ὃς δι’ ἂν?

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

I do not know whether this phrases is just a trivial or not a difference at all

from John 4:14 ὃς δι’ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, (PT)
ὃς δʼ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, (UBS)

I can read the second line for it is perfectly make sense,
but whoever drink from the water that I will give him

but how about the first line? could it be that ὃς δι’ ἂν stands for ὃς δια ἂν?
if it is the case then could we render it as,
who ever drink through from the water that I will give him?

or is just another way to say a same thing?

Thx you before and my apologize if my question is too basic

2

Look like a typo to me.

3

That what I thought, but it appears to be the standard Greek Orthodox reading. I think that they’re reading it as δια, “by means of,” with “ἂν πίῃ” as an interjection. “Whoever by means of – should he drink – the water which I will give him…” But I’m not sure.

Modern Greek is:

“Εκείνος όμως που θα πιει από το νερό που θα του δώσω εγώ…”

However that looks like they are translating from the ὃς δ’ version.

4

Joel,

Did you find the reading in a printed source? I looked at R. Swanson and Codex Alfordus[1]. Doesn’t appear as a reading.


looking for δι’ ἂν

CYRILLUS Alexandrinus De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate
Volume 68, page 953, line 24

{ΠΑΛΛ.} Πῶς γὰρ οὔ;
{ΚΥΡ.} Οὐκοῦν ἀπόβλητον μὲν τὸ ἄναλκι, καὶ τὸ
οἱονεὶ παρειμένον, δεκτὸν δὲ τὸ εὐσθενὲς, ὡς ἐν
ἀρσένων φύσει ζωγραφούμενον, εἰ παρεζευγμένον
ἔχοι τὸ ἄμωμον. Εἶεν > δι’ ἂν > εἰς τύπον ἡμῖν σαφῆ τὰ
τοιάδε Χριστοῦ. Ἄρσην γὰρ ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄμωμος ὁ
Ἐμμανουὴλ, εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ δύναμις, καὶ
οὐκ εἰδὼς ἁμαρτίαν. Ἄρσην δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως· προὖ-
χον γὰρ ἀεὶ, καὶ ἐν ἀμείνοσι θατέρου τὸ ἄρσεν· καὶ
πρός γε δὴ τούτῳ καὶ ἡγεμονικώτατον. Προέστηκε


CYRILLUS Alexandrinus Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam
Volume 70, page 344, line 10

συνέχειν αὐτοὺς ἰσχύοντος πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. «Οὐ γὰρ
ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται,» φησὶν, «ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ’
ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος Θεοῦ.»
Ὕδωρ μὲν οὖν ἀποκαλεῖ τὸν ζωοποιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, λόγον·
πηγὰς δὲ τοὺς ἁγίους ἀποστόλους τε καὶ εὐαγγελι-
στὰς, προσθείην > δι’ ἂν > ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς προφή-
τας· Σωτήριον δὲ τὸν Χριστόν.

[1] Henry Alford Greek Testament

5

Is it really the Gk.Orthodox reading?!? It’s quite nonsensical (your interpretation won’t work Joel), and is obviously a mistake for δ’ἄν. So too in the Cyril, at least in the 2nd passage. (I don’t get the first.)

6

ὃς δ’ ἂν on this Greek Orthodox site

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/bible/nt2/john/4.asp

7

That’s what I concluded. It isn’t a typo, it is scanning error. Google made the same error digitizing numerous texts some of which I had hard copies. So I looked at what Google had “found” and compared it to the hard copy and δ᾿ was scanned as DI’ look at the an example from Moulton & Geden, Concordance page 54:

Matt. 23:16 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ οἱ λέγοντες· ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ ναῷ, οὐδέν ἐστιν· ὃς δ᾿ ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ, ὀφείλει.

Google found: * δι αν ομόση

What happened was an erroneous text got posted at what appeared to be an authoritative looking web site and everyone else ripped the text from that site. This is a modern textual variant. Very modern. Looks to me like that would also explain the two citations from CYRILLUS Alexandrinus.

8

Yes of course. I didn’t mean typo literally.

9

so I think It is necessary to always double (or triple) check this reading of mine to avoid this scanning type of error I suppose.. so again beginner mistakes.. and again thx for the kind replies.. appreciated

10

I am glad you asked the question. Please continue to ask questions. Don’t worry about mistakes.

