Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 4.8.2 wrote:τήν τ᾽ ἐλευθερίαν ἡγεῖσθε μὴ τὸ προσαγανακτεῖν οἷς ἂν ὑμᾶς οἱ ἡγεμόνες πράττειν ἀξιῶσι
ἡγεῖσθαι (+ 2 acc.) think of something as being (sc. εἶναι) something else (LSJ A.III)
μὴ (εἶναι) τὸ προσαγανακτεῖν ≠ τὸ μὴ προσαγανακτεῖν
οἷς = τούτοις, ἃ
ἀξιοῦν (+ acc. person & infinitive) think fit, expect, require that
somebody do
something (
LSJ A.II.2) [verb covers a range of social relationships]
What is sense of προσαγανακτεῖν + dative of thing here?
Mark 14:4 wrote:Ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, [καὶ λέγοντες not in SBL (SGH)], Εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν;
This has the πρός separated from the verb. Could the προσ- of προσαγανακτεῖν mean that the indignation was talked about with others, like "sharing your feelings of indignation", "speaking together / agreeing that God would / should execute vengence on the govenors who require you to follow rules"? That could mean that the prefixed preposition could be a shorthand way of expressing ("derived from", if you like), the interrelational nature of the πρός as a preposition, without spelling out exactly who they were talking about their anger with. Sound plausible, but let's not be Texas sharp-shooters, and take a look around at some other things before reaching a convenient conclusion.
I have postulated that προσαγανακτοῦσιν = ἀγανακτοῦσιν (λέγοντες τὴν ἀγανάκτησιν αὐτῶν) πρὸς ἀλλήλους
But what would the difference be between that and συναγανακτεῖν, then? A συν- is a way of expressing that people
do actions together, and while ἀγανακτεῖν is a motivation for action, it is not the action itself. (Of course there is the other sort of συν- as well, that means the object of the verb is somehow done (to) together, but ἀγανακτεῖν doesn't easily take an object).
Here of course, προσαγανακτεῖν is followed by dative. Is that a regular thing, or is it a dative of respect? Is the προσ- here being used to change an intransitive verb into a transitive one? In that regard, we could consider ἐπαγανακτεῖν. While adding an ἐπι- might in some cases allow the addition of an object in the dative, perhaps not in this case.
Josephus uses the word in his description of Sicarii:
Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews 2.13.3 wrote:ἔπειτα πεσόντων μέρος ἐγίνοντο τῶν ἐπαγανακτούντων οἱ πεφονευκότες
and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation (against them / against the murder)
, so there is an understood object of the people's indignation, but it is not written. So perhpas ἐπαγανακτεῖν could be understood as to be ἀγανακτεῖν
at something (it) and it represents a more fuller expression.