Jn.3:15,16 PISTEUW EN

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 15 20:21:36 EDT 2001


At 2:26 PM -0700 10/15/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:
>Hello Iver,
>
>on 10/15/01 12:43 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
>> One may choose the "harder reading" because a difficult reading is more
>> likely to be "corrected". However, I prefer to put quite a bit of emphasis
>> on the question: What is the author most likely to have written from the
>> standpoint of his own style, preferences and what fits the context? Given
>> John's very marked preference for EIS with PISTEUW, it seems unlikely that
>> he would have written EN.
>
>Only if you presuppose that EN is to be joined with PISTEUW. If on the other
>hand we take  EN AUTWI with the following verb then we have a construction
>which finds lots of support in John and 1John (see Metzger Text. Comm. Jn
>3:15).
>
>I decided to follow up on Metzger's suggestion and read  some of 1John to
>see how many times I could spot and adverbial EN + Substantive placed before
>a verb. I was surprised how frequent this is. I ignored cases were the verb
>was EISTIN  (there were several of these). Take a look at 1Jn 1:6, 1:7, 2:3,
>2:5, 2:24, 3:6 . . . (I stopped at this point).
>
>Look at the following examples from John and 1John:
>
>John 5:39 hOTI hUMEIS DOKEITE IN AUTAIS ZWHN AIWNION ECEIN
>
>John 16:33 TAUTA LELALHKA hUMIN hINA
>EN EMOI EIRHNHN ECHTE. EN TWi KOSMWi QLIYIN ECETE . . .
>
>1Jn 3:6 PAS hO EN AUTWi MENWN OUK hAMARTANEI . . .
>
>Note that the first three examples all appear with the same verb.
>Significant? Probably not. The last example is found with a participle
>MENOWN  but I include it because it is semantically relevant to Jn 3:15.
>
>
>> Of course, one needs to look at the possibility that EN AUTWi might be
>> constructed with the following words rather than PISTEUW. But this would
>> give an emphasis on the fronted EN AUTWI that is not supported by the
>> immediate context, and therefore not very likely.
>
>Again, this fronting for emphasis is a matter of some dispute is it not? All
>the smoke hasn't cleared on this topic yet and probably will not in the near
>future. I think that the fronting = emphasis equation needs to be applied
>with discrimination. I suspect that you would agree.
>
>>Therefore, I think that
>> the EN was a careless mistake introduced by either P75 or a parent of it.
>
>If forced to choose (no one is forcing me) I would lean toward this solution
>and read EIS rather than EN. P75 and B are not infallible. The strongest
>support for the reading EN comes from its ability to explain the other
>readings. Metzger in the first edition of his Textual Comm. doesn't sound
>very dogmatic about this reading. However, Metzger is typically very
>cautious.

It occurs to me that one ought to add to the above examples of EN + dat.
one celebrated one from the prologue of the gospel 1:3b-4: hO GEGONEN EN
AUTWi ZWH HN ... We've discussed this on the list several times, and
pointed to Metzger's textual note on the great question whether hO GEGONEN
belongs with what precedes it in verse 3 or with what follows it in verse
4. USB prints it to be construed with what follows in verse 4. In view of
that it seems to me that EN AUTWi preceding ECHi ZWHN AIWNION may very well
be deliberately stressed.

(text: hINA PASA hO PISTEUWN EN AUTWi ECHi ZWHN AIWNION)
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list