optative in John13:24

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sofronios
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:27 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

optative in John13:24

Post by Sofronios »

been doing johanine text for awhile..
ppl tend to say that it is one of the simplest greek text out there that I agree somehow(but not with the subject matter that is not that simple)
this is my third times reading the whole St John gospel
and if I am allowed to boast, the more I read the more I become familiar with the contents but at the same times new unfamiliarity appears..

at first attempt of reading I dont 'feel' there exist an optative of ειμι in the chapter 13 verse 24. I just feel the context and dont mind about it
but at this third time, 'hey why is that optative there?' began to pop up in my head..
If I recall, the optative, at the time of koine, is the relic of the past.. that people dont use it in their conversation anymore.. and exception atticism like maybe St.Luke or Hebrew epistle(maybe Im not sure have not get up to that level yet)

and my question is, using grammarian terminology that I am still dont get hang of it, how do we label the optative there? Zerwick says that it was potential optative
but how about if one disagree? seems to me that a potential optative is used in the main clause, yet this sentence is a subordinate clause..
could we read it as a direct or indirect question with a sequence of tenses, but instead of historic verb in the main clause, we have the primary tense νευει or λεγει (Im not sure)

by the way the full sentence is
John 13:24 νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει.

thx you in advance (sry my bad english, a little agitated)
ὁ δὲ εἶπε· πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην, ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με;
Qui ait : Et quomodo possum, si non aliquis ostenderit mihi ?

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by mwh »

An optative with ἄν can always be called a potential optative.
τίς αν είη is best viewed as a direct question: we could put it in quotes. Or it could be viewed as an indirect question put in direct form, it makes no real difference. Either way it hangs on πυθέσθαι “to ask,” and it functions as a main clause. Sequence of tenses doesn’t come into it.
“Who would it be about whom he’s speaking?” i.e. “Who would/might/could he be talking about?”
τίς αν είη; is not very different from τίς εστίν; (the question then asked Jesus directly by the other disciple), just put in less blunt form.
We have to distinguish plain optative from opt.+ἄν (aka potential opt.). But it’s true that John rarely uses either. In fact only here, if I remember rightly. But we shouldn’t attach too much significance to this.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5325
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by jeidsath »

From the SBLGNT apparatus -- "πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη NIV RP ] καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν WH Treg"

Westcott-Hort removes the optative. But while I don't know the manuscript witnesses that it uses, it's easy for me to see how καὶ λέγει could come about as a simplification of νεύει πυθέσθαι. It's hard to imagine it going in the other direction. So I wouldn't think that Westcott-Hort is correct.

I see a lot of pathos in 13:24-25 that seems betrayed by 13:26-27. 13:26-27 is just so dumb and clumsy compared to Mark 14:20 that I don't know what to say.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

jeidsath wrote:From the SBLGNT apparatus -- "πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη NIV RP ] καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν WH Treg"

Westcott-Hort removes the optative. But while I don't know the manuscript witnesses that it uses, it's easy for me to see how καὶ λέγει could come about as a simplification of νεύει πυθέσθαι. It's hard to imagine it going in the other direction. So I wouldn't think that Westcott-Hort is correct.
Westcott-Hort reading is found in {B C L 33 1071}[1] and Codex Sinaiticus conflates the readings.

N. Turner Syntax, pp 122-123 talks about the potential optative. A lot of these appear in variant readings. This is the only place an optative reading is accepted into the traditional Johannine canon and for that reason alone Westcott's quibble (Gsp. St John) isn't totally without substance. I suspect that the THEGNT (Tyndale House Cambridge)[2] which is about to be released will follow the majority. Metzger states that Codex Sinaiticus demonstrates the antiquity of both readings.


[1] Ruben Swanson, see UBSGNT for a longer list.

[2]Editors: Dirk Jongkind, Peter Head and Peter Williams.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by mwh »

My UBS edition gives no variants here. That’s good enough for me.
Besides, that’s the text Sofronios asked about. Let’s not complicate things for him, unless anyone disagrees with what I said.

User avatar
Sofronios
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 2:27 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by Sofronios »

@mwh
basically optative can serve as polite request or questions, right? it really escapes my notice.. thank you for the explanations..

@jeidsath and bartholomew
ah westcorthort.. one of the big names, is he not?
my thought just wondering for a while to those scholars who really dig into the actual manuscripts
thx you for the helps
ὁ δὲ εἶπε· πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην, ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με;
Qui ait : Et quomodo possum, si non aliquis ostenderit mihi ?

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

Sofronios wrote:
@jeidsath and bartholomew
ah westcorthort.. one of the big names, is he not?
my thought just wondering for a while to those scholars who really dig into the actual manuscripts
B.F. Westcott wasn't alone. Tischendorf, Lachmann, H.A.W. Meyer, H. Alford.

H.A.W. Meyer claims Tischendorf and Lachmann in support of λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν. The other reading being a gloss that was included in Codex Sinaiticus.

