[B-Greek] John 2:15--PANTAS ... TA TE PROBATA AND TOUS BOAS

Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 22:43:22 EST 2010


On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Leonard Jayawardena <leonardj at live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > From: iver_larsen at sil.org
> > To: leonardj at live.com; cwconrad2 at mac.com
> > CC: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 2:15--PANTAS ... TA TE PROBATA AND TOUS BOAS
> > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:32:55 +0300
> >
> > This has become a long mail, so let me just keep some of it and make a comment
> > at the end.
> >
> > ...
> >>>>> It would probably require more than this, since PANTAS is a general
> >>>>> masculine plural not attached directly to a noun and not followed by an
> >>>>> intervening verb. Your interpretation may be valid, but you haven't
> >>>>> convinced everyone that it's the only way this text can be construed.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Carl W. Conrad
> >>>>> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> LJ: Regret the delay in replying. My computer went out of order around 31 of
> >> last month and I got back the repaired computer only day before yesterday.
> >>
> >> You have now conceded that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to
> >> PANTAS, but I don't understand what kind of apposition you have in mind. A
> >> definition of apposition is "A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is
> >> placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same
> >> syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence." Therefore, if you
> >> agree that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, you have to
> >> accept that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS explains PANTAS and they are
> >> co-referential--unless, of course, you can produce your very own definition of
> >> apposition :).
> >>
> >>
> >>> Text: John 2:14 Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ
> >>> περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 15 καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ
> >>> σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν
> >>> κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, ...
> >>> [14 KAI hEUREN EN TWi hIERWi TOUS PWLOUNTAS BOAS KAI PROBATA KAI PERISTERAS
> >>> KAI TOUS KERMATISTAS KAQHMENOUS, 15 KAI POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN PANTAS
> >>> EXEBALEN EK TOU hIEROU TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, KAI TWN KOLLUBISTWN
> >>> EXECEEN TO KERMA KAI TAS TRAPEZAS ANETREYEN, ... ]
> >>>
> >>> That is to say that, perverse as it may seem, I continue to believe that
> >>> PANTAS in the predicate PANTAS EXEBALEN refers to all the same objects
> >>> indicated as objects of the initial verb εὗρεν [hEUREN]. I think that the
> >>> addition of TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is to make it clear that they too
> >>> were made to evacuate the premises posthaste.
> >>
> >> LJ: The objects of hEUREN are the "the sellers (of oxen and sheep)" and "the
> >> moneychangers (seated)." If PANTAS refers to the sellers and the
> >> moneychangers, the objects of hEUREN, then how is TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS
> >> in apposition to PANTAS?
> >>
> > ...
> >>
> >> LJ: As I have shown, there is abundance evidence for a phrase with a TE ...
> >> KAI structure being in apposition to some other element in the sentence in all
> >> which cases the appositive is identical with the anchor, i.e., the
> >> appositive's referent. Your interpretation above, that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS
> >> BOAS is "a clarifying parenthetical note ("yes, even the beasts -- not just
> >> their exploiters")," ignores this fact and appears to be an ad hoc
> >> interpretation dictated by your particular understanding PANTAS.
> >>
> >>
> >> Leonard Jayawardena
> > ---------------------------------------
> IL:
>
> > In v. 14 we are told that Jesus discovered all the traders and moneychangers. He
> > also saw the cattle, sheep and doves on sale as well as the coins on the tables.
> > He then made a whip and chased them all out of the temple compound. The object
> > is the masculine PANTAS which probably refers to both traders and their animals
> > (not the doves and coins).
>
>
> LJ: And why do you exclude the doves and the coins? Isn't that arbitrary? If PANTAS includes the traders and the sheep and the oxen, then logically the doves and the coins too must be included, since they, too, are part of what Jesus "saw," as you said. If in answer you say that in the next clauses we are told that Jesus poured out the coins and told the owners of doves to take them away and therefore they are to be excluded, then your understanding of PANTAS, too, is conditioned by something in the following context, as mine is, and hence commands no premium over my interpretation as being a more "logical" or "natural" interpretation of PANTAS, if that is what you think. The masculine gender of PANTAS can, of course, be explained by BOAS, which is masculine.
