Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [John_Lit] T Jn. 4:22 -responses to Mark and Stephen

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
    Kevin: Thanks for that. I went back to LSJ (at Perseus online this time, since I am at home w/o my LSJ 9 handy), and looked at your examples. I wonder, is the
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 17 7:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Kevin:

      Thanks for that. I went back to LSJ (at Perseus online this time, since I am at home w/o my LSJ 9 handy), and looked at your examples.

      I wonder, is the difference actually something explainable by context/

      Might the dative simply mean "I bow down before, or toward"? While the accusative is used more generically for worship. this would explain most of the instances you cite, and the reference in LSJ to the "later use" of dative under the subheading of "to bow down before in the oriental fashion" ....

      Of course to test this would require some research in a larger data base, say TLG for the Hellenistic period. And i doubt I will find time to do that. but that is just a thought.



      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm

      ________________________________

      From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Kevin Snapp
      Sent: Tue 3/17/2009 9:48 PM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] T Jn. 4:22 -responses to Mark and Stephen



      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...> wrote:
      >
      > why do you think that proskunew requires a dative object? According to LSJ the accusative is very common. In fact I couldn't find the dative as the basic case referenced there at all.
      >
      > If proskunew takes the accusative, the sentence makes complete grammatical sense.
      >
      > Mark A. Matson
      > Academic Dean
      > Milligan College
      > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm

      Mark,

      My understanding was that proskunew took the accusative in classical
      Greek, but in Hellenistic Greek was supplanted by the dative. If my
      version of LSJ 9th edition matches yours, on p. 1518, col. 2, there
      is a note that in later Greek it took the dative, with citations to
      the LXX, the NT, Josephus' Antiquities and Dio Cassius.

      For my own education I ran a word search, and while the dative seems
      to be universal or almost universal in the LXX (I didn't read every
      example), it is mixed in the NT. Oddly mixed -- apart from 4:22
      under discussion, John uses the dative in 4:21,in 4:23 he uses the
      dative (tw patri), but then lets the accusative case of the
      participle govern the object of the participle, saying "the father
      seeks such worshipers of him (toioutous zHtei tous proskunountas
      auton), and then repeats the accusative "tous proskunountas auton"
      for "his worshipers" in 4:24. I have no idea whether there are
      variants; I didn't go that far.

      Interestingly, Matthew uses it with dative (2:2, 2:8, 4:9) except
      once with accusative in 4:10 -- where one would presume he is quoting
      the LXX: "for it is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve
      only him." That quote does not occur in the Hebrew Bible; the
      footnoted verse, Deut. 6:13 has "Fear the Lord ...." The combination
      of "worship" (with dative) and "serve" does occur several times, but
      in admonitions not to serve or worship other gods, not positive
      commands to only worship and serve God. Was Matthew misquoting from
      memory, or avoiding any implication that Satan is "another god"?

      So Satan asks Jesus to worship him -- in the dative, and Jesus
      responds, "it is written "Worship the Lord your God" -- in the
      accusative, which the LXX doesn't use.

      Revelation looks very strange to me -- God is worshiped in the
      dative, the Beast in the accusative, and the image of the Beast in
      the dative. I won't even guess why.

      Anyway, you're right that proskunew can take an accusative object,
      and I'll drop any grammatical objections to the accepted
      translation.








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Well, impossible is really the wrong way to go about conceptualizing how to understand the grammar. A better way is assess which understanding of the
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 17 8:05 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mar 17, 2009 9:48 PM, Kevin Snapp <kalvachomer@...> wrote:
        >You wrote:
        >>The example in Smyth has an antecedent for the relative pronoun in
        >>the preceding clause. Where are your antecedents for hO?
        >
        >I was taking hO to refer to the thing that is known/non known in each
        >case respectively, the final hOTI clause, "that salvation is from the
        >Jews." I don't know whether it can be called an "antecedent,"
        >because it comes after. "You worship [and] don't know it; we worship
        >[and] know it, that salvation is from the Jews." Impossible?

        Well, "impossible" is really the wrong way to go about conceptualizing
        how to understand the grammar. A better way is assess which understanding
        of the grammar is the more compelling. Relative probability, not absolute
        probability, is what needs to be looked at.

        In this case, your objection to the standard understanding (that PROSKUNEW
        does not take an accusative) turns out to not be the case, and your own
        proposal not only necessitates an unusual usage of the relative clause, but
        now with the additional exception that there is no antecedent.

        At some point, you just have to throw up your hands and say, "well, it was
        worth a shot, at least" -- and I suggest that this point has long since come.

