Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Prester John · 04-08-2005, 07:55 AM

For the grammatically challenged (like me) a brief discussion of relative clauses including restrictive and unrestrictive:

http://www.uhv.edu/ac/grammar/relativeclauses.html

and this one has an example of predicative/attributative:

http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/lng/teaching...H/relclaus.htm

Best i could find in a whole 5 minutes of googling!

Interesting discussion guys.

Jaguar Prince · 04-08-2005, 06:24 PM

Thank you for your contribution. The predicative relative clause described in the second article is one which contains a copula (=the verb 'to be'). This is clearly not the case of the relative clause 'whom Jesus loved' unless you decide to expand it as 'who is a disciple whom Jesus loved'.

Note that at this stage many people will play some hocus-pocus with this and render 'whom Jesus loved' as 'who is the disciple whom Jesus loved', which changes the meaning completely by adding the definite article before 'disciple'. They translate as if the antecedent didn't have the attributive 'other' (in Greek:allon) attached to it. This enables them to save the unicity of the beloved disciple. One God, one beloved disciple...

The translation you find in the KJV and NKJV also contains this sleight of hand. Apparently, 'the one whom Jesus loved' is an innocent explanatory clause, but it isn't: by adding 'the one', the translators cancelled the crucial modifier 'other (allon) in the antecedent. A real explanatory clause should look like:

she runs to the other disciple, the other one whom Jesus loved

But they didn't do that, because they thought they already knew that Jesus only had one beloved disciple. They seem to have forgotten that in the same gospel of John, Jesus is said to have loved Mary, Martha and Lazarus.

There is nothing extraordinary about Jesus loving two disciples really. It is just disturbing that no one ever noticed that detail in the last 2000 years of Bible study.

Jaguar Prince · 04-08-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

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.

Your knowledge of English seems to be somewhat defective (are you a native speaker?). This was shown by the fact that you didn't realize the elementary point that adding a comma before 'whom Jesus loved' made John 20:2 say in effect that Jesus had only two disciples. Another good example is your faulty translation of Mark 14,71, which is not good English at all.

In English, you have two ways to make it clear that the relative clause is restrictive: you can omit the relative pronoun as in 'I don't know the man you are talking about' or you can use 'that'. 'Which' and 'who(m)' can be used either way. Yes, this is how English works, agapetos.

I know many other modern languages, and in those languages too, some translators have been playing with the very simple meaning of John 20:2.

Ockham's cardboard cutter is on my side. I wonder if you realize that.

Quote:

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.

To claim that formal English confuses restrictive and unrestrictive relative clauses is totally absurd. No formal, written language indulges in such confusions (except in poetry maybe). I can predict that your arguments will become increasingly absurd as time passes. This always happens when one has a complex and faulty argument.

I do doubt, however, that the translators who omit the comma in John 20:2 would support the idea that Jesus had two beloved disciples. They are blissfully unaware of the exegetical problems that they have created.

I don't need the English translations. I can decipher the Greek text myself (I know you don't believe me). Besides, I have other reasons, non grammatical ones, for translating John 20:2 as I do. I don't believe that everything hinges on grammar rules, you see. Meaning and context are also important.

The more you argue the more you seem to be saying that the distinction between restrictive and unrestrictive relative clauses is unimportant. But that only applies to the examples that are embarrassing to you. When discussing John 20:2 you will assert that the comma is necessary.

Reminds me of those people who say that the language used in liturgy is unimportant, but who then insist adamantly that only vernacular languages should be used to the exclusion of Latin or other sacred tongues...

You are heading full speed in the direction of a kind of 'ghost argument'. Every time I will produce an example of unrestrictive relative clause in the English translation of the Bible, one that contradicts your so-called 'rule', you will say, 'in fact, this is an unrestrictive relative clause, it's hidden, but it's there, that's what the translators really had in mind'. Clairvoyance and Smyth will do the trick. :rolling:

It's like those Christians who say that the genealogy of Joseph in Luke is in fact Mary's. Mary is not mentioned anywhere, but we are supposed to see her there nonetheless to explain the contradictions between the genelogy in Luke and that in Matthew.

Quote:

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.

