[B-Greek] John 1:24

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Dec 5 06:47:59 EST 2003


At 12:32 PM +0300 12/5/03, Iver Larsen wrote:
>RSV and NIV disagree in the meaning of this verse:
>
>John 1:24 KAI APESTALMENOI HSAN EK TWN FARISAIWN. KAI HRWTHSAN AUTON...
>
>RSV: Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. (So) They asked him...
>NIV: Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him...
>REB: Some Pharisees who were in the deputation asked him...
>
>It seems to me that RSV is correct and the others wrong.
>The participants are already on the scene from v. 19. A group of priests and
>Levites had been sent from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem to investigate
>the activities of John the Baptist. In verses 20-22 this group and John are
>referenced respectively by plural and singular suffixes on the verbs rather
>than pronouns or nouns. It is therefore not a problem to refer to the same
>group again by the plural verbal suffixes in APESTALMENOI HSAN without any
>pronoun or noun.
>
>The imperfect verb HSAN suggests that this is a background comment about the
>people who had been sent. So it seems best to take the participle and HSAN
>as a periphrastic construction: "They were having been sent" or in better
>English "they had been sent". The reason for the background comment is that
>the Pharisees were the ones who baptized their followers, so they saw John
>as a competitor and unauthorized baptizer.
>
>Another problem with NIV and REB is the article in TWN FARISAIWN. From where
>does NIV and REB get the English pronoun "some"? And where do they get the
>relative pronoun "who" from?
>
>I don't think it is reasonable to take HSAN as a simple verb and
>APESTALMENOI as a nominal/substantive participle, i.e. "The sent ones were
>of the Pharisees (belonged to the Pharisees)". If so, there should have been
>a hOI before APESTALMENOI, and HSAN should have been last in the sentence.
>
>Maybe the NIV and REB renderings were occasioned by EK rather than hUPO? In
>a sense the Pharisees appear as agents, but by using EK the focus is on
>origin rather than agency. As a matter of fact the word hUPO only occurs
>twice in John's Gospel, and one of these is the spatial preposition "under"
>(1:48). The other clearly indicates an agent (14:21). On the other hand, EK
>is quite common in John. Some similar instances are found in
>3:6 TO GEGENNHMENON EK THS SARKOS SARX ESTIN, KAI TO GEGENNHMENON EK TOU
>PNEUMATOS PNEUMA ESTIN
>6:65 EAN MH Hi DEDOMENON AUTWi EK TOU PATROS
>
>In both cases, the EK introduces an agent which is also source or origin,
>but the focus seems to be on source.
>
>Another difference between the translations is that NIV and REB appear to
>suggest that the group in v. 24 is a new and different group from the group
>in v. 19. This is indicated by "some", a word that is not in the Greek text.
>
>Can anyone tell me what is the origin or basis for the NIV and REB
>rendering? What am I missing?

I think that what you're missing, Iver, is a "partitive" use of EK + gen.
to function as a subject. In Homeric and Attic Greek one occasionally has a
partitive genitive functioning as the subject of a verb: Smyth §928b which
cites Xenophon,Hellenica 4.2.20 EN CWRAi EPIPTON hEKATERWN: "several on
both sides fell on the spot." hEKATERWN here could be conveyed as "some of
each group" and this is the subject of EPIPTON. This is comparable to
French, "Des amis sont venus avec moi," "Some friends came with me." See
also BDF §164 "The partitive genitive" (2): "The partitive genitive or its
equivalent is also used as subject or object: John 16:17 EIPON EK TWN
MAQHTWN ('some of his disciples'), Lk 21:16 QANATWSOUSIN EX hUMWN (scil.
TINAS)." BDF goes on to indicate that while this usage (with EK + partitive
genitive as a nominal expression) is rare in classical Attic, it is "common
in Semitic languages (Hebrew and Aramaic MIN, therefore often in LXX ..."

This usage of EK + genitive is also noted in BDAG, s.v. EK, 4.a.G:
	g. the partitive w. EK as subj. (2 Km 11:17) EIPAN EK TWN MAQHTWN
AUTOU v J 16:17.-Rv 11:9. As obj., pl. Mt 23:34; Lk 11:49; 21:16; 2J 4 (cp.
Sir 33:12; Jdth 7:18; 10:17 al.).

APESTALMENOI HSAN is simply periphrastic pluperfect, of course, not
uncommon in John's gospel.

For these reasons I rather think that of the English versions you cite
above, the RSV is wrong and the NIV and REB are right.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list