        Stephen

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
        Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
      • Kevin Snapp
        ... Stephen, I don t think you understand why an improbable or awkward alternative translation, if it is not an impossible translation, might be of interest to
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 17 9:11 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:
          >
          > On Mar 17, 2009 9:48 PM, Kevin Snapp <kalvachomer@...> wrote:
          > >You wrote:
          > >>The example in Smyth has an antecedent for the relative pronoun in
          > >>the preceding clause. Where are your antecedents for hO?
          > >
          > >I was taking hO to refer to the thing that is known/non known in each
          > >case respectively, the final hOTI clause, "that salvation is from the
          > >Jews." I don't know whether it can be called an "antecedent,"
          > >because it comes after. "You worship [and] don't know it; we worship
          > >[and] know it, that salvation is from the Jews." Impossible?
          >
          > Well, "impossible" is really the wrong way to go about conceptualizing
          > how to understand the grammar. A better way is assess which understanding
          > of the grammar is the more compelling. Relative probability, not absolute
          > probability, is what needs to be looked at.
          >
          > In this case, your objection to the standard understanding (that PROSKUNEW
          > does not take an accusative) turns out to not be the case, and your own
          > proposal not only necessitates an unusual usage of the relative clause, but
          > now with the additional exception that there is no antecedent.
          >
          > At some point, you just have to throw up your hands and say, "well, it was
          > worth a shot, at least" -- and I suggest that this point has long since come.
          >
          > Stephen
          >
          > --
          > Stephen C. Carlson
          > Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
          > Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
          >
          Stephen,

          I don't think you understand why an improbable or awkward alternative translation, if it is not an impossible translation, might be of interest to me, although not to you. As I said, I am interested in deliberate ambiguity, where something is written so that it can be understood in two ways, and the facile reading may be the misleading one. I'm sorry that you found my persistence annoying. Thank you for your time.

          Kevin

          Kevin Snapp
          Chicago, IL
        • Kevin Snapp
          ... Mark, I thought a bit about that, but at least at first glance I don t see a distinction between literal and figurative corresponding to dative and
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 18 1:24 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...> wrote:
            >
            > Kevin:
            >
            > Thanks for that. I went back to LSJ (at Perseus online this time, since I am at home w/o my LSJ 9 handy), and looked at your examples.
            >
            > I wonder, is the difference actually something explainable by context/
            >
            > Might the dative simply mean "I bow down before, or toward"? While the accusative is used more generically for worship. this would explain most of the instances you cite, and the reference in LSJ to the "later use" of dative under the subheading of "to bow down before in the oriental fashion" ....
            >
            > Of course to test this would require some research in a larger data base, say TLG for the Hellenistic period. And i doubt I will find time to do that. but that is just a thought.
            >
            >
            >
            > Mark A. Matson
            > Academic Dean
            > Milligan College
            > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
            >
            > ________________________________
            Mark,

            I thought a bit about that, but at least at first glance I don't see a distinction between literal and figurative corresponding to dative and accusative. The Jewish translators of the LXX chose proskunew as the translation for "hishtacheveh" which means both to prostrate oneself and to worship, probably choosing dative for the object because there was no action upon the person or thing bowed to, and they favored the literal sense. It may have been more or less a semitism in Greek, especially with dative, so how it is used by NT authors might depend more than anything on their backgrounds -- Jewish versus Gentile, Greek-speaking versus Aramaic-speaking.

            I believe the consensus is that Mark was a Gentile and native Greek speaker, and he doesn't use it at all. Perhaps a little too "oriental-exotic" for his audience? Luke, a Greek-speaking Gentile but familiar with the LXX, whose Greek I believe is considered the best of the four, uses it once with accusative at Luke 24:52, and once without object, but with the preposition "enwpion"+ genitive in 4:7, in his version of Matthew's temptation scene I mentioned earlier, probably to make it literal, "bow down in front of me." When Luke is "semitizing," i.e., imitating the LXX, in Stephen's speech, Acts 8:27, he uses proskunew with dative.

            Paul, a Jew but a native Greek speaker, addressing Gentiles, uses it once, with dative, in 1 Cor. 14:25 in the context of literal prostration.

            John was a Jewish Aramaic speaker who uses it, although only a few times. Ditto for Matthew. The author of Revelation, who I think scholars agree came from a Jewish, Aramaic-speaking background, uses it most of all.

