Chili

Peter is the manner of faith and Paul is the betrayer of that faith in first and second Pope. They spell involution - evolution, or garbage in and glory out. Peter is the doctrine taken in by the believer and Paul is the wisdom retained by the doubter who must bring faith to understanding.

Peter's indoctrination includes sacraments and sacramentals such as icons that are carefully engraved on the iconostasis that divides the upper and lower sanctuary of our mind by Luke. These will set the precedent for our thought patterns in contemplation to the point of idolatry that Paul betrays.(iconoclasts do not agree with this while we actually call it our communion with the saints in heaven).

Jesus said that "whatever you (Peter as faith) declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven" to show that we must color our own heaven while on earth. This means that right indoctrination is crucial since we must find a home for it later in life.

Jaguar Prince

S.C.Carlson's Rule contains a number of Quantum Leaps

What is the rule?

The rule is derived from the rule on the position of adjectives in Greek, which can be either attributive or predicative.

Let us illustrate it with the help of John 20:2

ton allon matheten hon ephilei ho Iesous

ton allon matheten=the other disciple=first attributive position of the Greek adjective

Hon ephilei ho Iesous is regarded by Carlson as an adjective. Now the position of the relative clause corresponds to the position of a Greek predicative adjective:

ho allos mathetes (estin) agapetos: the other disciple (is) loved

Therefore ton allon matheten hon ephilei ho Iesous should be construed as:

the other disciple is the one whom Jesus loved

Note that the copula (is) has been added, as well as the words "the one".

Obviously, there is no possibility here of a second beloved disciple. The traditional interpretation is therefore vindicated and conventional scholarship can now breathe and sleep in peace.

Unfortunately this argument-it isn't a rule, it is an argument, or better said, a theory-contains a number of quantum leaps:

1.A rule concerning attributive vs predicative relative clauses is not to be found in any Greek grammar, not even in Smyth (pp. 293-295). What we do find is a very clear rule about adjectives. But relative clauses, although they can be viewed as adjectives, are not adjectives.

2. Even if there were such a rule it would be totally useless since all Greek relative clauses occur after their antecedent (surprise, surprise!), which means that they would all be predicative. Now my interlocutor claims that sometimes the relative clause could be attributive. For that to happen, it would have to mimick the attributive adjective:

ho mathethes ho agapetos=the beloved disciple

Note the repetition of the article here. This is the key. According to Carlson's Rule, for a relative clause to be attributive, one would have to find a duplicate article before the relative pronoun:

ho mathetes ho hon ephilei ho Iesous: the disciple whom Jesus loved
(no comma!)

The trouble here is that this pattern only mimicks the second attributive position, which is not the most frequent. There are three attributive positions in Greek:

A ho agapetos mathetes
B ho mathetes ho agapetos
C mathetes ho agapetos

Now why should the relative clause only imitate the second position?

A seems impossible since relative clauses by definition always follow their antecedent in Greek. But C is possible. Unfortunately that would make all relative clauses preceded by an indefinite antecedent, one without the definite article, attributive. This is not supported by the facts.

The "rule" is untenable.

3. There is a huge quantum leap in the interpretation of hon ephilei ho Iesous as a predicative adjective/relative clause (I'm now pretending to accept Carlson's rule as valid)

Why should

ho allos mathetes agapetos be read as

the other disciple is the one who is loved

instead of

the other disciple is loved??????????

The second interpretation is perfectly valid and means that the relative clause "whom Jesus loved" can be construed as a restrictive relative clause:

ho allos mathetes estin (kai) agapetos=the other disciple is (also) loved.

In other words, a supposedly predicative relative clause does not exclude a second beloved disciple at all!!!

Conclusion: I don't force anyone to recognize that "hon ephilei ho Iesous" must be interpreted as a restrictive relative clause, but I think that sheer honesty commands that such a possibility be aknowledged.

Jag

PS: Wallace in his GGBBB says that the first attributive position (the position of allon in John 20:2) emphasizes the adjective rather than the noun:

the other disciple whom Jesus was loving as a relative

Interesting isn't it?

Jaguar Prince

Smyth 2488 is on my side:

"Relative clauses correspond to attributive adjectives (or participles) since like adjectives they serve to define substantives. " (underlined mine)

S.C.Carlson

And then there's Smyth § 2553 a: "Ordinary relative clauses are explanatory, and (in sense) are equivalent to independent coordinated clauses. See 2490."

It's important to understand how it all fits together.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

No. The relative clause in Smyth 1165, which I previously quoted, shows position A. Also your "by definition" would have a problem with Smyth 2541 "The antecedent may be reserved for the main clause, which follows the relative clause."

Stephen

Jaguar Prince

See the same discussion on another, more specialized ancient languages forum.

Xaire, dear friend, everybody is on your side, but I know why: misogynistic fear of the unknown...

http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?p=32318

Smyth p. 560 §2488 has this beautiful example of a relative clause without comma in its English translation:

sun tois thesaurois hois ho pater katelipen

With the treasures which my father left...

Poor, ignorant Smyth, who obviously is unaware of Carlson's Rule and should have rendered it as:

with the treasures, I mean the ones my father left...

