Tagging of John 17,2 in BibleWorks

[Peter]

Dear all,
I found a passage, which I see differently (while translating it into German). John 17,2 should not be tagged as Akkusativ (PAN O) but as Nominativ pendens (as in Joh 7,38; Act 7,40; Rev 2,26). This nominative is fronted for emphasis and functions as indirect object (the same referent is referred to again in the Dativ case: AUTOIS - in the Plural - constr. ad sensum).
If I err please correct me. I TLGed a lot on this and found no other plausible solution on this verse.

Yours
Peter

[Peter]

A follow up:
The accusative would pragmatically make "eternal life" coreferential to "all, that you have given", if both were the direct objects of "to give". Which I don't think would match. In the other samples Joh 6,37.39 and in 3,6 the neuter PAN O refers to persons (see BDF 282,4 for neuter singulars used for Collectiva) and BDF 138,1 where they state that in Joh 17,2 "all flesh", "all that" and "he will give *them*" is coreferential. Otherwise it would be equal to "eternal life" which is hardly the case. The other instances of PAN O in John are personal beings as in Joh 17,2 (used as a general expression), which wouldn't match to the eternal life. Accordingly Versions as NKJ have:
"that He should give eternal life (direct object) to as many as You have given Him. (indirect object)" - They treat it, as I think correctly, as indirect (!) object, just as I proposed, namely a Nominativ pendens which functions as indirect object and is stressed by fronting.
That would meet other instances by John as I mentioned - cf. especially Rev.2,26. So almost all version don't treat it as accusative - which is right, I think.
Sorry for bad English - I hope the basic idea gets clear.
Yours
Peter, Germany

[Donald Cobb]

Dear all,
I found a passage, which I see differently (while translating it into German). John 17,2 should not be tagged as Akkusativ (PAN O) but as Nominativ pendens (as in Joh 7,38; Act 7,40; Rev 2,26). This nominative is fronted for emphasis and functions as indirect object (the same referent is referred to again in the Dativ case: AUTOIS - in the Plural - constr. ad sensum).
If I err please correct me. I TLGed a lot on this and found no other plausible solution on this verse.

Yours
Peter

Hello Peter,

I see that you've asked the same question over at B-Greek, and I'm sure you'll get some good answers there. In a word, I think you have to take into consideration two things. 1) There's most likely a semitism here. In Hebrew and Aramaic, the introduction of a relative particle ( אֲשֶׁר [Heb] or דִּי [Aram]) basically introduces a subordinate clause that functions in a way that is highly independent (I don't know if you have a working knowledge of Hebrew or not. If you do, please forgive the explanation!). An example:

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם

Lit.: "You will keep my statutes and my judgments [that]: the man who does them will live by them". That would have to be reworked into good English by saying something like: "You will keep my statutes and my judgments, by which he who does them will live".

2) As you mentioned, John often uses a neuter, singular to designate what is is fact a masculine plural.

If you take the two things together, you have this in Jn 17.1-2:

δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

"(Glorify your Son, that the Son might glorify you, as you gave him authority over all flesh), in order that all that you gave him (i.e., all those you gave him), he might give them eternal life".

The relative pronoun is the direct object of the verb, and so is in the accusative case (the Father being the implied subject). The referent is the same as αὐτοῖς, which is now a dative (and masc., plur.) because it is that to that referent that the Son gives eternal life.

In a more proper English, this could be translated: "in order that he might give life to all those you gave him".

I don't see how the pronoun could be anything other than an accusative and still give a good meaning. So I think the parsing here is correct.

Blessings,

Don Cobb
Aix-en-Provence, France

[Peter]

Hello Peter,

I see that you've asked the same question over at B-Greek, and I'm sure you'll get some good answers there. In a word, I think you have to take into consideration two things. 1) There's most likely a semitism here. In Hebrew and Aramaic, the introduction of a relative particle ( אֲשֶׁר [Heb] or דִּי [Aram]) basically introduces a subordinate clause that functions in a way that is highly independent (I don't know if you have a working knowledge of Hebrew or not. If you do, please forgive the explanation!). An example:

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם

Lit.: "You will keep my statutes and my judgments [that]: the man who does them will live by them". That would have to be reworked into good English by saying something like: "You will keep my statutes and my judgments, by which he who does them will live".

2) As you mentioned, John often uses a neuter, singular to designate what is is fact a masculine plural.