>
> Actually, if you read only up to PANTAS (let's ignore the bit about the whip for the moment), its most logical antecedent is not even the merchants plus all the types of wares mentioned, including the doves and coins, but ONLY THE MERCHANTS, with the removal of their wares from the temple only implied as a natural consequence of Jesus putting out the merchants, since when they go out they take their wares out with them. Grammatically, there are really only two possibilities of understanding PANTAS EXEBALEN EK TOU hIEROU TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS:
>
> A. He put all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen (my preference), in which case TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS; or
>
> B. TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is an addition to PANTAS and is translated "and the sheep and the oxen," as it is in the KJV, which is more idiomatically rendered in some such manner as 0"with the sheep and the oxen" (e.g., ESV). On this interpretation, PANTAS refers to the merchants and TE has the semantic force of KAI as a connective (coordinate) conjunction and effectively joins the sheep and the oxen to PANTAS as an additional object of EXEBALEN,i.e., "he put PANTAS (= the traders) and the sheep and the oxen out of the temple."
>
> The following translations, which I found on www.biblegateway.com, reflect one or the other position:
>
> 1. "So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle" (NIV)--Interpretation A above.
>
> 2. "And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen" (NASB)--B above.
>
> 3. "And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen" (KJV)--B above.
>
> 4. "And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen" (ESV)--B above.
>
> 5. "So he took some rope and made a whip. Then he chased everyone out of the temple, together with their sheep and cattle" (Contemporary English Version)--B above.
>
> 6. "Jesus made a whip out of cords and forced all of them, both the sheep and cattle, to leave the Temple" (New Century Version)--A above.
>
> 7. "[A]nd he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen" (American Standard Version)--A above.
>
> 8. "[A]nd having made a whip of small cords, he put all forth out of the temple, also the sheep, and the oxen" (Young's Literal Version)--B above.
>
> 9. "[A]nd, having made a scourge of cords, he cast [them] all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen" (Darby Translation)--A above.
>
> 10. "After making a whip out of cords, He drove everyone out of the temple complex with their sheep and oxen" (Holman Christian Standard Bible)--B above.
>
> 11. "So Jesus made a whip out of ropes. He chased all the sheep and cattle from the temple area" (New International Readers's Version)--A above.
>
> 12. "And when he had made as it were a scourge of small cords, he drove out all of the temple, and oxen, and sheep" (Wycliffe New Testament)--B above.
>
> 13. "Jesus tied some pieces of cord together to make a whip. Then he drove out all the people who were buying and selling in the temple. And he drove out the sheep and the cows" (Worldwide English [New Testament])--B above.
>
> 13. "And having made a lash (a whip) of cords, He drove them all out of the temple [enclosure]--both the sheep and the oxen" (Amplified Bible)--A above.
>
> 14. "He made a whip from small ropes and threw everyone with their sheep and cattle out of the temple courtyard" (GOD's WORD translation)--B above.
>
> 15, "Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers’ coins over the floor, and turned over their tables" (NLT)--B above. (More on the NLT translation below as you have mistakenly mentioned it as supporting your position.)
>
> Translations adopting the view (B) are in a slight majority.
>
> From the foregoing it will be seen that, with your understanding of PANTAS, you--and Carl W. Conrad--are neither here nor there!
>
> IL:
>
> Even if TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition
> > to PANTAS, that is a syntactical description. One cannot from that infer that
> > they are exactly co-referential in terms of semantics and pragmatics. You are
> > asking too much of the grammar.
>
>
> LJ: If TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, then it must be both syntactically and semantically in apposition to it for it to qualify as an appositive. Look again at the definition of apposition: "A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence." If B is in apposition to A, then B must necessarily be co-refential with A, otherwise there is no apposition. What may be true is that a structure formally similar may have diferrent functions in different contexts. For example, POLLA TE TERATA KAI SHMEIA DIA TWN APOSTOLWN EGINETO (Acts 2:43) is rendered usually "and many signs and wonders were done through the apostles." Here we have two nouns in a TE ... KAI structure where TE can be rendered "and," i.e., functionally a connective conjunction. But in a different context, this phrase may in apposition to another noun or phrase.