            I've been puzzling over Jn. 4:23, where he switches from dative (worship the father, tw patri) to accusative, ("his worshipers, proskunountas auton). Maybe the reason is that when speaking directly of worshiping God he was drawn to the feel of the LXX, even though it wasn’t standard usage -- just as many English speakers will have a flashback to the seventeenth century and say “hallowed be thy name” because of the KJV. On the other hand, the participle form of hishtacheveh is rare in the Hebrew Bible, and in my search I only saw one instance where it was used to mean a “worshiper” rather than simply someone bowing down in the present tense. Speaking of a “worshiper” in postbiblical Hebrew one would use oveid, from the root meaning to serve. So perhaps dealing with the participle, John didn’t feel the pull from remembered LXX usage to use the dative and was comfortable with the accusative.

            That’s just a guess, but it’s interesting that the author of Revelation seems consistent in worshiping God - tw thew-- in the dative, too. It’s not a matter of true piety, because although the Beast -- to thHrion -- is worshiped in the accusative, the image of the beast is worshiped in the dative - tH eikoni tou theriou. There is worship of God, and worship of idols in the Hebrew Bible, but no worship of a beast. So perhaps the author’s linguistic choices were being driven by memories of the LXX, with dative forms for “God” and “idol” but not “beast” associated with “worship” in his mind.

            I’d like to see whatever you find, but I’d guess the NT authors were in a heavily Jewish-influenced milieu somewhat disconnected from the Hellenistic mainstream as far as religious or worship-related language is concerned.

            Kevin
            Kevin Snapp
            Chicago, IL
          • Ramsey Michaels
            Isn t it possible that John 4:22 uses the accusative instead of the dative simply because the dative does not allow the author to distinguish between the
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 18 2:32 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Isn't it possible that John 4:22 uses the accusative instead of the dative simply because the dative does not allow the author to distinguish between the neuter and the masculine?

              He wants to say, "You worship *that which* you do not know," and "We know *what* we worship," rather than "You worship *him whom* you do not know." and "We know *him whom* we worship." The dative does not allow him to specify that he intends the neuter, for the dative singular masculine and neuter are the same.

              For the neuter used in a similar way to refer to God, though with a different word for worship, see Acts 17:23.

              In v 23, he reverts to the dative, "worship the Father," because he is finishing the thought he began in v 21. But then in vv 23b and 24 we get the accusative again. The efforts of Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 134-42, to distinguish different meanings for the verb with dative and accusative are not convincing to me.

              Ramsey Michaels







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Gary Manning
              I glanced through all the uses of proskuneo in the NT and LXX. I agree with Ramsey (below) that you can t distinguish between meanings of proskuneo based on
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 18 2:49 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                I glanced through all the uses of proskuneo in the NT and LXX. I agree with Ramsey (below) that you can't distinguish between meanings of proskuneo based on whether the object is in the dative or accusative. The only pattern I could discern among the texts that use the accusative for the direct object is that a disproportionate number of them are pronouns (esp. autos). It seems almost as if using the "wrong" case with pronouns sounded acceptable to Greek speakers, but less so with other nouns.

                We have a similar misuse of case in English pronouns: no one says "to I", but many English speakers say "to you and I", which is technically incorrect but very common. This is not exactly parallel to Greek, but it reminds us that when native speakers do not appear to be following a well-known grammatical rule, they may be following another, less-known rule, or are following normal usage even if grammarians don't like it.

                An earlier post on this topic reminded us of a basic rule of relative pronouns : the number and gender of a relative pronoun is determined by its antecedent, but its case is determined by its grammatical role in the relative clause. In this sentence, the accusative case may be for the simple reason that it is functioning as the object of oidamen in the relative clause. "Attraction" is when the case is determined by the main clause, or the gender is determined by the relative clause, in violation of the "rule." Wallace (BBBG, 337-343) points out some of the patterns that attraction follows. He uses Jn 4:22 as an example of gender attraction or perhaps omission of the antecedent (p. 337 and fn 58).

                Gary


                _______________________________________
                Gary Manning, Ph.D.
                http://eutychusnerd.blogspot.com/

                Associate Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages
                Interim Academic Dean
                Pacific Rim Bible College
                http://www.prbc-hawaii.edu/
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Ramsey Michaels
                To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:32 AM
                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] T Jn. 4:22 -responses to Mark and Stephen


                Isn't it possible that John 4:22 uses the accusative instead of the dative simply because the dative does not allow the author to distinguish between the neuter and the masculine?

                He wants to say, "You worship *that which* you do not know," and "We know *what* we worship," rather than "You worship *him whom* you do not know." and "We know *him whom* we worship." The dative does not allow him to specify that he intends the neuter, for the dative singular masculine and neuter are the same.

                For the neuter used in a similar way to refer to God, though with a different word for worship, see Acts 17:23.