If you take the two things together, you have this in Jn 17.1-2:

δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

"(Glorify your Son, that the Son might glorify you, as you gave him authority over all flesh), in order that all that you gave him (i.e., all those you gave him), he might give them eternal life".

The relative pronoun is the direct object of the verb, and so is in the accusative case (the Father being the implied subject). The referent is the same as αὐτοῖς, which is now a dative (and masc., plur.) because it is that to that referent that the Son gives eternal life.

In a more proper English, this could be translated: "in order that he might give life to all those you gave him".

I don't see how the pronoun could be anything other than an accusative and still give a good meaning. So I think the parsing here is correct.

Blessings,

Don Cobb
Aix-en-Provence, France

Dear Don,
nice to meet you and thanks for your annotations ! I'd like to adress, what appears as discrepancy to me: you translate "in order that he might give life to all those you gave him" (which I'd support), but then you declare the PAN O as direct object, which won't work. I mean you translated the clause as indirect object and declare it as direct object, which would agree with the accusative. Rather the parallel is to other instances where the nominaitv pendens functions as indirect object, and, as you said, meets with the Dative plural "them". That would be normal. And you see that the indirect object demands a Dative case (you gave *him*) and not an accusative. So I think we should treat the clause a morphological Nominative with is fronted for emphasis, but the sentence Brakes up (Anacoluth) and the indirect object meets with the Dative (them) which is only possible by treating PAN DE as Nominative pendens. To sum up: I'd Support your Translation, but that would make PAN O to a indirect object which won't work with an accusative, but only with a Nominative pendens. We can also see in this sentences that direct object are connected with the accusative (eternal live) and indirect objects with the Dative, and you can't explain the PAN O Accusative getting a Dative function, which is possible by treating him as casus pendens. Can we come together?
Yours
Peter

[Donald Cobb]

Dear Don,
nice to meet you and thanks for your annotations ! I'd like to adress, what appears as discrepancy to me: you translate "in order that he might give life to all those you gave him" (which I'd support), but then you declare the PAN O as direct object, which won't work. I mean you translated the clause as indirect object and declare it as direct object, which would agree with the accusative. Rather the parallel is to other instances where the nominaitv pendens functions as indirect object, and, as you said, meets with the Dative plural "them". That would be normal. And you see that the indirect object demands a Dative case (you gave *him*) and not an accusative. So I think we should treat the clause a morphological Nominative with is fronted for emphasis, but the sentence Brakes up (Anacoluth) and the indirect object meets with the Dative (them) which is only possible by treating PAN DE as Nominative pendens. To sum up: I'd Support your Translation, but that would make PAN O to a indirect object which won't work with an accusative, but only with a Nominative pendens. We can also see in this sentences that direct object are connected with the accusative (eternal live) and indirect objects with the Dative, and you can't explain the PAN O Accusative getting a Dative function, which is possible by treating him as casus pendens. Can we come together?
Yours
Peter

Hello again Peter,

Always a pleasure to discuss with you! Try breaking the sentence into its two constituent parts:

1. πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ

the ὅ is a relative pronoun, so it relates to a verb. If it's a nominative, then it has to be the subject of that verb. But the verb δέδωκας is in the second person, singular: "you have given." So we need to take πᾶν ὅ as an accusative: "All that you have given". The dative, αὐτῷ is the indirect object: "All that you have given to him".

I don't see how the pronoun here can be anything other than an accusative.

2. ἵνα […] δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

Note, first of all that the subject of the verb--which is the main verb of the phrase--has changed; it's no longer a 2d person, sing., but a 3d person, sing.: "in order that he might give". The direct object--in this part of the phrase--is ζωὴν αἰώνιον: "in order that he might give eternal life". Then the dative, αὐτοῖς: "in order that he might give eternal life to them"

If we put the two together, we get the translation I gave previously: "In order that, all that you have given to him, he might give them eternal life" or, in correct English: "In order that he might give eternal life to all those you have given to him."

We see something similar in v. 24: Πάτερ, ὃ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ

"Father, that which you have given me, I want that, where I am, they might be with me"; i.e., "I want those you gave me to be where I am". The neuter sing. is the same referent as the implied subject of the 3d pers., plur.

How would you translate v. 2, taking the relative pronoun as a nominative?

