Textkit Logo

Split from John chap 2 24-25 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!

Split from John chap 2 24-25 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας

Postby brainout » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:35 pm

Okay, so by extension, why isn't Mark 3:5 properly rendered as the CROWD's anger, instead of (incorrectly) attributing the anger to Christ? Antecedent is the crowd, plural.
User avatar
brainout
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Re: John chap 2 24-25 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας

Postby Hylander » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:26 am

Looking at Mark 3:5, I don't see any parallel to John 2.24-5. There's no infinitive construction.

μετ᾽ ὀργῆς is adverbial, and it seems to me that it modifies the participle περιβλεψάμενος, which is singular, so μετ᾽ ὀργῆς would appear to apply to a singular noun, the understood subject of λέγει, not to αὐτοὺς. If μετ᾽ ὀργῆς applied to αὐτοὺς, it would be necessary to make that clear.

But what do I know? And I really should never answer questions in this forum.
Hylander
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: John chap 2 24-25 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας

Postby brainout » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:43 am

It's not parallel, but a grammatical idea extended to a similar circumstance. Daniel Wallace was, at least some years prior, adamant that Mark 3:5 meant CHRIST was angry. Maybe he was having a bad day, and thinks differently now.

But the verbal noun modifies the nearest antecedent, normally. If though a similar rule were used to the one here explained for the auton, then Wallace' position would make sense. But as you just noted, it's not the same, so why isn't Mark 3:5 acknowledged in teaching and translation as the anger of the crowd, to dispel the obvious falsehood about 'righteous anger' (of which none exists, but Eph4:26 discussion needs a different thread).
User avatar
brainout
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Re: John chap 2 24-25 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντας

Postby daivid » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:02 pm

brainout wrote:It's not parallel, but a grammatical idea extended to a similar circumstance. Daniel Wallace was, at least some years prior, adamant that Mark 3:5 meant CHRIST was angry. Maybe he was having a bad day, and thinks differently now.

But the verbal noun modifies the nearest antecedent, normally. If though a similar rule were used to the one here explained for the auton, then Wallace' position would make sense. But as you just noted, it's not the same, so why isn't Mark 3:5 acknowledged in teaching and translation as the anger of the crowd, to dispel the obvious falsehood about 'righteous anger' (of which none exists, but Eph4:26 discussion needs a different thread).

I as should be obvious no expert on Greek grammar but I am struggling to see your logic.
Normally in infinitive constructions the subject is accusative. I got confused because in indirect discourse there is an exception in which it can be nominative. I made a mistake in extending that exception to cases where that does not apply but Hylander put me right.

In all that there was nothing about "verbal noun modifies the nearest antecedent, normally".
More that all my reading contradicts that idea. If only it were true!!! Ancient Greeks often go out of their way to move things apart that to my English-native-speaker mind should never be split. I am at a loss as to where you got the idea that such a rule exists.

Finally you suggest that Wallace is being perverse in believing that it was Christ who was angry. Far from being the view of a single person it is how every single translation that I have consulted has read it.

Even though this sort of thing often trips me up it didn't in this case. I would have however had trouble explaining why. Fortunately Hylander has clearly stated the reason - μετ᾽ ὀργῆς is adverbial and that must connect with περιβλεψάμενος which can only apply to Jesus. End of story.
λονδον
User avatar
daivid
Administrator
 
Posts: 2737
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: ὁ τοῦ βασιλέως λίθος, London, Europe

Re: Split from John chap 2 24-25 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκειν πάντ

Postby brainout » Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:29 pm

Thank you for your reply. I found 12 instances in the translations which treat the meta usage with reference to the nearest antecedent, and were translated as such. Will make videos on them in the future, and then maybe it will be more helpful to discuss.

That is why I took the bold step of disagreeing with Wallace and the translators in Mark 3:5. Seems an inconsistency needing to be rectified, not to mention the weird idea that anger is ever righteous.

Sorry if my query seemed a digression. Next time I'll come armed with the other passages.
User avatar
brainout
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:47 pm
Location: Houston


Return to The Academy