John 2:15

That makes sense; I agree that Jesus kicked them all out so it is best to take παντας with those selling and the animals. How then do we decide who received the φραγελλιον? I lean towards it only being used on the harder to move animals, the oxen and the sheep since he addresses those selling pigeons further down a couple of ‘sequence’ points away from his initial driving out.

Statistics: Posted by tmmoser — April 26th, 2017, 12:56 am


Of the preceding, I think. John throws in the particle τε, which appears to have the force of adding in more objects here. The sense is “He kicked out all of them, and their animals too.”

Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — April 23rd, 2017, 8:38 am


καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 15καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὰ κέρματα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέστρεψεν,
John 2:14-15

Do you think παντας is in apposition to τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς or τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας? I tend to think it is the latter considering a collective containing a masculine can be referred to as masculine, and παντας is removed from both collectives so its proximity isn’t much help.

Statistics: Posted by tmmoser — April 22nd, 2017, 7:30 pm


[bible passage=”John 2:15″]

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

4 thoughts on “John 2:15

  1. Leonard Jayawardena says:

    On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:59 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:
    >
    >
    > I came across the following instructive parallels to John 2:15–i.e., passages having the TE … KAI structure–while doing other studies in the NT. (The last thread on this topic was closed more than two months ago–due to no fault of mine–and I hope that it is not too soon to post another message on the same topic.)
    >
    > 1. PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hLLHNI (Romans 1:16)–“to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and to the Greek”
    >
    > 2. EPI PASAN YSUCHN ANQRWPOU TOU KATERGAZOMENOU TO KAKON, IOUDAIOU TE PRWTON KAI hLLHNOS (Romans 2:9)–“upon every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and of the Greek”
    >
    > 3. PANTI TWi ERGAZOMENOU TO AGAQON, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hALLHNI (Romans 2:10)–“to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and to the Greek”
    >
    > 4. IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hLLHNAS PANTAS hUF’ hAMARTIAN EINAI (Romans 3:9)–“all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin”
    >
    > In all of the above cases, the TE … KAI phrase is in aposition to PAS, furnishing an exact parallel to John 2:15.

    #2 doesn’t quite fit your mold exactly in terms of grammar, since the TE … KAI links ANQRWPOU KATERGAZOMENOU TO KAKON subspecies..
    >
    > In the following passages, a TE … KAI phrase is in aposition to some other word:
    >
    > 1. KATEBHSAN AMFOTEROI EIS TO hUDWR, hO TE FILIPPOS KAI hO EUNOUCOS (Acts 8:38)–“they both went down into the water, Philipp as well as the eunuch”
    >
    > 2. hOPWS EAN TINAS hEURH THS hDOU ONTAS, ANDRAS TE KAI GUNAIKAS (Acts 9:2)–“so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women”
    >
    > How many more such examples are necessary to prove that PANTAS … TA TE PROBATA AND TOUS BOAS in John 2:15 means “all … both the sheep and the oxen”?

    It would probably require more than this, since PANTAS is a general masculine plural not attached directly to a noun and not followed by an intervening verb. Your interpretation may be valid, but you haven’t convinced everyone that it’s the only way this text can be construed.

    ========

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    LJ: Though my parallels may not exactly correspond to John 2:15 in every way, they do give us an idea of what a phrase with the TE .. KAI structure can mean. I think we can at least say that, given the way the TE … KAI structure is used in the NT, the most reasonable position to take is that PANTAS … TA TE PROBATA AND TOUS BOAS in John 2:15 most likely means “all … both sheep and the oxen,” with the burden of proof lying on those who would translate it in any other wise.

    By the way, here’s another one: AUTOIS DE TOIS KLYTOIS, IOUDAIOIS TE KAI hELLHSIN (1 Corinthians 1:24)–“to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks.”

    ========

    Leonard Jayawardena

    LJ: Some additional comments on the above.

    Romans 1:20–TA GAR AORATA AUTOU APO KTISEWS KOSMOU TOIS POIHMASIN NOOUMENA KAQORATAI, hH TE AIDIOS AUTOU DUNAMIS KAI QEIOTHS, EIS TO EINAI AUTOUS ANAPOLOGHTOS.

    NASB transalation: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what is made, so that they are without excuse.”

    Note that hH TE AIDIOS AUTOU DUNAMIS KAI QEIOTHS is in apposition to TA AORATA AUTOU, in spite of the distance between them with the main verb and a participial phrase intervening. Therefore EXEBALLEN in PANTAS EXEBALLEN EK TOU hIEROU, TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS should not get in the way of our seeing TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS as being in apposition to PANTAS.

