Mr. Carlson is quite correct that the relative (adjective) clause is in the predicate position. It is not in any of the three attributive positions, so it must be in the predicate position. Because there is no explicit copular verb, the relative clause stands to its substantive maqhth\n in some relation realized by the verb ei)mi/. In this case, "...the other disciple, being (him) whom Jesus loved"; whence the familiar and correct English translation, "...the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved,..".
whence the familiar and correct English translation, "...the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved,..".
Relative clauses may be classified as 'restrictive' or 'non-restrictive'. This is a notoriously difficult distinction. A restrictive relative clause makes the sense of its antecedent more precise - it defines:
My brother who lives in Boston dislikes sports.
Here the restrictive relative clause 'who lives in Boston' defines its antecedent, 'brother'. That is, I may have another brother in New York.
But a non-restrictive relative clause supplies additional information about the antecedent's referent (the person or thing the antecedent term refers to).
My brother, who lives in Boston, dislikes sports.
Here the non-restrictive relative clause 'who lives in Boston' simply tells us more about my brother. Some grammarians use the term 'appositive relative clause' instead of 'non-restrictive relative clause'.
I prefer 'defining' and 'non-defining' in place of 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive'.
Again, the comma between 'disciple' and the relative clause suggests that the clause is 'non-defining'. I don't think this is correct. I see the clause as defining - it is intended to define its antecedent, to make plain which disciple is meant.
Please bear in mind that an attributive adjective also defines.
the green house
the attributive adjective 'green', although not syntactically essential, is required from a semantic perspective. That is, I mean 'the green house', not 'the red one'. In their common use as attributive adjectives, relative clauses also define (cf. Smyth 2488).
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.
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.
In fine, the 'circumlocution' is the right translation. As to matters of 'straightforwardness' and the 'unnecessarily complicated': as Einstein said, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. A terser translation is not better because it's terser. Above all else, a translation must express the intended meaning. If this requires more words, so be it.
Why indeed! He could have written what you suggested he could have written, but he didn't. The Greek ALLOS is not necessarily an exact equivelant of the English OTHER.
Middle Liddell gives this example:
pe/mptoj potamo\j a)/lloj. yet a fifth river (Not: Another fifth river, but Another river, a fifth one)
These two verbs are so close to synonymous that there might not be any significance at all.
I can't think of an English example to illustate this, but in Dutch if this passage were to be translated using -Hij houdt van- for the first verb, and -Hij heeft lief- for the second, it would not change the meaning one bit of these two verbs would be switched.
First you ask for rules and proof. When presented with some you say that because John was uneducated, he probably would not have known about this or that rule.
He certainly did not have the education that Paul had (the one of the Bible, not Textkit Paul ) but I am not convinced that the education of the common man was so inferior as to make John uneducated. He was able to write in a language other than his native one.
I am also relatively uneducated but I know how to formulate a sentence in my second language so that my meaning is expressed, even if I can't state the appropriate grammatical rule.
It is also entirely possible that in Greek this sentence can mean both things, but that the writer assumes that the audience knows the background. This is not to far-fetched considering that he does not mention a name.
muminustrollus wrote:Thank you Paul for all your "hard" labors.
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.
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?
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".
muminustrollus wrote: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.
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:
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.
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!
muminustrollus wrote:paul wrote:Please bear in mind that an attributive adjective also defines.
Truism: all adjectives define...
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."
muminustrollus wrote: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...
muminustrollus wrote:And that "other disciple" could refer to the Magdalen.
muminustrollus wrote:PS: this discussion has received an interesting spin-off on IIDB.
muminustrollus wrote:I'm not a dogmatisch thinker.
Users browsing this forum: Qimmik and 14 guests