11

Went hunting for the images of the books CYRILLUS Alexandrinus was digitized from and found them[1]. Apparently google doesn’t index the contents of all their books. I wasn’t finding it by searching on a text string. It turns out that one of the citations was indeed the same kind of digitization error where δ’ was read as δι’ but the other one wasn’t an error. The first citation from De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate was read correctly, at least the line in question was correct:

ἔχοι τὸ ἄμωμον. Εἶεν δι’ ἂν εἰς τύπον ἡμῖν σαφῆ τὰ

The photo of the physical copy of the second citation shows δ’ followed by ἂν.

στὰς, προσθείην δ’ ἂν ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς προφή-

CYRILLUS Alexandrinus De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate
Volume 68, page 953, line 24

{ΠΑΛΛ.} Πῶς γὰρ οὔ;
{ΚΥΡ.} Οὐκοῦν ἀπόβλητον μὲν τὸ ἄναλκι, καὶ τὸ
οἱονεὶ παρειμένον, δεκτὸν δὲ τὸ εὐσθενὲς, ὡς ἐν
ἀρσένων φύσει ζωγραφούμενον, εἰ παρεζευγμένον
ἔχοι τὸ ἄμωμον. Εἶεν > δι’ ἂν > εἰς τύπον ἡμῖν σαφῆ τὰ
τοιάδε Χριστοῦ. Ἄρσην γὰρ ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄμωμος ὁ
Ἐμμανουὴλ, εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ δύναμις, καὶ
οὐκ εἰδὼς ἁμαρτίαν. Ἄρσην δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως· προὖ-
χον γὰρ ἀεὶ, καὶ ἐν ἀμείνοσι θατέρου τὸ ἄρσεν· καὶ
πρός γε δὴ τούτῳ καὶ ἡγεμονικώτατον. Προέστηκε


CYRILLUS Alexandrinus Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam
Volume 70, page 344, line 10

συνέχειν αὐτοὺς ἰσχύοντος πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. «Οὐ γὰρ
ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται,» φησὶν, «ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ’
ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος Θεοῦ.»
Ὕδωρ μὲν οὖν ἀποκαλεῖ τὸν ζωοποιὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, λόγον·
πηγὰς δὲ τοὺς ἁγίους ἀποστόλους τε καὶ εὐαγγελι-
στὰς, προσθείην > δι’ ἂν > ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς προφή-
τας· Σωτήριον δὲ τὸν Χριστόν.

If anyone wonders why this matters, people rely on these digital texts to launch arguments of all sorts. Knowing that there are errors in standard sources like TLG is important, particularly for people publishing their ideas. Anyone who has worked for a while with digital resources knows they are not infallible. I recall decades back a NT Greek professor getting very heated about statistical “errors” in Accordance. I found this ironic. Running statistics on grammatical features in a tiny sample is a dubious undertaking to begin with. Accordance was treating punctuation as words which had an impact on the sample. I assume this was fixed eons ago.

[1] http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/patrologia-graeca-pg-pdfs/

12

It turns out that one of the citations was indeed the same kind of digitization error where δ’ was read as δι’ but the other one wasn’t an error. The first citation from De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate was read correctly, at least the line in question was correct:

ἔχοι τὸ ἄμωμον. Εἶεν δι’ ἂν εἰς τύπον ἡμῖν σαφῆ τὰ

But this is not correct, and is an error. I said δι’ ἂν was obviously a mistake for δ’ ἂν in Jn. and at least in the second Cyril citation. Now that I look properly at the first Cyril citation it’s obviously the same again there. Εἶεν δι’ ἂν εἰς τύπον ἡμῖν σαφῆ τὰ τοιάδε Χριστοῦ should be Εἶεν δ’ ἂν …

Little errors such as these are so glaringly wrong they shouldn’t throw anyone off for more than an instant. But it’s certainly a warning not to put blind trust in the texts we read, whether digital or not. Scanning merely adds one more potential source of transmissional error—fortunately not a particularly serious one.

13

So I do have this error in the hardcopy of my Bible (Greek Orthodox). But it appears to have been printed from the above digital transcription, or one like it. If only scribes were as stupid with their errors as digital scanners, all textual errors would be easy to fix.

14

from John 4:14 ὃς δι’ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, (PT)
ὃς δʼ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, (UBS)

Carl Conrad pointed to the immediate glaring problem: a free floating unattached preposition δι’ with no noun/substantive. The position of δι’ is exactly where we would expect to see a post-positive conjunction δ’. ὃς ἂν + subjunctive πίῃ followed by a genitive of source ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος is unremarkable syntax. Drop in a preposition διὰ for δ’ and you end up with a mess. The Gospel of John is not known for weird syntax.

How the variant reading survived on 30+ greek web sites and a hard copy of the Greek NT is a different question. Errors do make it into hard copy: USB-GNT 3rd Ed Corrected which is a “critical text” where there is some attention to detail.