[B-Greek] 1Jo 3:4,6 - hAMARTANW and POIEW + hAMARTIA

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Sep 29 14:39:30 EDT 2007


On Sep 29, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Matthew Burgoon wrote:

> I have a newby question about 1 John 3:4,6:
> PAS hO POIWN THN hARMARTIAN ...
> PAS hO EN AUTWi MENWN OUC hAMARTANEI ...
>
> The basic question is about the difference in sense between hAMARTANO
> and POIEW + hAMARTIA,  but I actually wonder more about method - how
> would I go about answering the question for myself?

4 Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν  
ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία  
ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.  5 καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι  
ἐκεῖνος ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς  
ἁμαρτίας ἄρῃ, καὶ ἁμαρτία ἐν  
αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν.  6 πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ  
μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ  
ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν  
οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.  7 Τεκνία,  
μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς· ὁ ποιῶν τὴν  
δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς  
ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν·  8 ὁ ποιῶν  
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου  
ἐστίν, ὅτι ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος  
ἁμαρτάνει. εἰς τοῦτο ἐφανερώθη ὁ  
υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα  
τοῦ διαβόλου.  9 Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος  
ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι  
σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ  
οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ  
θεοῦ γεγέννηται.  10 ἐν τούτῳ  
φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ  
τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου· πᾶς ὁ μὴ  
ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ  
θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν  
αὐτοῦ.

4 PAS hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN KAI THN ANOMIAN POIEI, KAI hH hAMARTIA  
ESTIN hH ANOMIA.  5 KAI OIDATE hOTI EKEINOS EFANERWQH, hINA TAS  
hAMARTIAS ARHi, KAI hAMARTIA EN AUTWi OUK ESTIN.  6 PAS hO EN AUTWi  
MENWN OUC hAMARTANEI: PAS hO hAMARTANWN OUC hEWRAKEN AUTON OUDE  
EGNWKEN AUTON.  7 TEKNIA, MHDEIS PLANATW hUMAS: hO POIWN THN  
DIKAIOSUNHN DIKAIOS ESTIN, KAQWS EKEINOS DIKAIOS ESTIN:  8 hO POIWN  
THN hAMARTIAN EK TOU DIABOLOU ESTIN, hOTI AP' ARCHS hO DIABOLOS  
hAMARTANEI. EIS TOUTO EFANERWQH hO hUIOS TOU QEOU, hINA LUSHi TA ERGA  
TOU DIABOLOU.  9 PAS hO GEGENNHMENOS EK TOU QEOU hAMARTIAN OU POIEI,  
hOTI SPERMA AUTOU EN AUTWi MENEI, KAI OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN, hOTI EK  
TOU QEOU GEGENNHTAI.  10 EN TOUTWi FANERA ESTIN TA TEKNA TOU QEOU KAI  
TA TEKNA TOU DIABOLOU: PAS hO MH POIWN DIKAIOSUNHN OUK ESTIN EK TOU  
QEOU, KAI hO MH AGAPWN TON ADELFON AUTOU.

Martin Culy (Handbook Jn Epistles) suggests that there is no  
difference in meaning between hO POIWN THN hAMARTIAN v.4 and hO  
hAMARTANWN v.6. He notes that the verb form of ANOMIA isn't found in  
the NT. To make the rhetoric elegant and simple John used the  
paraphrastic O POIWN THN hAMARTIAN.

My first inclination was to be sceptical about Culy's explanation.  
The LXX uses ANOMEW 34 times LEH  and cognate noun and adjective  
combined 334 times. Even if the LXX favored the noun/adj over the  
verb, it does not follow that ANOMEW was unknown to John or the other  
NT authors. If we are looking for a strictly semantic (not  
rhetorical) justification for the periphrastic construction hO POIWN  
THN DIKAIOSUNHN is certainly not the equivalent of hO DIKAIWN.

In summary there are probably both semantic and rhetorical forces at  
work here.


Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list