[B-Greek] hOS in 1 Timothy 3:16

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed May 14 12:49:59 EDT 2008


I really think the better way to understand this is not as a  
demonstrative pronoun pure and simple but as a relative pronoun with a  
concealed demonstrative pronoun. See BDAG s.v. hOS/hH/hO 1.b.

And there's nothing really so very strange about this usage; it is  
present in one of the most celebrated passages in the GNT, to wit, 1  
John 1:1-3a -- where the neuter relative pronoun hO\ conceals an  
implicit TOUTO or EKEINO:
1John 1:1 	Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν,  
ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ  
ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν  
ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς  
_  2 καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ  
ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ  
ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν  
αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα  
καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν _  3 ὃ ἑωράκαμεν  
καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ  
ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν  
ἔχητε μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν.
[hO\ HN AP' ARCHS, hO\ AKHKOAMEN, hO\ hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN,  
hO\ EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI CEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS  
-- KAI hH ZWH EFANERWQH, KAI hEWRAKAMEN KAI MARTUROUMEN KAI  
APAGGELLOMEN hUMIN THN ZWHN THN AIWNION hHTIS HN PROS TON PATERA KAI  
EFANERWQH hHMIN -- hO\ hEWRAKAMEN KAI AKHKOAMEN, APAGGELLOMEN KAI  
hUMIN, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ' hHMWN.]

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

On May 14, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:

> Taking hOS as a demonstrative seems to solve
>  one very little problem (i.e why is hOS masculine?
>  But this is easily solved by assuming Paul is quoting
>  from a hymn) and creates a bigger problem, namley
>  how common is it for Paul or any other NT/Koine
>  writer to use hOS for hOUTOS?  Just going off
>  memory, without looking anything up, it seems to
>  me to be rare.  And would you not expect a KAI
>  or a DE or a GAR used a connective?  It's an
>  interesting idea though.
>
> George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:

καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς  
εὐσεβείας μυστήριον·
ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,
ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,
ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν,
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ,
ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.
KAI hOMOLOGOUMENWS MEGA ESTIN TO THS EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION:
hOS EFANERWQH EN EQNESIN,
EPISTEUQH EN KOSMWi,
ANELHMFQH EN DOCHi.
This is perfectly understandable as it stands.  Ὅς [hOS]  
functions as a demonstrative pronoun.

A.Demonstr. Pron., =οὗτος, ὅδε [hOUTOS, hODE], this, that;  
also, he, she, it:
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A  
Greek-English lexicon. "With a revised supplement, 1996." (Rev. and  
augm. throughout) (1259). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford  
University Press.
It does not refer specifically to the preceding εὐσεβείας  
μυστήριον [EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION], but rather to Christ who IS  
the εὐσεβείας μυστήριον [EUSEBEIAS MUSTHRION].

> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> ╜ search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jonathan Bailey
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; brian_d_fink at hotmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:34:54 PM
> Subject: [B-Greek] hOS in 1 Timothy 3:16
>
> Hello all,
>
> I was wondering if the famous, or infamous, hOS in the critical text  
> of 1 Timothy 3:16 is thought to possibly be referring to the  
> MYSTHRION EUSEBEIAS earlier in thhe verse, as a kind of  
> pesonification.
>
> I'm familiar with laxity of gender concord throughout the GNT, and  
> particularly common in John or really anywhere where the PNEUMA  
> HAGION is referred to as masculine. I do seem to remember, just from  
> personal reading, that hOS is found in a number of places where hON  
> and hH would be thought to be found. But I am wondering how common  
> this kind of construction is in Paul.
>
> I've heard the break in 1 Timothy 3:16 be interpreted as a point at  
> which Paul breaks into a quotation where the referent for the  
> relative particle is just missing because it was not quoted. Is this  
> understanding common? Is it really necessary? It seems you either  
> need to emend the text to the Byzantine QEOS or to hON as is found  
> in some manuscripts, or you need to come up with something to  
> explain the lack of concorde such as being quoted from a hymn, or  
> you can make meaning out of the text as it stands. What's wrong with  
> the final option? Can this text just make sense leaving it at hOS  
> and assuming it refers to the MYSTHRION? Does Paul ever do this sort  
> of thing elsewhere? (Still in Iraq, still don't have Bibleworks,  
> still need help).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon






More information about the B-Greek mailing list