I warmly advise you to publish your own translation of the Bible, Steve. One hopes you will apply your own rules consistently, which means rigidly. Obviously, ancient languages are very, very rigid and rational, and the authors of the NT, who were patently great and distinguished Greek literati, followed your interpretation of Smyth a la lettre.

Poor Wallace is not capable of producing a simple example of a relative clause in Koine Greek. You should tell him, really.

BTW, how do you know 'John' (with quotes since we don't know the identity of the author of the fourth gospel) was a native speaker of Koine Greek? I know serious exegetes who claim that the gospel was first written in Hebrew and then retranslated in Greek (Claude Tresmontant s.j.). I don't believe it myself, but this is just to show the wide range of disagreement on these issues.

IMHO there were several ways in which John could have avoided the ambiguity in 20:2. One was to use a mixture of articles in an expanded sentence (she runs to another disciple, the disciple whom Jesus loved), the other was to use the classic phrase 'the other disciple whom Jesus loved' (with no 'other', why insist on the fact that Peter was a disciple, huh?). Or maybe use a strong demonstrative adjective: the other disciple, this (outos) whom Jesus loved (???).

Quote:

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

Ad hominem arguments deduce the non validity of an argument from psychological or other characteristics of the speaker. While most such arguments are rubbish, not all are. If one is emotionally committed to the unicity and maleness of the beloved disciple, there is a very high probablility that one will try to 'fix' the evidence. Is that your case? Maybe...

Let me say that your mind is highly dogmatic, at least on this particular point. Maybe you know Smyth too well and think that all translation problems can be solved by applying rules. This is not how translation, which is an art, works. All translators know that.

I mean, on the one hand you claim to be aware of the complexities of ancient languages and of the art of translation (yours truly is an experienced translator), but in the same breath you insist that there is only one correct translation of John 20:2 based on your own interpretation of a rule found in a Classical Greek grammar about adjectives written by a non native speaker of Greek. I insist that it is only an intepretation since you have not been able to produce the specific rule applying to relative clauses from any known grammar.

And I note that you are still unable to establish a convincing link between predicative/attributive adjectives and the question of restrictive/unrestrictive relative clauses.

I know Gnostic Christians who accept the theory that Jesus had two beloved disciples and that both were females quite easily. Obviously, you aren't a Gnostic Christian...

Quote:

only attested sentences produced by native Greeks are evidence.

The trouble is that attested sentences produced by (dead) native Greeks have to be translated (and that they don't contain commas). Therefore a million relative clauses written 2000 years ago are of no help at all.

Just tell us that un-comma-ed 'whom Jesus loved' is possible, and I'll be more than satisfied.

You see, my demands aren't exaggerated at all.

Jag :devil3:
I drive all authorities mad... :Cheeky:

S.C.Carlson · 04-08-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar Prince

Your knowledge of English seems to be somewhat defective (are you a native speaker?).

:rolling:

Quote:

Just tell us that un-comma-ed 'whom Jesus loved' is possible, and I'll be more than satisfied.

Not in John 20:2.

Your best hope for a female disciple coordinate with the male beloved disciple is actually in John 21:2, where it is technically feasible that the masculine plural could encompass a male and a female "other" disciple. It's not exactly positive evidence for your case, but at least the grammar doesn't actually contradict you.

Stephen Carlson

Jaguar Prince · 04-08-2005, 09:08 PM

We all know that the author of the fourth gospel is also the mysterious and anonymous person described in shorthand as the 'beloved disciple'. This writer, unlike all the other gospel authors, claims to be a direct eye-witness of the Master. Therefore 'he' is very important and reliable, more reliable than, say, Matthew or Luke or Mark. At least this is the claim being made in the gospel.

Now the funny and intriguing thing about this beloved disciple is that in the original text 'he' is never described as 'beloved' (Greek:agapetos) but as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. What is even more funny and intriguing is that in many translations of the Bible there is a hesitation about how to punctuate the phrase. There are several examples of the phrase becoming

...the disciple, whom Jesus loved,...

See for example how translators wavered when deciphering John 19:26, a key passage for the correct identification of the disciple:

John 19:26

Noah Webster has: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

But NASB has:When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"

Is it indifferent whether you add a comma or not?

