John 11:5-6 antecedents
glennblank at earthlink.net
Wed Mar 27 04:24:07 EST 2002
I am sorry, Richard, for taking so long to reply.
>Thanks for the new word "anaphora." <g>
No problem. It always helps when I have nothing of substance to say to
throw in some technical jargon <g>
>The use of antecedents in the passage, though, has now come to the front of
>hAUTN hH ASQENEIA OUK ESTIV PROS QANATON ALL 'hUPER THS DOZHS TOU QEOU,
>DOZASQH hO hUIOS TOU QEOU DI' AUTHS."
>The final AUTHS might seem to be in the same subordinated sentence
>as the possible antecedent THS DOZHS, or perhaps to flow structurally as a
>subordinate to the preposition hUPER THS DOZHS.
>This would support THS DOZHS as being the antecedent, it would seem to me.
Yes, I would think so . . . if hINA DOZASQH hO hUIOS TOU QEOU DI' AUTHS is
subordinate to the prepositional phrase, then DOXHS is the antecedent of
AUTHS, whereas if hINA DOZASQH hO hUIOS TOU QEOU DI' AUTHS is subordinate to
the main clause itself (hAUTN hH ASQENEIA OUK ESTIV PROS QANATON ALL 'hUPER
THS DOZHS TOU QEOU), then hAUTH hH ASQENEIA is the antecedent. I
automatically assumed that the latter was the case, probably because of the
strangeness in my English ears of having a hINA clause modify a
prepositional phrase. I don't know of any reason why the former could not
be the case. I guess the way to know whether it could be the case would be
to find examples where the hINA clause is unequivocally subordinated to the
prepositional phrase, as in examples where the prepositioanl phrase is in
the subject rather than adjacent to the direct object of the clause.
>I do however think that the antecedent is hH ASQENEIA. Please consider my
>reasons to see if my thinking is acceptable given Greek grammar
>My understanding is that, as you explained so clearly, hUPO "signals
>something more agentive (hence DOXHS TOU QEOU characterizing God's person)
>whereas DIA signals a less personal cause or instrument (hence hH
This is not enough to go on. While hUPO signals agent and DIA signals
instrument (among other things), nothing prevents a personal entity,
although capable of agency, as being viewed as instrument rather than agent.
Personal referents are in fact often referenced by the object of DIA; for
example, DIA IHSOU CRISTOU in Rom 1.8; 5.11; 7.25.
>Additionally, could it be possible that the Father's work in this
>glorification of the Son is expressed by the "divine passive" of DOZASQH?
>we have "the glory of God glorifying the Son of God through this illness."
So that the agent slot is assumed to be filled by God, and by THS DOXHS QEOU
by the identification of THS DOXHS QEOU with God Himself, leaving only hH
ASQENENEIA as the only candidate for filling the instrument slot? But that
assumes that God and His glory are to be seen as one and the same.
Otherwise, we might have "God glorifying the Son of God through God's
glory." But now I am splitting hairs. The short answer is, I don't know.
>The other antecedents in this passage that bring questions to me are in
>Thomas is speaking, "AGWMEN KAI hHMEIS hIVA APAQANWMEN MET' AUTOU."
>When Thomas speaks does the hMEIS include Jesus?
I wouldn't think so, just simply because he said this to the SUMMAQHTAIS
(his fellow disciples)
>And when Thomas speaks does the AUTOU refer to Jesus or to Lazarus?
My first reaction would be that META with the genitive indicates action
contemporaneous with the other, as in Mat 16.27 (hence, dying with Jesus),
as opposed to META with the accusative indicating the one action following
the other, as in Mar 16.12 (hence, dying after Lazarus). But on closer
examination, I notice that DIA with the genitive can indicate merely
association without no temporal implications, as DIA TWN NEKRWN in Luk 24.5.
Once again, I don't know . . . I just always assumed the first
Thanks for the excellent questions.
More information about the B-Greek