2 John 11 ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν

[Stephen Carlson]

ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς.

The NA28 text of this verse has an unusual position of the γάρ, after both ὁ λέγων instead between them, as read in the Byzantine text (ὁ γὰρ λέγων [αὐτῷ] χαίρειν, with a split within this textual tradition on whether to read αὐτῷ).

I'm not interested in adjudicating which text is more original, but I am interested in teasing out whatever differences may be implied by the different word order. Even if we did not have the Byzantine reading, the exegete is still confronted with the unusual placement of the γάρ. So, what significance, if any, does this placement of γάρ have in the NA28 text?

[Alan Patterson]

2 John 11 wrote:ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς.

The NA28 text of this verse has an unusual position of the γάρ, after both ὁ λέγων instead between them, as read in the Byzantine text (ὁ γὰρ λέγων [αὐτῷ] χαίρειν, with a split within this textual tradition on whether to read αὐτῷ).

I'm not interested in adjudicating which text is more original, but I am interested in teasing out whatever differences may be implied by the different word order. Even if we did not have the Byzantine reading, the exegete is still confronted with the unusual placement of the γάρ. So, what significance, if any, does this placement of γάρ have in the NA28 text?

The physical position of γὰρ seems fine in either position. I would say one position is more formal, but both are acceptable. If you take ὁ λέγων as a unit, then the following γὰρ seems to have an acceptable postpositive position. Whenever we read John, we know to be careful with his syntax and grammar; it appears, at times, a bit sloppy, but it does nevertheless get the point across. We all expect writers to be grammarians, but that is just not the case. Some writes just struggle with grammar as others struggle with physics. The placement is not wrong, perhaps crude is a better description.

[Stephen Hughes]

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν
ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν

[Stephen Carlson]

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν
ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν

Interesting. Could you explain how you got there?

[Stephen Carlson]

The physical position of γὰρ seems fine in either position. I would say one position is more formal, but both are acceptable. If you take ὁ λέγων as a unit, then the following γὰρ seems to have an acceptable postpositive position. Whenever we read John, we know to be careful with his syntax and grammar; it appears, at times, a bit sloppy, but it does nevertheless get the point across. We all expect writers to be grammarians, but that is just not the case. Some writes just struggle with grammar as others struggle with physics. The placement is not wrong, perhaps crude is a better description.

I don't understand what you're saying. On the one hand, you're saying that John has a problem or struggle with grammar and that the placement is crude or perhaps less formal, but on the other hand you're saying that it is not a mistake and still acceptable. So what is it? Good grammar or bad? And if good, does the difference in position contribute to a difference in (semantic, pragmatic) meaning?

[Stephen Hughes]

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν
ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν

Interesting. Could you explain how you got there?

ὁ and participle are kept together in thought by the πᾶς. That's the only reason I can think of why the stick together.
Λέγειν is by itself in that second phrase ὃς ἂν + subj., or in the phrase ὅστις + indicative, but I favoured ὃς ἂν + subj. because it is more common.

Nothing complex in my reasoning.

[Alan Patterson]

I don't understand what you're saying. On the one hand, you're saying that John has a problem or struggle with grammar and that the placement is crude or perhaps less formal, but on the other hand you're saying that it is not a mistake and still acceptable. So what is it? Good grammar or bad? And if good, does the difference in position contribute to a difference in (semantic, pragmatic) meaning?

Good grammar for whom? By way of an analogy, William F. Buckley, Jr. used the English language in ways that most mortal's are incapable of duplicating. His grammar was probably impeccable. My grammar is simple, not sophisticated. I use a different set of criteria when evaluating Buckley's grammar than when I evaluate mine. Yes, John's grammar may not be "technically" "correct," but nor do I expect him to write at the level of Buckley (pardon the crude analogy, not to mention the chronological "incongruency"). Why do we expect all biblical authors to have near-perfect grammar? I don't believe language works that way. It is much more complex than just a set of grammatical rules that are to be obeyed.

I am really asking a question myself here. Was there one, perfect, ideal, acceptable set of grammatical rules in first-century biblical Greek? Did the writer of Hebrews follow "those" rules better than John did? Are some usages of John's grammar a "mistake"? Do we interpret John's Greek differently than when we evaluate Tertius' Greek? I have a lot of questions here but I really don't know where I come down on them.

You asked, "So what is it? Good grammar or bad?" Do you mean correct grammar or wrong grammar? Help me understand how one is to understand/interpret John's placement of a conjunction compared to the author of Hebrews' usage of a postpositive? I don't know. I don't see any significance with John's placement of the conjunction, whether in the second or third position. I understand, I believe, what he is writing here. Does the "difference in position contribute to a difference in (semantic, pragmatic) meaning?" No, not with John. As we read all of John's works, I really would not see a difference here. Do you? What possible difference could he be making with this "incorrect" position of γαρ. Does he demonstrate such precision in his other writings as to warrant seeing some semantic/pragmatic difference? By my saying that John's grammar may be crude at times was intended to make a statement about all his writings seen together. John does not write at a level of grammar that would cause us to look too deeply at this third position of γαρ. If we read an Atticist, perhaps we would ask such a question. As you can see, I'm just rambling and trying to write out loud about what my own questions are. Am I way off? I am always open to correction in my thinking.

[Stephen Hughes]

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν
ὅς γὰρ (ε)ἂν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν -> ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν

Interesting. Could you explain how you got there?

Do I have to explain that I got there in that context of excommunication? And the warning of consequences if someone doesn't keep a distance from the excommunicated?
The one seems formed by extracting it from the phrase πᾶς ὁ λέγων and the other seems to be formed directly from a (subjunctive) form of the verb.

[Stephen Carlson]

If I understand the intonational phonology of Greek according to the Devine and Stephens correctly, it would seem that the two word orderings place the highest pitch accent for the phrase in different places.

For ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the έ in λέγων, while for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the αί in χαίρειν.

The reason for this has to do with the behavior of the nonlexical grave in γὰρ.

In other words, the two variant readings not only have different word orders, but they would have sounded differently.

[Stephen Hughes]

If I understand the intonational phonology of Greek according to the Devine and Stephens correctly, it would seem that the two word orderings place the highest pitch accent for the phrase in different places.

For ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the έ in λέγων, while for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν, the highest peak should be at the αί in χαίρειν.

The reason for this has to do with the behavior of the nonlexical grave in γὰρ.

In other words, the two variant readings not only have different word orders, but they would have sounded differently.

Could you check for me, by applying the rules of intonational phonology, in so far as you understand them, and let me know whether my assumptions of equivalence give the same point of highest peak.

Does πᾶς γὰρ ὁ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at the χαίρειν as you have suggested it is for ὁ λέγων γὰρ αὐτῷ χαίρειν

and does ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν / πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἀν λέγῃ αὐτῷ χαίρειν have its highest peak at λέγειν as you've suggested for ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν
?
Do I need to consider re-evaluating my modelling?