muminustrollus wrote:Thank you Paul for all your "hard" labors.
I said I took a 'hard look'. I said nothing about 'hard labor'.
muminustrollus wrote: I do appreciate your contribution
muminustrollus wrote:I hope you will forgive me my impertinence and find it amusing, rather than arrogant or annoying.
But of course; I trust you will be similarly disposed towards me.
muminustrollus wrote:1. A relative clause is stricto sensu not an adjective
2. How could a relative clause in Greek be in the first attributive position?
3. "the other disciple (, being him) whom Jesus loved"
(I bracketed all the things you added in your translation)
Why interpret the phrase this way and only this way? Why add a comma?
Do you have any solid and imperative linguistic reasons for doing so or is your interpretation guided by what you think about the identity of the disciple?
1. So what? Word classes have rough edges. More to the point, it's a matter of grammatical function, not word class. In the strict sense, a noun is not an adjective. Tell me, what is the function of the noun 'school' in the phrase 'school house'?
In English grammar, subordinate clauses that modify nouns are called 'adjective clauses', a.k.a. 'relative clauses'.
2. With difficulty - see below.
3. I interpret it as I do because:
a. [face=SPIonic]o( a)/lloj maqhth/j[/face]
is used elsewhere in the text to refer to John himself, e.g., 20.3, 20.4, 20.8
b. [face=SPIonic]o(\n h)ga/pa o( )Ihsou=j[/face]
is used elsewhere in the text to refer to John himself, e.g., 13.23, 19.26, 21.7, 21.20
Hence, the text itself
strongly suggests that [face=SPIonic]to\n a)/llon maqhth\n o(\n e)fi/lei o( )Ihsou=j[/face]
refers to John.
Let me put a fine point on it, this interpretation is far more plausible than your laughable notion that 'the other disciple' is Mary Magdalen.
But more later on that sparkling gem.
I don't know what you mean by 'imperative linguistic reasons'. My interpretation is indeed guided by what I think about the identity of the disciple. But this in turn is grounded in what the text says when it elsewhere refers to this disciple.
muminustrollus wrote:5. Since you wholeheartedly endorse Carlson's arguments, could you please provide a Biblical example of a Carlsonian so-called "attributive" relative clause, one with a duplicate article before the relative pronoun something like:
ton allon matheten ton hon ephilei ho Iesous ?
Remember that according to S.C. Carlson, this is what John 20:2 should have looked like for me to be allowed to translate it straightforwardly as: "the other disciple whom Jesus loved".
I'm not sure what you think I 'endorsed'. I too would be surprised to see a relative clause in attributive position. You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer: by definition, the position
of the relative clause cannot be considered attributive. If it's not in the attributive position, it's in the predicate position. But given that relative clauses usually follow their antecedents, they are nearly always in predicate position
The question is how to translate this particular relative clause?
1. 'the other disciple whom Jesus loved'
2. 'the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved'
Let me be very clear: there is nothing in the Greek grammar
that precludes either translation. But I try to consider the entire text, not just a particular syntagm taken out of context.
paul wrote: If we let the sentence sound to us as it sounded to John, '...to Simon Peter and to an other|a different|a remaining disciple,..', then it becomes obvious that it cannot mean that Christ had only 2 disciples.
The big trouble here is that there is absolutely no indefinite article at all in the Greek! You added an/a.
Do you think that, because there is no express form
for the indefinite article, the language had no sense for the indefinite? Try again to listen to this definition, taken from the BDAG: With the article, [face=SPIonic]o( a)/lloj[/face]
means 'pertaining to being the remaining one of two or more'.
After sampling the first of three wines at a tasting, would you say "I'll try the other" or "I'll try an other"?
muminustrollus wrote:6. All this confusing grammar stuff about so-called "predicative" relative clauses still leaves intact and unanswered the nagging question of why "John" added the word allon at all:
Bend your mind to the possibility, albeit perplexing, that more than two disciples were present.
muminustrollus wrote:Unfortunately, the "digression" above does not supply any useful information on how to solve the problem under discussion. It signally fails to establish a plausible link between the question of attributive and predicative adjectives and the question of restrictive and unrestrictive relative clauses.
Sigh.....the digression was intended to provide background information; to help readers who might not have your masterful knowledge of grammar. Unlike you, I try to write so as to include others in the conversation.
Some of your comments about restrictive/non-restrictive:
The difference between restrictive and unrestrictive relative clauses is a notoriously simple but crucial one.
Bravo! "If whom Jesus loved as a relative" is defining, there cannot be a comma in the English translation!
Better grammarians than you or me say that this is often a difficult distinction to make. Your 'notoriously simple' assumes the presence of orthographical and prosodical hints. How would you characterize 'which I intend to sell' in:
'I have a mint-condition 1909 Indian-head American cent which I intend to sell.'
Is it 'defining' or 'non-defining'? We know your answer: there's no comma, therefore it is 'defining'. Notoriously easy, but wrong
. Most grammarians would regard the relative clause as 'non-defining' despite the lack of 'proper' orthography. Why? When an antecedent is so clearly defined that it can stand on its own, a defining
subsequent relative clause is unnecessary. Hence any subsequent relative clause is regarded as 'non-defining'.