Only sun tois thesaurois tois hois ho pater katelipen can be translated as

"with the treasures which my father left" (no comma, restrictive/so-called Carlsonian "attributive" relative clause)

Jag :devil3:

Jaguar Prince

Considering the fact that the episode at the tomb is located much closer to John 21:20 than the scene at the Last Supper (chapter 15), I find it significant that "John" didn't use it to specify the identity of the beloved disciple. And of course, if "he" had written something like

"Peter sees the disciple whom Jesus loved, the one who had outrun him on the way to the tomb the day Jesus was raised from the dead..."

I would definitely shut up and burn tons of sandalwood incense to the august effigy of S.C. Carlson and other distinguished IIDB male Greek scholars. :Cheeky: :devil3:

Jaguar Prince

There remains for you to demonstrate-with cogent and rational arguments rather than with grammatical hocus-pocus-why a supposedly predicate position of the modifier, one which would transform virtually all relatives clauses in Greek into non restrictive relative clauses if followed rigidly, should lead to the insertion of a comma before the relative clause in English.
Suppose I admit that hon ephilei ho Iesous is indeed in a predicate position, which I don't, my question is: what does that tell us about adding or not adding a comma?

I say it tells us nothing at all.

The trouble is that an ancient Greek grammar rule is now brought to bear by you on a punctuation problem that simply didn't exist in Greek. Therefore the argument used here to dogmatically rule out the restrictive relative clause in John 20:2 is simply irrelevant.

An interesting thing to note is that the translation of the phrase 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (with no "other" added) in John 19:26 and elsewhere varies from one Bible to the other, about half the translators adding a comma, while the other half doesn't. See the different and conflicting versions here

It's important to see how my quote from Symth that all relative clauses can be treated as attributive adjectives completely ruins the idea that there are relative clauses acting as predicate adjectives.

'Explanatory' doesn't mean unrestrictive.

'Independent coordinated clauses' means that in the case of hon ephilei ho Iesous the relative clause could be interpreted as:

she runs to the other disciple. The disciple was loved by Jesus (too).

=she runs to the other disciple whom Jesus loved.

Obviously, a very typical Greek relative clause...

This is precisely what you have never been able to prove. Why 'needs the comma'? Why is that obligatory? And how come so many translators fail to apply your 'rule'?

The common approach is so common that you have not been able to show us a single example from the Bible, which apparently means that not a sigle relative clause in the whole Bible is restrictive. This is very, very hard to believe :down: .

Besides, why can't I add a comma before 'whom they fear'?

The terrified don't have God or him, whom they fear, as another support.

This doesn't work.

'I don't know the man you are talking about' is the only correct translation of this verse. The question is not whether there is or isn't another man Peter is denying, but that there could be many human beings the servants of the high priest could talk about. Therefore the relative in Mark 14:71 must be restrictive.

Not a single translator of the Bible has opted for your unrestrictive relative clause. See here

Conclusion: it is perfectly legitimate, with many translators of the Bible*, to translate the relative clause in John 20:2 as a restrictive relative clause: she runs to the other disciple whom Jesus loved. There are no arguments that absolutely rule out this rendering, except in the dogmatic minds of those who want to preserve the maleness and the unicity of the beloved disciple in 'John' at any price.

*See the different translations of John 20:2 here. Note that half the translations don't add a comma.

Jag :devil3:

Jaguar Prince

IHMO, the participle "following" is attributive (and placed in the relative clause for emphasis, see Smyth § 2542), and both relative clauses are in the predicate, e.g.: "Peter turned and saw that the disciple following (him) was the one whom Jesus loved, the one who leaned on his breast at the meal and said," etc.

We do agree that the relative is non restrictive, a question you persistently confuse with that of the position of adjectives in Greek, but you don't see my point at all, namely that the author is at pains to tell the reader that this beloved disciple is not the one who followed Peter and finally outran him on Easter Sunday.

John 20:2 is really a crucial verse in all this. If you add a comma, you thereby make it impossible for Mary the Magdalen to qualify as the beloved disciple, and obviously the question of a second beloved disciple doesn't even arise. Hence the scholarly scramble to deny the obvious.

S.C.Carlson

Spoken English mainly distinguishes restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses by intonation, which is usually--but not always--reflected in writing by adding commas for nonrestrictive clauses. However, in formal, written English, it has been permissible to omit the commas when the nonrestrictive clause is short. This has been one source to your confusion: you have been misinterpretating the English translations.

But there's a more fundamental problem. There is no evidence that Greek used intonation to distinguish these types of relative clauses and the Greeks did not use commas for this purpose in their writing. In order to argue what the Greek means, it is necessary to provide Greek evidence, i.e., clear examples produced by native Greeks. This is one place where analogizing to English practice is more hurtful than helpful -- even assuming that the English translations have been properly interpreted, which they have not been.

A final point is that ad hominems (e.g., "the dogmatic minds of those who want to preserve the maleness and the unicity of the beloved disciple in 'John' at any price") are not evidence of Greek usage; only attested sentences produced by native Greeks are evidence.