Not at all. Adding a comma or not adding it completely changes the meaning. Without a comma 'whom Jesus loved' becomes a defining trait of the disciple, one that sets 'him' apart from the other disciples who followed Jesus. This means that 'whom Jesus loved' is a kind of title or nickname. This could be made patent in English by hyphening the words:

the-disciple-whom-Jesus-loved

This kind of punctuation exists in Hebrew, a language 'John' probably knew. Maqqef, visually similar to an English hyphen, makes different words sound like one semantic unit. And it is one of the tricks Hebrew has to solve the difficult problem of restrictive vs. unrestrictive relative clauses.

With comma, the love Jesus feels for the disciple becomes incidental. It is no longer defining. Therefore, adding a comma makes it impossible for the reader to identify the disciple who was standing at the cross in 19:26 as the disciple who leaned on Jesus' bosom at the Last Supper in chapter 13. 'He' may be the same disciple or 'he' may be another disciple whom Jesus also loved (Martha, her sister Maria and Lazarus were loved by Jesus according to 'John'). The only thing we know is that the disciple has been mentioned before. And incidentally we also learn that Jesus loved him, which may be a transitory characteristic: he was being loved by Jesus at that moment.

In fact, the comma completely dissolves the character himself. IOW, if we consistently added commas before each occurrence of 'whom Jesus loved' there could be as many beloved disciples as there are verses where 'he' is mentioned.

The Greek text is very simple:

hon egapa ho Iesous= whom was loving (the) Jesus (Greek order

)

Does the Greek version help us punctuate the phrase correctly? Some people claim that this is indeed the case. If we followed their advice, the comma is absolutely necessary here. But as I have just said, this completely ruins the character and consequently a very important message contained in the gospel.

John 21:7 is very enlightening:

Therefore the disciple whom Jesus loved says to Peter: It is the Lord.

Here all translators opted for a restrictive (no comma) relative clause. The reason seems to be that in Greek there is a strong demonstrative pronoun 'that' (Greek:ekeinos): that disciple whom Jesus loved...To translate as 'that disciple, whom Jesus loved' would have sounded clumsy. Apparently.

John 21:20 is the last reference to the disciple. Here again, and although there is no demonstrative pronoun or other grammatical marker, all translators render the phrase as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.

John 21:20

No comma. And this is absolutely correct. If one added a comma here, the result would be disastrous:

Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple, whom Jesus loved, following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

There is one more reference to consider, namely John 20:2.

She runs to Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved

Strangely enough, here, the proportion of translators who add a comma or who even expand the relative clause, giving it the character of an explanatory clause, is quite high and includes some of the most popular translations.

But the relative clause in Greek is just as simple and straightforward. The only change is the fact that the antecedent (=disciple) is modified by 'other' and that the verb 'to love' is philein instead of agapan. Philein is supposed to mean 'to like' or 'to love' (as a friend or relative). Agapan has a distinctive Christian flavor since it often means 'divine love'.

My contention is that 'other' (allon) here has the same effect as 'that' (ekeinos) in John 21:7. It gives the antecedent and the relative clause that follows it a defining character: the-other-disciple-whom-Jesus-loved.

Rendering this as 'the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved' is a sleight of hand which is unwarranted by the original text. Adding 'the one' clearly modifies the meaning of the phrase by narrowing it. To really explain the word 'disciple', one must include its attributive:

the other disciple, the other one who was loved by Jesus

You can also give the phrase a predicative air (very popular with some posters here :rolling: :love: ) like this (you just add a copula 'to be') :

the other disciple is loved by Jesus
the other disciple is a disciple who is loved by Jesus
the other disciple is one who is loved by Jesus

Why haven't so many translators realized this very simple thing? The reason is very simple too: if you don't add a comma, you are saddled with two beloved disciples instead of just one. Is it incredible and fantastic to entertain the notion that Jesus may have loved two disciples instead of just one? Apparently it is, for some people at least. Certainly for the translators of the KJV and the NKJV.

One God, one faith, one beloved disciple. Many 'ones' make a simpler world.

But in Greek the relative clause is quite simple.

If you are still unconvinced just look at 1 Cor 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

In Greek, you have here two relative clauses which are structurally absolutely similar to the one we find in John 19:26 or 20:2, but no translator added commas before 'which we bless' or 'which we break'.