                In v 23, he reverts to the dative, "worship the Father," because he is finishing the thought he began in v 21. But then in vv 23b and 24 we get the accusative again. The efforts of Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 134-42, to distinguish different meanings for the verb with dative and accusative are not convincing to me.

                Ramsey Michaels

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Kevin Snapp
                ... Thank you -- would you elaborate? I understand that the accusative would permit an unambiguous neuter object, but why would John want that result? What
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 22 8:54 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Ramsey Michaels" <profram@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Isn't it possible that John 4:22 uses the accusative instead of the dative simply because the dative does not allow the author to distinguish between the neuter and the masculine?
                  >
                  > He wants to say, "You worship *that which* you do not know," and "We know *what* we worship," rather than "You worship *him whom* you do not know." and "We know *him whom* we worship." The dative does not allow him to specify that he intends the neuter, for the dative singular masculine and neuter are the same.


                  Thank you -- would you elaborate? I understand that the accusative
                  would permit an unambiguous neuter object, but why would John want
                  that result? What would that mean in this context, when John's Jesus
                  has acknowledged that both Jews and Samaritans worship the
                  unambiguously masculine "Father"?
                  >
                  > For the neuter used in a similar way to refer to God, though with a different word for worship, see Acts 17:23.
                  >
                  I see your point, but it’s quite a different context, isn’t it? Paul
                  says he observed “your objects of worship," "ta sebasmata" (neut.
                  acc. pl.), and found an altar inscribed "to [the] unknown god,"
                  "agnwstw thew" (masc. dat. sg.). I suggest that Paul is tactfully
                  avoiding any implication of idolatry by referring to "objects of
                  worship" rather than "gods," and that Paul’s use of the neuter
                  relative is intended to refer back to the neuter “objects of worship”
                  rather than the masculine “unknown god.”

                  If Paul had led off with the masculine relative pronoun, he would be
                  saying, “[The god] whom you unknowingly worship, Him, I proclaim to
                  you,” but he doesn’t want to say the Athenians have actually been
                  worshiping God all along as “the unknown god.” Paul wants to use the
                  Athenians’ symbolic acknowledgment that there may be a god they
                  don’t know as his “hook” to grab their attention but without
                  implying that his God is just another god. So Paul chose to begin
                  with the impersonal neuter relative, “That which you unknowingly
                  worship,” which then required the neuter demonstrative, “this”
                  (rather than "Him”) "I proclaim to you.”

                  But I understand your point, that unless Paul were avoiding the
                  masculine for the reason I suggest, he is using the neuter singular
                  relative to refer to the masculine “unknown god” as “what you
                  worship,” followed by the neuter demonstrative representing the
                  masculine God Paul proclaims. So it is a precedent for using the
                  neuter singular relative for “what you worship” in Jn. 4:22. If that
                  explains the neuter gender, and proskunew can be used with accusative
                  as well as dative, it would explain Jn. 4:22 and its accepted
                  translation -- in isolation.

                  I think it is still legitimate to ask, though, why John switches back
                  and forth from dative to accusative in 4:23, this time keeping the
                  masculine gender. You wrote:

                  > In v 23, he reverts to the dative, "worship the Father," because he is finishing the thought he began in
                  > v 21. But then in vv 23b and 24 we get the accusative again. The efforts of Abbott, Johannine
                  > Vocabulary, 134-42, to distinguish different meanings for the verb with dative and accusative are not
                  > convincing to me.

                  Granted, v. 23a finishes the thought, but it seems artificial to
                  divide the explanatory 23b from 23b to explain the switch to the
                  accusative, which simply looks odd.

                  I have not read Abbott, but agree that one cannot distinguish here
                  between the “worship” of those “true worshipers” who “will worship
                  the (dative) Father in spirit and truth” and “those ones worshiping
                  Him (accusative)” whom He seeks. Even if 23b is explained as an
                  addition it seems extraordinarily clumsy to switch cases. So it
                  seems a better explanation to think of “tw patri” and “tw thew” as
                  fixed by the Septuagint in the dative, with John otherwise using the
                  accusative.

                  But with respect to 4:22, I’m back where I started from with the
                  problem of meaning, the problem that originally led to my suggestion
                  of grammatical ambiguity. It seems to me a very different thing for
                  Paul to say to the Athenians that they, “not knowing,” worship a
                  (neuter) “what,” than for John’s Jesus to tell the Samaritan woman
                  that “you, [Samaritans] worship what you do not know.”