From Bible Hub
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει.
Westcott and Hort 1881
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει.
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ) Εἰπὲ / πυθέσθαι τίς [ἂν] ἐστιν / εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει.
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει.
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει.
Tischendorf 8th Edition
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει.
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
νεύει οὖν τούτῳ Σίμων Πέτρος πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει
Westcott and Hort 1881 w/o Diacritics
νευει ουν τουτω σιμων πετρος και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν περι ου λεγει
Tischendorf 8th Ed. w/o Diacritics
νευει ουν τουτω σιμων πετρος και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν περι ου λεγει
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
νευει ουν τουτω σιμων πετρος πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη περι ου λεγει
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894 w/o Diacritics
νευει ουν τουτω Σιμων Πετρος πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη περι ου λεγει.
Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) w/o Diacritics
νευει ουν τουτω σιμων πετρος πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη περι ου λεγει
Westcott/Hort, UBS4 variants w/o Diacritics
νευει ουν τουτω σιμων πετρος {VAR1: και λεγει αυτω ειπε τις εστιν } {VAR2: πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη } περι ου λεγει

Source Laparola and STEP Bible

$Joh 13:24 so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking.
=========== ============
πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ λέγει] (p66(c) οὗ εἶπεν) 02=A 017=K 032=W 037=Δ (038=Θ ᾖ for εἴη) 041=Π f1 (f13 1241 πείθέσθαι) 28 565 700 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1344 1365 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz (itr1) syrp syrh syrpal copsa copbo goth arm geo Q25=Diatessarona Q35=Diatessaronv Q367=Cyril ς NR ND Dio Nv
πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη οὗτος περὶ οὗ λέγει] 05=D itd
πυθέσθαι περὶ τίνος λέγει] 044=Ψ (syrs copbo? περὶ οὗ)
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει] 03=B 04=C 019=L 033=X 068 33 892 1071 (ita itq omit αὐτῷ) itf Q103=Origen WH CEI Riv (TILC) NM
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει] itaur vg (Q103=Origen omit αὐτῷ)
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ περὶ οὗ λέγει] itc eth
καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν] 299 itb itff2 itl
uti cognosceret a Iesu de quo dixisset] ite
πυθέσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ ἔλεγεν. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Εἰπὲ τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει] 01=א
C. Stirling Bartholomew

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by mwh »

Thanks for the data dump Stirling. I wonder why the UBS edn., which is the only one I use, doesn’t mention the variant. I thought they were more scrupulous about reporting testimony. Did they just think it not worth recording, judging it obviously wrong (despite W-H etc, in 19th cent.)? But the apparatus is otherwise fairly full, and records many variants more trivial and weakly attested than this. I have the 4th revised ed. of 2002, not put out directly by UBS but by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft and printed in Germany (and with intro and dictionary translated into Castilian!). Is it reported in subsequent editions?

Both readings are ancient, certainly. They’re both there in the Sinaiticus, one after the other. The second goes και λεγει αυτω· ειπε τιϲ εϲτιν περι ου λεγει, “and says to him, ‘Say who it is he’s speaking of.’” That’s clearly an inept simplification of πυθεσθαι τις αν ειη περι ου ελεγεν (“to ask who it might be he was speaking of”), which directly precedes it in the Sinaiticus (or perhaps rather of πυθ. … λεγει as in other witnesses). Seems odd that Tischendorff, who found the manuscript in the first place, should have stood by the received reading (if in fact he did); but perhaps he didn’t dare accept the novelty. The infinitive after νεύει may have seemed awkward, but it’s matched at Acts 24.10—another reason for accepting this version.

OK, so it’s the only optative in John (or is it?), but τίς αν ειη is a fossilized kind of expression that one can well understand John using, and it would never have displaced the indicative. Once is not never (as Aristarchus and Augustine would agree).

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5325
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: optative in John13:24

Post by jeidsath »

I'm glad the thread is continuing! I looked up the UBS criteria for variant inclusion the other day, after reading mwh's first post about it. I thought it was strange that a variant present in the Vaticanus and used for the Latin translations didn't make the cut. I have been surprised at the UBS's criteria for exclusion/non-exclusion in the past. Sometimes they footnote minor differences, and other times leave out major variants, all on the same page. But all the UBS introduction said is that they try to list important variants.

To me, both the νεύει infinitive reading and the τίς ἂν εἴη might bear the marks of someone familiar with either Luke/Acts or a slightly more classical Greek style. τίς ἂν εἴη shows up lots in Luke/Acts, but nowhere else in the New Testament (though it also shows up in Genesis). The remaining uses of the optative outside of Luke/Acts are all things like μη γενοιτο! So I can easily imagine a scribe familiar with the Luke/Acts inserting this as an emendation. Or perhaps John was familiar with Luke (as Goodacre has suggested) and that is enough of an explanation? Because it's also easy to see νεύει infinitive confusing a Palestinian scribe, who might then have emended the text of John to the received version.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Post Reply