John 11:5-6 DE...MEN
glennblank at earthlink.net
Mon Mar 11 02:18:02 EST 2002
In a message dated 3/10/02 9:12:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Clwinbery at aol.com writes:
>>"First of all when MEN . . . DE are used together, it is in that order."
Rbsads at aol.com
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:59:55 EST
>However, what, then, might be the significance of MEV? And does the lack of
>correlative relation between DE of verse 5 and MEV of verse 6 mean that the
>reason for the 2 day delay was either because He loved Martha, her sister
>the ill Lazarus. as indicated by the KJV and the RV, or because He felt
>a delay would glorify God, more as indicated by the NEB?
>Does the lack of that correlative relation mean that the NIV is over
>NIV "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Yet when he head that
>Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was 2 more days."
Actually, I would not say the NIV is overtranslating it so much as has it
backwards. Normally, in a MEN . . . DE combination, the MEN introduces the
concessive and the DE introduces the rebuttal, ie, "granted that such and
such . . . *yet* so and so is still true."
e.g, John 16:22 NUN MEM LUPHN ECETE ("Granted, now you have sorrow") PALIN
DE OYOMAI hUMAS, KAI CARHSETAI hUMWN hH KARDIA ("but/yet I will see you
again, and your heart[s] will rejoice.")
But in Jn 11:6, we have TOTE MEN EMEINEN EN hWi HN TOPWi DUO hHMERAS
("Granted, he was staying then in the same place two days," not "*yet, he
was staying ...")
As Carl said, *when* MEN . . . DE occur together, it is in that order, but
in this instance, they do not occur together . . . "MEN
solitarium," where the antithesis, rather than explicit in a DE clause is
implied (as in Col 2.23) or expressed in a different form (as in Rom 7.12).
So the subject line on this thread should really be "John 11:6 MEN"
BTW, although there is no correlation between the DE of verse 5 and the MEN
of verse 6, there is a correlation between verse 5 and 6 expressed by OUN:
"therefore." Which leads me to your next question.
>[snip] is the imperfect HGAPA being inserted as a paranthetical comment to
>explain that despite the delay Jesus still continued to love Martha and her
>sister and Lazarus?
I would say yes, a parenthetical comment, not to explain that he "continued"
to love them "despite" the delay, but simply as background information to
what is to follow. It is background not to the delay, but to the mainline
which resumes in verse 7 (more on that in a moment). DE, occurring alone
(without MEN) either signals the beginning of a new story-line, as in verse
1 of this chapter, or else signals the beginning of background information,
as in verse 2 (really the same principle -- the beginning of a new line of
thought, whether a sideline or a new story entirely.) The imperfect tense
occurs in background information contemporaneous with the time of the
mainline, and so HGAPA is imperfect here in that respect rather than to
emphasize a continuing aspect.
I submit, then, that *both* verse 5 and the second half verse 6 are
parenthetical, with the mainline resuming in verse 7 (EPEITE META TOUTO
"afterwards, after this" signals a progression in time reference, which is
characteristic of a return to mainline), and that the first half of verse 6
is subordinate to the main clause in verse 7 rather than being tied to the
second half of verse 6. In other words, freely paraphrasing,
"Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.
Therefore, when he heard that he was sick he said to his disciples, 'Let us
go into Judea again.' (although, granted, MEN, he did stay two days in the
same place before he said anything to his disciples.)"
The way the MEN clause, though interrupts between the main clause and its
preceding subordinate time clause, intensifies its concessive nature:
"Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Therefore, when he
heard that he was sick, (OK, granted, he was abiding in the same place for
two days,) [but] afterwards, after that, he said to his disciples . . ."
>But since you brought up verse 4, I do have a grammatical question. What
>the antecedent of AUTNS?
>VS 4 hAUTN hH ASQENEIA OUK ESTIV PROS QANATOV ALL' hUPER THS DOZHS TOU
>hINA DOZASQH hO hUIOS TOU QEOU DI' AUTHS.
>Is the Son glorified through the illness or or through the glory of God?
>Does the choice of DIA rather than hUPO impact the choice of the
I assume that you mean hUPO signals something more agentive (hence DOXHS TOU
characterizing God's person) whereas DIA signals a less personal cause or
instrument (hence hH ASQENEIA)?
Another possible consideration -- in my experience with languages that I
could test out with living native-tongue speakers, anaphora, all other
things being equal, tend to look for their referents not to the most recent
antecedent, but to the antecedent that is closest to it *structurally* --
that is, I would suppose AUTHS refers to hH ASQENEIA rather than THS DOXHS,
since DOXHS is subordinated several layers down into the sentence structure
(a noun within a noun phrase within a preposition phrase within the verb
phrase). Of course, this assumes a Government and Binding linguistic model
S -> NP(subject) + VP
VP -> V + NP(direct object) + PP (optional)
PP -> P + NP etc.
I don't know if this is how NTG works or not, but it would be interesting to
test with other cases of anaphora.
hUPO THS CARITOS TOU QEOU,
More information about the B-Greek