Blessings,

Don

[Donald Cobb]

Peter,

While you're looking at this passage, take a look at Blass-Debrunner-Funk as well (I don't know if it's modified from B-D or not):

BDF § 138 (p. 76-77) : "The neuter is sometimes used with reference to persons if it is not the individuals but a general quality that is to be emphasized. Intensifying πᾶν or πάντα may be added. […] (1) Jn 17: 2 πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ (cf. Hebr. כָּל־אֲשֶׁר) δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς […] ζωὴν αἰώνιον, where men are first subsumed under σάρξ, then under πᾶν, and finally are designated by αὐτοῖς, the commonest term".

Cheers,

Donald

[Peter]

Peter,

While you're looking at this passage, take a look at Blass-Debrunner-Funk as well (I don't know if it's modified from B-D or not):

BDF § 138 (p. 76-77) : "The neuter is sometimes used with reference to persons if it is not the individuals but a general quality that is to be emphasized. Intensifying πᾶν or πάντα may be added. […] (1) Jn 17: 2 πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ (cf. Hebr. כָּל־אֲשֶׁר) δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς […] ζωὴν αἰώνιον, where men are first subsumed under σάρξ, then under πᾶν, and finally are designated by αὐτοῖς, the commonest term".

Cheers,

Donald

Ok, that is what I've read in BDF as well, Don. But if all the three mentioned referents are coreferential (and I agree), then we'd need an indirect objekt (not a DO in the accusative) for PAN O (a Dative and not an accusative - which would make the casus pendens necessary) otherwise it would meet with the accusative "eternal life", being the direct objekct of "to give", which won't work (the PAN O Points to persons as Receivers of the Action as BDF states correctly, namely an indirect object). John 17,24 states in the Byz text: hOUS DEDWKAS MOI. I have abandoned the Nestle-Aland text you quoted more than 10 years ago (definetly no turning back), due to many, many severe Problems with it. Even their reading there is a scribal error in my view. Maybe we can find other instances. I'm open minded to learn more - thanks for your help and Patience with me ....But to Joh 17,24: I think we have a preponed/fronted subject later refered to with KAKEINOI (Nominative) as such not an indirect object as in Joh 17,2 of PAN O as all Translations treat it. So despite the reading - we should seek other parallels. What speeks against the Revelation passage, I quoted?
Yours
Peter

[Donald Cobb]

Again some thoughts, Peter:

Ok, that is what I've read in BDF as well, Don. But if all the three mentioned referents are coreferential (and I agree), then we'd need an indirect objekt (not a DO in the accusative) for PAN O (a Dative and not an accusative - which would make the casus pendens necessary) otherwise it would meet with the accusative "eternal life", being the direct objekct of "to give", which won't work (the PAN O Points to persons as Receivers of the Action as BDF states correctly, namely an indirect object)

I think it's hazardous for us as non-native Greek speakers, some 2000 years after the writing of a document, to say what must or must not be an admissible grammatical structure in a text. As I said previously, taking into account the semitic origin of the fourth Gospel goes a way in explaining the construction. I for one don't see how the first part of the clause can be translated otherwise than with πᾶν ὅ as the accusative of the verb.

Again, how would you translate that?

John 17,24 states in the Byz text: hOUS DEDWKAS MOI. I have abandoned the Nestle-Aland text you quoted more than 10 years ago (definetly no turning back), due to many, many severe Problems with it. Even their reading there is a scribal error in my view. Maybe we can find other instances. I'm open minded to learn more - thanks for your help and Patience with me ....But to Joh 17,24: I think we have a preponed/fronted subject later refered to with KAKEINOI (Nominative) as such not an indirect object as in Joh 17,2 of PAN O as all Translations treat it. So despite the reading - we should seek other parallels. What speeks against the Revelation passage, I quoted?
Yours
Peter

It seems to me that the Byz. reading is a clear instance of "smoothing out" a text that was perceived as inelegant. I'll go with P60, Sin., Vat., Wash., and Bezae on this one, rather than the Byz. text, which is known for its tendency to "improve" the text. The NA reading has the additional advantage of being attested by two separate text types. But note: even if the Byz. reading were to be retained, we are still left with the same "problem", viz. a fronted accusative having a referent which, later in the construction, takes on another case.

As for Rev. 2.26, I don't think the fact that there is a nominative in the relative clause is really relevant to Jn 17.2, because the structure isn't the same. Again, Jn 17.24 is closer. In any case, I don't think Rev. 2.26 can show us how Jn 17.2 must be structured.

I have yet to see how an alternative understanding could provide a better sense. What would your translation be?

Blessings,

Don