To claim that a comma would not change the meaning at all is absurd:

The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

To see this more clearly, just omit the unrestrictive relative clauses, something you can do since unrestrictive relative clauses contain unessential information about their antecedent:

The cup of blessing is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

Clearly something is missing. Therefore no commas can be added here. The cup is the-cup-which-we-bless and the bread is the-bread-which-we-break.

Note that rendering 'the cup which we bless' as

the cup, the one which we bless

is quite okay and is exactly the same as 'the cup which we bless' (note that both renderings contain a restrictive relative clause). This is because the antecedent is not preceded by a modifier like 'other'. if 'other' were added, the expanded phrase with commas and 'the one' would change the meaning significantly.

the other cup, the one which we bless,... is different from

the other cup which we bless

In A there is only one cup, in B there are two

.

The cup, the one which we bless,...

and

the cup, which we bless,...

ARE DIFFERENT!!! B is absurd

.

To conclude, let me say that in the gospel of 'John', the phrase 'whom Jesus loved' is defining. The disciple is special and the love Jesus has for this disciple is special too, just as God feels special love for Israel (often, if not always, symbolized in the Bible by a woman, think of the Song of Songs) or repentant sinners (many of whom are women in the NT).

There can never be commas before it (John 13 is the one and only exception because that is the first mention of the character).

Have a hearty laugh, o grammatikoi!

Jag :devil3:

Jaguar Prince · 04-08-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

:rolling:

Not in John 20:2.

Your best hope for a female disciple coordinate with the male beloved disciple is actually in John 21:2, where it is technically feasible that the masculine plural could encompass a male and a female "other" disciple. It's not exactly positive evidence for your case, but at least the grammar doesn't actually contradict you.

Stephen Carlson

Grammar is not all (panta) in translation. Besides, grammar is not on your side at all. You more or less invented the rule about 'predicative relative clauses', and when I showed you that even your beloved Smyth considers all relative clauses as attributive adjectives, you took shelter in denial.

Are you a translator

?

Nota Bene: I don't believe that any of the beloved disciples is a male. Both are females.

Have you read the Song of Songs? Are you aware that the Judeo-Christian God is straight?

Reading recommendations for you: the Gnostic Gospels.

Jaguar Prince · 04-08-2005, 09:40 PM

Quote:

I'm not convinced that the beloved disciple is a female since it is special pleading to claim her gender was suppressed.

What about reading the Gnostic literature instead of perusing the writings of Didymus the Blind? The gospel of Thomas says that females have to become males. Yes sir.

We also know that the institutional church was deeply hostile to females. A Pauline author even ordered all women to shut up in church and forbade women to teach men.

These were all good reasons to understand why it was absolutely necessary to conceal the gender of the beloved disciples.

I understand that this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I can't help it if the world is full of conspiracies and if the first century world was a difficult place for female religious teachers.

knotted paragon · 04-08-2005, 11:27 PM

This site seems to agree with you Jaguar

Women in Ancient Christianity

One item of note: Gospel of Thomas notwithstanding, many (most?) of the Gnostic literature seems to portray Mary as an apostle - Thomas's stance on women seems to be the minority one.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-08-2005, 11:48 PM

Thomas isn't Gnostic. It was used by Gnostics but it wasn't written by them.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-09-2005, 11:22 AM

I've merged all three of the "Beloved Disciple" threads into one. I'm going to also ask that Jaguar Prince confine his posting on this subject to this thread instead of starting multiply similar threads on the same subject.

