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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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
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.
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).
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.