[B-Greek] John 1:24

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Dec 5 19:55:01 EST 2003


At 8:03 PM +0300 12/5/03, Iver Larsen wrote:
>Let me add a bit to see if I can clarify my question and thinking:
>
>> >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...
>
>
>[Carl]
>> I think that what you're missing, Iver, is a "partitive" use of EK + gen.
>> to function as a subject.
>
>All the examples I mentioned in the previous (and somewhat hastily written)
>mail with EK + gen. ... as subject or object were constructed with an active
>verb and "some" can be supplied in English. In John 1:24 we have a passive
>construction which muddles the subject question.
>
>Grammatically "they" are subject and this must refer to the delegation of
>priests and Levites mentioned in the previous context. EK TWN FARISAIWN is a
>prepositional phrase which grammatically can be neither subject or object in
>this sentence. I am not aware of any grammar or dictionary suggesting that
>this verse is an example of a partitive use of EK + gen. functioning a
>subject. If it was, it would be "And some of the Pharisees had been sent and
>they questioned him..." Neither NIV or REB take the construction as
>partitive, since they do not say "some of the Pharisees had been sent."

Frankly, Iver, I fail to see why the fact that APESTALMENOI HSAN is passive
alters the possibility that EK TWN FARISAIWN is functioning as a partitive
subject. And I think that NIV and REV are based upon that understanding in
their rendering the subject as "some Pharisees"--we don't need "of the" in
the translation at all. Now, upon further consideration of the passage I
think that these two versions are still not really right.

One of the difficulties of the passage resides in the question whether the
persons referred to in 1:24ff. are in fact the same deputation or part of
the deputation indicated in 1:19ff. with ... hOTE APESTEILAN [PROS AUTON]
hOI IOUDAIOI EX hIEROSOLUMWN hEREIS KAI LEUITAS hINA ERWTHSWSIN AUTON ...
Priests and Levites are not Pharisees and I don't see why Pharisees should
have dispatched priests and Levites to Galilee to interrogate John. Rather
I think that verse 24 introduces a SECOND deputation, perhaps ALSO sent by
hOI IOUDAIOI but different from the deputation of priests and Levites. I
think that the KAI introducing 1:24 is adverbial rather than conjunctive:
"Some Pharisees had also been sent, and THEY asked him ..."

I can understand how the RSV envisions the subject of APESTALMENOI HSAN as
those already mentioned in 1:19; it's just that verse 24 seems to introduce
a new group, different from those mentioned in 1:19; the priests and
Levites had their questions to put to John; now a separate group of
Pharisaic envoys puts questions to John.

My current view is that NIV has probably got the text properly understood,
whereas REB seems to mess things up with its relative clause, "who were in
the deputation"--that's really quite different from KAI APESTALMENOI HSAN.


>Semantically, one can say that "the sent ones" is the patient (semantic
>object) and "the Pharisees" is the agent (semantic subject). But if this
>active transformation were to be put in a translation, it would be something
>like "And some of the Pharisees had sent them (this delegation) and they
>(the delegation) questioned.."
>
>There is nothing strange about the RSV rendering. It is clear and natural
>English, as far as I can tell. One might have said "Now they had been sent
>by the Pharisees", but "from" is also fine and keeps the focus on source
>rather than agent. One could also have clarified the participant reference
>by saying "Now the delegation had been sent by/from the Pharisees" See
>GNB/TEV) or one could make a more drastic dynamic restructuring and say "The
>people who had sent this delegation were Pharisees."
>
>What the author adds at this point is the extra piece of information that
>the antagonistic Jewish leaders who had sent this delegation were actually
>Pharisees, and this extra piece of background information is needed to
>better understand their last question about why John would baptize.
>
>Neither NIV nor REB are natural or clear translations in this context and
>IMO do not give the proper sense of the Greek text. The great majority of
>English translations follow the sense given by RSV. GNB has the RSV sense in
>the text, but a footnote with the NIV alternative.

In sum, I see nothing problematic in reading EK TWN FARISAIWN as subject
with the passive perfect periphrastic APESTALMENOI HSAN, and I would fault
the NIV version only with failing to bring out clearly the force of the
initial adverbial KAI in verse 24.
-- 

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