>
>
> IL:
> It is very common in Semitic flavoured Greek to
> > have a generic reference followed by a clarifying specific reference, where the
> > specific gives details about part of the generic without necessarily being
> > identical to it.
>
> LJ: This sounds all very well in theory but what is the relevance of that to the case in hand? I have cited many passages from the NT where a TE ... KAI phrase is in apposition to another noun or phrase in a manner parallel to PANTAS ... TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, and the anchor and the appositive are co-referential. If you want to neutralize that evidence, then you need to adduce concrete evidence in the form of a text containing a TE ... KAI phrase which support what you say above instead of making a general statement.
>
> IL:
> > The text says that he drove all three groups out (PANTAS), which is a generic
> > statement. We are not given all the details as in a film script. We are not told
> > how he used the whip, but by using it he drove out the cattle and sheep together
> > with their owners. He then poured out the coins and overturned the tables so
> > that the moneychangers busily collected them and ran out to safety. Finally he
> > told the dove sellers to remove their wares and get out, which we can assume
> > that they did.
> >
> > This generic-specific pattern is captured nicely by the NLT:
> >
> > Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He
> > drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers' coins over the
> > floor, and turned over their tables. Then, going over to the people who sold
> > doves, he told them, “Get these things out of here....
> >
> > Iver Larsen
> >
>
>
> LJ: As already mentioned, the NLT translation does not follow your "generic-specific" pattern and this is a misunderstanding on your part of this translation. Let us look at both v. 14 and v. 15 to get the context:
>
>
> "[v.14] In the Temple area he saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves for sacrifices; he also saw dealers at tables exchanging foreign money.
>
> "[v.15] Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers’ coins over the floor, and turned over their tables."
>
> The referent of "them" in "chased them" is only the merchants. Note the use of the two different words: He "chased" out the merchants and "drove out" the sheep and the cattle.
>
> Finally, I would reiterate that the interpretation that sees TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS as being in apposition to PANTAS (AND co-referential :>)) is superior to any other alternative interpretation both (a) grammatically; and (b) contextually (or, if you like, pragmatically?).
>
> GRMATICALLY, for the reasons explained above.
>
> CONTEXTUALLY, because
>
> i. The qualification of EXEBALEN by the adverbial clause POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN suggests that the whip was used on the animals only, since whips are normally used on animals, not humans (or doves for that matter).
>
> ii. After "all" (the merchants) are put out of the temple as per v. 15, the sellers of doves are still standing around for Jesus to tell them, "Take these things hence" (v. 16). Doesn't that sound inconsistent?
>
> But the interpretation that sees PANTAS = TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS results in a logical sequence and neat pattern:
>
> 1. Jesus enters the temple and sees those who selling sheep and oxen and doves, and moneychangers seated
>
> 2. He makes a whip out of cords and drives out the sheep and the oxen (probably with the help of his disciples).
>
> 3. He pours out the coins and overturns the tables.
>
> 4. He orders the sellers of doves to take their birds out. This is because the birds were kept in cages and Jesus could not directly put them out.
>
> Note that the narrative flows smoothly with none of the inconsistencies or logical absurdities entailed in the alternative interpretations. Note also that Jesus' actions are directed only towards the animals and inanimate objects and he follows a course of action more expected of a sane person in the circumstances. we can assume that Jesus telling the merchants politely, "I would appreciate your taking your wares out so as not to desecrate the temple" in the first instance would not have worked in this case :>). He then did the next most sensible thing. Your interpretation has Jesus driving out both the merchants and the sheep and the oxen with a whip. Why, pray tell me, the need to drive out both? Once Jesus started chasing the merchants out, they would have gathered their sheep and oxen and exited the temple. Or was there a possibility of them exiting the temple leaving their animals behind? Consider also that it was not the presence of the merchants per se which desecrated the temple, but the presence of their wares and so a more natural object of Jesus' actions would be the wares, not the humans. Once Jesus started driving out the animals, their owners would have naturally followed them out of the temple.
>
>
> Leonard Jayawardena
> ---



More information about the B-Greek mailing list