Jn.3:15,16 PISTEUW EN

c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 16 02:00:20 EDT 2001


on 10/15/01 5:21 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> 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,

Yes, a celebrated text only somewhat less celebrated than Jn 1:1.
 D.A. Carson (John, Pillar) cites Jn 1:4 as an example of this construction
in his discussion of EN AUTWi in Jn 3:15. Carson does not even seriously
entertain the possibility that EN AUTWi might be connected with PISTEUWV.
Nor does Leon Morris (John, NICNT 1971, p.226 n.65 ) who introduces his
remarks with "It is almost certain . . .".  H.A.W Meyer does not waffle
about it either, he says "Adopting the reading EN AUTWi we cannot refer it
to PISTEUWN."

Of the books I have on hand, only Henry Alford  both reads  EN AUTWi and
connects it to PISTEUWN. His remarks on this text sound a lot like something
out of F.B. Meyer* and no one seems to have taken his attempt at a solution
seriously.  

On the question of "fronting" and emphasis, all I can say is I am still
thinking about it. Trying to get a handle on when it does and does not
apply. Have by no means rejected the notion, just not sure it is a language
universal like some folks are claiming.

greetings,

Clay

--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

*I have never actually read anything by F.B. Meyer, but from what I have
been told, the fanciful flight of romantic imagination evident in H. Alfords
treatment of the problem under discussion would be more suitable to a work
by F.B. Meyer. Alford is generally much better than his treatment of this
question. Perhaps I am being too harsh on Alford, he lived in a different
era. 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list