So here then is grammatical ground to interpret our relative clause as 'non-defining': The phrase 'the other disciple' so clearly defines John - especially from chapter 18 forward - that its subsequent relative clause 'whom Jesus loved' is not necessary to define who is meant.
Mind you, I don't agree with this interpretation. But I thought it might help free you from what seems to be your rigid and ideologically-based exegesis.
paul wrote:Please bear in mind that an attributive adjective also defines.
Truism: all adjectives define...
. After again reading my useless digression, tell me, what is 'defined' by the the adjective clause in the 2nd sentence. While you're at it, tell me what is 'defined' by the adjectives 'lush' and 'green' in:
The tall trees, lush and green under the mid-day summer sun, swayed gently.
Some of your comments related to Smyth 2488:
muminustrollus wrote:Smyth 2488 says that all relative clauses correspond to attributive adjectives.
Bye bye Carlson's Rule...
Total non sequitur! There is no necessity at all to translate "ton allon matheten hon ephilei ho Iesous" as "the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved". "The other disciple whom Jesus loved" is just as fine, if awfully disturbing, and lo! Smyth 2488 is on my side:
"Relative clauses correspond to attributive adjectives (or participles) since like adjectives they serve to define substantives."
I agree with Smyth 2488. You put the emphasis in the wrong place. You should have underlined 'correspond'. By "Carlson's Rule" you seem to understand that if an expression is in predicate position, it can function neither attributively nor restrictively. I certainly don't agree with that. I said in my first post that I thought the relative clause was 'defining'.
Let me try to cut through the smoke thrown up by your ack-ack style and achieve some clarity with respect to John 20.2:
A. The relative clause is not in any attributive position;
B. Therefore it is in the predicate position.
C. A and B say nothing about the 'defining' nature of the clause.
So far, I think we agree. All I am saying is that the relative clause functions as a defining adjective and that it is in predicate position
D. I maintain that the relative clause defines its antecedent. I understand the clause to specify that, by 'the other disciple', the author means 'John'.
I base this on the 'the other disciple' and 'whom Jesus loved' as used elsewhere in the text. This interpretation is not invalidated by the syntax.
E. You too maintain that the relative clause defines its antecedent. You understand the clause to specify a disciple other than Peter or John. You say that it
could refer to Mary Magdalen. Your interpretation is invalidated by the sense of the text and by the syntax (see below).
Some of your comments about John's knowledge of Greek:
paul wrote: I have little doubt that because John knew this originary meaning, he needed to further define which disciple he meant, i.e., in to\n a)/llon he did not experience a binary opposition.
John, an uneducated Galilean fisherman, was acquainted with all the nuances of Homeric Greek? Greek scholar humor, I presume...
John was extremely careful about his choice of words, as one would expect from a writer of holy things.
It just happened that "John" used ephilei instead of egapa and the fakt that this change of verb only occurs here has no significance at all, the world of Griek scholarship being ruled by chance, specially when discussing John 20:2...
This lovely snippet is most illustrative of the emotional and subjective perspective from which you write: when I
say that John hears in 'to\n a)/llon' more than binary opposition, you call John an uneducated fisherman and speak sarcastically of his familiarity with the nuances of Homer's Greek. But when it suits your
purposes John is 'extremely careful about his choice of words'. In your discussion of file/w and a)gapa/w, I conclude from your sarcastic 'It just happened...' that you think John exhibits fine sensitivity to the nuances of meaning in the two words. You even start talking about 'semantic fields'. Wow, heady stuff! What happened to the St. John the Uneducated?
muminustrollus wrote:And that "other disciple" could refer to the Magdalen.
Finally we get to the heart of the matter. Your ideological assumptions are sadly predictable. You assume throughout your posts that what I called the 'familiar and correct' translation is the work of some sort of frightened, male-dominated hierarchy. You speak of how 'reassuring' this translation is; that is does not 'unsettle the status quo'. Evidently, any one who adopts this translation, myself included, is engaging, whether he knows it or not, in a kind of misogynistic lie.
Whereas you have achieved perfect clarity. The kind of clarity that has this other disciple, Mary Magdalen -
a. referred to with a masculine article and pronoun when just a few sentences earlier the 'extremely careful' John called her [face=SPIonic]Mari/a h( Magdalhnh/[/face]
b. coming to herself;
c. speaking to herself;
d. outrunning Peter to the tomb (do forgive my 'misogyny' here).
But, lo! - the scales fall from my eyes. Yes, I see it now! John is
extremely careful in his choice of words; he uses the masculine gender deliberately. He uses file/w deliberately. He is revealing a secret teaching to all who, like muminustrollus, have ears for it.
Thank you muminustrollus for opening my eyes to this new teaching: the trans-gender John is the Magadalen!
muminustrollus wrote:PS: this discussion has received an interesting spin-off on IIDB.
I'll pass, thanks. When you are mature enough to ground your thinking in something more objective than political correctness, then I might be interested in what you have to say. But as long you wield the hammer of ideology, smashing and twisting a text to make it say what you want in the service of some obscure ressentiment, I'm not in the least interested.
muminustrollus wrote:I'm not a dogmatisch thinker.
A wondrous claim - at once sad and hilarious! I hate to break it to you Boy-O, but your 'thought' is nothing if not dogmatic.
One wonders why you even bother to read the text.
Here Endeth The Lesson.