                  Since Jesus has acknowledged that Samaritans, like Jews, worship “the
                  Father,” what could he have meant? Particularly since John is
                  obviously contrasting the Samaritans, who immediately believed in
                  Jesus as “savior of the world,” with the mostly unbelieving
                  Jews/Judeans? Furthermore, what could it mean to say that the
                  Jews/Judeans “worship what we know” “because salvation is from the
                  Jews”?

                  To me, 4:22 appears to say, “you worship what you do not know ...,”
                  but while the arguments here persuade me that is grammatically
                  acceptable, its meaning dissolves under scrutiny and a search for
                  alternatives is justified.

                  Kevin Snapp
                  Chicago, IL
                • Ramsey Michaels
                  To me the parallel with Acts 17:23 was illuminating: That which [neuter pronoun] you ignorantly worship I make known to you. A different word for worship to
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 23 6:16 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    To me the parallel with Acts 17:23 was illuminating: "That which [neuter pronoun] you ignorantly worship I make known to you."

                    A different word for worship to be sure, but it is language Paul uses in addressing Gentiles, telling tham that in fact they are worshipping the true God, but in ignorance. Something similar is going on here, I suspect, with the Samaritans being viewed as Gentiles, and in some sense representative of the Gentile world.

                    Best,

                    Ramsey Michaels




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Kevin Snapp
                    Whether or not the author of Luke/Acts thinks of Samaritans as Gentiles, the author of John considers them Israelites. At least one commentator (sorry, I
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 24 9:24 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Whether or not the author of Luke/Acts thinks of Samaritans as Gentiles, the author of John considers them Israelites. At least one commentator (sorry, I don't remember who) pointed out that Jn. 4:35-36 alludes to the sabbatical year of Lev.25:1-7: "Do you not say, four months more then comes the harvest? But lift up your eyes and see the fields that are white for harvesting." We know from the beginning of ch. 4 that it was hot, i.e., summer, but there could be no harvesting until the new year began in the fall.

                      In this context, Jesus' saying that "the reaper receives wages and gathers fruit for eternal life" refers to Samaritan farmers, who instead of sowing and reaping their own fields, worked for Gentiles for pay, and by doing so "gathered fruit for eternal life" as reward for keeping the commandment. I don't think anyone has noticed the similarity to a rabbinic saying:

                      "These are the things of which a man eats their fruits (income) in this world, while their source (principal) is kept for him in the world to come: honoring one's parents, deeds of kindness, and making peace between fellow men, while the study of the Torah surpasses them all." (BT Shab. 127a and elsewhere.) (In keeping the mitzvah of the sabbatical year, it is literally the "fruits" one does not eat, so Jesus reverses it.) John is subtly reminding Jewishly-knowledgeable readers that the Samaritans are Israelites who keep the Torah.

                      As the Samaritans reap what others have sown, so shall Jesus' disciples. Those who "have sown" among the Samaritans for Jesus' disciples to "reap" include not only Moses, but also, John implies, John the Baptist and his disciples. Although its location is uncertain, probably "Aenon near Salim,"Jn. 3:23, was either in Samaria or on the Samaria-Galilee border. I understand the dispute "between John's disciples and a Jew" of 3:25 regarding "purification" as concerning whether Samaritans could be "purified" of their supposed hereditary taint, suspicion of mamzerut due to their differing halakhah or deficient observance with respect to divorce and/or levirate marriage. "Purification" was the term used in connection with mamzerim much later in the Talmud, when the rabbis sought to find a way around the unfairness of this biblically-mandated hereditary pariah caste.

                      Although John acknowledges that in his death Jesus would "draw all men to him," John's Jesus is never depicted interacting with Gentiles in his ministry, in contrast to the Synoptics. John 4 is not a prototype of "outreach" to Gentiles; it is about reuniting the House of Israel. John was discreet about it because his (and Jesus') ties to the Samaritans (of which there is other evidence in John) were closer than John wished to acknowledge publicly.

                      Just explaining the method in my madness, or the madness behind my method. From this perspective, for John's Jesus to dismiss Samaritan worship in a statement that doesn't withstand close logical scrutiny makes sense. I was not probing the limits of the Greek merely to torture it.

                      Kevin Snapp
                      Chicago, IL

                      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Ramsey Michaels" <profram@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > To me the parallel with Acts 17:23 was illuminating: "That which [neuter pronoun] you ignorantly worship I make known to you."
                      >
                      > A different word for worship to be sure, but it is language Paul uses in addressing Gentiles, telling tham that in fact they are worshipping the true God, but in ignorance. Something similar is going on here, I suspect, with the Samaritans being viewed as Gentiles, and in some sense representative of the Gentile world.
                      >
                      > Best,
                      >
                      > Ramsey Michaels
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.