DtC: Moderator, BC&H

04-08-2005, 09:08 PM	#45
Jaguar Prince Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Salvador, Brazil Posts: 188	Gospel of John stands and falls with a comma We all know that the author of the fourth gospel is also the mysterious and anonymous person described in shorthand as the 'beloved disciple'. This writer, unlike all the other gospel authors, claims to be a direct eye-witness of the Master. Therefore 'he' is very important and reliable, more reliable than, say, Matthew or Luke or Mark. At least this is the claim being made in the gospel. Now the funny and intriguing thing about this beloved disciple is that in the original text 'he' is never described as 'beloved' (Greek:agapetos) but as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. What is even more funny and intriguing is that in many translations of the Bible there is a hesitation about how to punctuate the phrase. There are several examples of the phrase becoming ...the disciple, whom Jesus loved,... See for example how translators wavered when deciphering John 19:26, a key passage for the correct identification of the disciple: John 19:26 Noah Webster has: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith to his mother, Woman, behold thy son! But NASB has:When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Is it indifferent whether you add a comma or not?* Not at all. Adding a comma or not adding it completely changes the meaning. Without a comma 'whom Jesus loved' becomes a defining trait of the disciple, one that sets 'him' apart from the other disciples who followed Jesus. This means that 'whom Jesus loved' is a kind of title or nickname. This could be made patent in English by hyphening the words: the-disciple-whom-Jesus-loved This kind of punctuation exists in Hebrew, a language 'John' probably knew. Maqqef, visually similar to an English hyphen, makes different words sound like one semantic unit. And it is one of the tricks Hebrew has to solve the difficult problem of restrictive vs. unrestrictive relative clauses. With comma, the love Jesus feels for the disciple becomes incidental. It is no longer defining. Therefore, adding a comma makes it impossible for the reader to identify the disciple who was standing at the cross in 19:26 as the disciple who leaned on Jesus' bosom at the Last Supper in chapter 13. 'He' may be the same disciple or 'he' may be another disciple whom Jesus also loved (Martha, her sister Maria and Lazarus were loved by Jesus according to 'John'). The only thing we know is that the disciple has been mentioned before. And incidentally we also learn that Jesus loved him, which may be a transitory characteristic: he was being loved by Jesus at that moment. In fact, the comma completely dissolves the character himself. IOW, if we consistently added commas before each occurrence of 'whom Jesus loved' there could be as many beloved disciples as there are verses where 'he' is mentioned. The Greek text is very simple: hon egapa ho Iesous= whom was loving (the) Jesus (Greek order ) Does the Greek version help us punctuate the phrase correctly? Some people claim that this is indeed the case. If we followed their advice, the comma is absolutely necessary here. But as I have just said, this completely ruins the character and consequently a very important message contained in the gospel. John 21:7 is very enlightening: Therefore the disciple whom Jesus loved says to Peter: It is the Lord. Here all translators opted for a restrictive (no comma) relative clause. The reason seems to be that in Greek there is a strong demonstrative pronoun 'that' (Greek:ekeinos): that disciple whom Jesus loved...To translate as 'that disciple, whom Jesus loved' would have sounded clumsy. Apparently. John 21:20 is the last reference to the disciple. Here again, and although there is no demonstrative pronoun or other grammatical marker, all translators render the phrase as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'. John 21:20 No comma. And this is absolutely correct. If one added a comma here, the result would be disastrous: Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple, whom Jesus loved, following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" There is one more reference to consider, namely John 20:2. She runs to Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved Strangely enough, here, the proportion of translators who add a comma or who even expand the relative clause, giving it the character of an explanatory clause, is quite high and includes some of the most popular translations. But the relative clause in Greek is just as simple and straightforward. The only change is the fact that the antecedent (=disciple) is modified by 'other' and that the verb 'to love' is philein instead of agapan. Philein is supposed to mean 'to like' or 'to love' (as a friend or relative). Agapan has a distinctive Christian flavor since it often means 'divine love'. My contention is that 'other' (allon) here has the same effect as 'that' (ekeinos) in John 21:7. It gives the antecedent and the relative clause that follows it a defining character: the-other-disciple-whom-Jesus-loved. Rendering this as 'the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved' is a sleight of hand which is unwarranted by the original text. Adding 'the one' clearly modifies the meaning of the phrase by narrowing it. To really explain the word 'disciple', one must include its attributive: the other disciple, the other one who was loved by Jesus You can also give the phrase a predicative air (very popular with some posters here :rolling: :love: ) like this (you just add a copula 'to be') : the other disciple is loved by Jesus the other disciple is a disciple who is loved by Jesus the other disciple is one who is loved by Jesus Why haven't so many translators realized this very simple thing? The reason is very simple too: if you don't add a comma, you are saddled with two beloved disciples instead of just one. Is it incredible and fantastic to entertain the notion that Jesus may have loved two disciples instead of just one? Apparently it is, for some people at least. Certainly for the translators of the KJV and the NKJV. One God, one faith, one beloved disciple. Many 'ones' make a simpler world. But in Greek the relative clause is quite simple. If you are still unconvinced just look at 1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? In Greek, you have here two relative clauses which are structurally absolutely similar to the one we find in John 19:26 or 20:2, but no translator added commas before 'which we bless' or 'which we break'. To claim that a comma would not change the meaning at all is absurd: The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? To see this more clearly, just omit the unrestrictive relative clauses, something you can do since unrestrictive relative clauses contain unessential information about their antecedent: The cup of blessing is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Clearly something is missing. Therefore no commas can be added here. The cup is the-cup-which-we-bless and the bread is the-bread-which-we-break. Note that rendering 'the cup which we bless' as the cup, the one which we bless is quite okay and is exactly the same as 'the cup which we bless' (note that both renderings contain a restrictive relative clause). This is because the antecedent is not preceded by a modifier like 'other'. if 'other' were added, the expanded phrase with commas and 'the one' would change the meaning significantly. the other cup, the one which we bless,... is different from the other cup which we bless In A there is only one cup, in B there are two . The cup, the one which we bless,... and the cup, which we bless,... ARE DIFFERENT!!! B is absurd . To conclude, let me say that in the gospel of 'John', the phrase 'whom Jesus loved' is defining. The disciple is special and the love Jesus has for this disciple is special too, just as God feels special love for Israel (often, if not always, symbolized in the Bible by a woman, think of the Song of Songs) or repentant sinners (many of whom are women in the NT). There can never be commas before it (John 13 is the one and only exception because that is the first mention of the character). Have a hearty laugh, o grammatikoi! Jag :devil3:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2005, 07:55 AM	#41
Prester John Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Wales Posts: 560	For the grammatically challenged (like me) a brief discussion of relative clauses including restrictive and unrestrictive: http://www.uhv.edu/ac/grammar/relativeclauses.html and this one has an example of predicative/attributative: http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/lng/teaching...H/relclaus.htm Best i could find in a whole 5 minutes of googling! Interesting discussion guys.

