFHTHS EI SU? In these instances the pronominal subject
is emphatic and explicit, and I think it would be also in GJn 3:2.
Moreover, I think if this were comparable to English, "This is my brother,
Joe," we'd have to have a hOUTOS in the analogous Greek, or else something
more like GJn 1:6 where ANQRWPOS is almost pronominal, like an earlier
Greek indefinite TIS, but in this instance the apposition is appended in a
clause of its own: EGENETO ANQRWPOS APESTALMENOS PARA QEOU, ONOMA AUTWi
IWANNHS. Might we imagine this expressed as ANQRWPOS IWANNHS APESTALMENOS
HN PARA QEOU? Certainly that would be intelligible Greek, but I think that
what we're actually given in 1:6 is a much more carefully-phrased statement
of the missionary status of John, and then the appositional indication of
his name follows separately with its own verb.

Perhaps this is all too much a matter of indistinguishable nuances of
interpretation of the Greek of John 3:2, but the crux of the matter, in my
view, is whether we understand an adverbial relationship of DIDASKALOS to
the verb ELHLUQAS or not. I don't think the use of the perfect tense in
that verb is a casual one.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@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 - 15:40:34 EDT