[B-Greek] John 1:24
Stephen C. Carlson
scarlson at mindspring.com
Sun Dec 7 22:54:07 EST 2003
At 08:03 PM 12/5/03 +0300, 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...
>
>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.
Why should it matter? The voice of the verb really does not have
anything to do with how the partitive construction (if there is
one) is construed.
>Grammatically "they" are subject and this must refer to the delegation of
>priests and Levites mentioned in the previous context.
Perhaps in your preferred understanding of the verse as followed
by the RSV, but that is not true if EK TWN FARISAIWN is taken as
the partitive subject. In the latter case, the subject does not
refers to the priests and Levites in v. 19 but to some Pharisees.
>EK TWN FARISAIWN is a
>prepositional phrase which grammatically can be neither subject or object in
>this sentence.
This absolute statement requires qualification, since partitive genitives,
with or without EK or APO, can function as a subject or object. See BDF
§ 164(2) for a fuller discussion, which cites John 16:17 already mentioned
earlier in the thread. Perhaps the best way to understand the proposed
construction is to supply an understood but not expressed TINES.
>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.
Hardly a decisive consideration; reference works are rarely exhaustive
when it comes to prepositions or cases.
>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."
I take it the objection is that neither the NIV nor REB have the English
definite article "the" before Pharisees. However, this fact has nothing
to do with whether the NIV and REB construed the construction as partitive,
as their word "some" amply demonstrates. Their non-use of "the" merely
means that they considered the Greek article TWN before FARISAIOI to
be generic rather than as particular.
>Semantically, one can say that "the sent ones" is the patient (semantic
>object) and "the Pharisees" is the agent (semantic subject).
Not in the proposed partitive construction, so this also assumes that
which is concluded.
>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.."
This sentence apparently makes EK TWN FARISAIWN both an adjectival and an
adverbial preposition phrase. Highly unlikely and not how any of the above-
listed translations understood the verse.
>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."
The main problem with the RSV rendering is historical: priests and Levites
tended to be allied with the Sadducees, not the 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.
In the proposed partitive construction, the author adds a detail that
another group of sent questioners are Pharisees (cf. Matt. 3:7 [both
Pharisees and Sadducees present before John the Baptist]). This avoids
the historical problems raised by the RSV rendering, while still retaining
this benefit of specifying that Pharisees were interested in the question.
>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.
We study the Greek precisely because the translations are not always
right. In my opinion, both translations are grammatically possible
and fit the immediate context, but the partitive construction is more
consistent with this particular author's style and the historical
context.
Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.com
Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list