04-08-2005, 06:24 PM	#42
Jaguar Prince Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Salvador, Brazil Posts: 188	Thank you for your contribution. The predicative relative clause described in the second article is one which contains a copula (=the verb 'to be'). This is clearly not the case of the relative clause 'whom Jesus loved' unless you decide to expand it as 'who is a disciple whom Jesus loved'. Note that at this stage many people will play some hocus-pocus with this and render 'whom Jesus loved' as 'who is the disciple whom Jesus loved', which changes the meaning completely by adding the definite article before 'disciple'. They translate as if the antecedent didn't have the attributive 'other' (in Greek:allon) attached to it. This enables them to save the unicity of the beloved disciple. One God, one beloved disciple... The translation you find in the KJV and NKJV also contains this sleight of hand. Apparently, 'the one whom Jesus loved' is an innocent explanatory clause, but it isn't: by adding 'the one', the translators cancelled the crucial modifier 'other (allon) in the antecedent. A real explanatory clause should look like: she runs to the other disciple, the other one whom Jesus loved But they didn't do that, because they thought they already knew that Jesus only had one beloved disciple. They seem to have forgotten that in the same gospel of John, Jesus is said to have loved Mary, Martha and Lazarus. There is nothing extraordinary about Jesus loving two disciples really. It is just disturbing that no one ever noticed that detail in the last 2000 years of Bible study.

04-08-2005, 11:27 PM	#48
knotted paragon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Korea Posts: 572	This site seems to agree with you Jaguar Women in Ancient Christianity One item of note: Gospel of Thomas notwithstanding, many (most?) of the Gnostic literature seems to portray Mary as an apostle - Thomas's stance on women seems to be the minority one.

04-08-2005, 11:48 PM	#49
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Thomas isn't Gnostic. It was used by Gnostics but it wasn't written by them.

04-09-2005, 11:22 AM	#50
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I've merged all three of the "Beloved Disciple" threads into one. I'm going to also ask that Jaguar Prince confine his posting on this subject to this thread instead of starting multiply similar threads on the same subject. DtC: Moderator, BC&H

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.