    TE alone used alone can mean simply “and,” e.g., Acts 2:37, AKOUSANTES DE KATENUGHSAN THN KARDIAN EIPON TE PROS TON PETRON …(“… and they said to Peter”). POLLA TE TERATA KAI SHMEIA DIA TWN APOSTOLWN EGINETO (Acts 2:43) is rendered usually “and many signs and wonders were done through the apostles.” Here we have two nouns in a TE … KAI structure where TE can be rendered “and.” It is possibly because of this possibility of translation that we have translations like “He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen” (KJV). This is rendered more idiomatically by some as “with the sheep and the oxen.” However, in Acts 2:43 POLLA TE TERATA KAI SHMEIA begins a new clause unlike TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, which, if rendered as it is in KJV, becomes just an addition to the preceding words–an awkwardly contructed verbless afterthought–quite different from the way phrases with a TE … KAI structure are used elsewhere, e.g. passages I have cited in my last two emails and many others.

    Leonard Jayawardena

    ========

    I don’t really have a problem with construing TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS as being in apposition to the PANTAS of PANTAS EXEBALEN (the verb is, I think, aorist rather than imperfect). Indeed I don’t think it’s possible to construe that phrase in any way other than as in apposition to PANTAS. My problem is rather with the insistence that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS must necessarily exclude any creatures capable of moving on legs other than sheep and cattle.

    Text: John 2:14 Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 15 καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, …
    [14 KAI hEUREN EN TWi hIERWi TOUS PWLOUNTAS BOAS KAI PROBATA KAI PERISTERAS KAI TOUS KERMATISTAS KAQHMENOUS, 15 KAI POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN PANTAS EXEBALEN EK TOU hIEROU TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, KAI TWN KOLLUBISTWN EXECEEN TO KERMA KAI TAS TRAPEZAS ANETREYEN, … ]

    That is to say that, perverse as it may seem, I continue to believe that PANTAS in the predicate PANTAS EXEBALEN refers to all the same objects indicated as objects of the initial verb εὗρεν [hEUREN]. I think that the addition of TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is to make it clear that they too were made to evacuate the premises posthaste. What I find harder to believe is that during this stampede of the beasts, clatter of coins, and upending of furniture, the vendors remained on the scene as indignant spectators.

    KJV: ” 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen;”

    The English usage of the KJV has taken something of a beating in several posts of the last couple days. I really don’t feel compelled to defend it, but on the other hand, I don’t find the phrasing, ” … he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen … ” particularly unintelligible; it doesn’t seem to me a “verbless afterthought” so much as a clarifying parenthetical note (“yes, even the beasts — not just their exploiters”).

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    LJ: Regret the delay in replying. My computer went out of order around 31 of last month and I got back the repaired computer only day before yesterday.

    You have now conceded that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, but I don’t understand what kind of apposition you have in mind. A definition of apposition is “A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence.” Therefore, if you agree that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, you have to accept that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS explains PANTAS and they are co-referential–unless, of course, you can produce your very own definition of apposition 🙂 .

    > > Text: John 2:14 Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 15 καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, …
    > > [14 KAI hEUREN EN TWi hIERWi TOUS PWLOUNTAS BOAS KAI PROBATA KAI PERISTERAS KAI TOUS KERMATISTAS KAQHMENOUS, 15 KAI POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN PANTAS EXEBALEN EK TOU hIEROU TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, KAI TWN KOLLUBISTWN EXECEEN TO KERMA KAI TAS TRAPEZAS ANETREYEN, … ]
    > >
    > > That is to say that, perverse as it may seem, I continue to believe that PANTAS in the predicate PANTAS EXEBALEN refers to all the same objects indicated as objects of the initial verb εὗρεν [hEUREN]. I think that the addition of TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is to make it clear that they too were made to evacuate the premises posthaste.

    LJ: The objects of hEUREN are the “the sellers (of oxen and sheep)” and “the moneychangers (seated).” If PANTAS refers to the sellers and the moneychangers, the objects of hEUREN, then how is TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS in apposition to PANTAS?

    CWC: What I find harder to believe is that during this stampede of the beasts, clatter of coins, and upending of furniture, the vendors remained on the scene as indignant spectators.

    LJ: I am not sure I understand your point: Your interpretation has Jesus, either alone or with the help of his disciples, chasing the traders out with a whip, so the question of the vendors “remain[ing] on the scene as indignant spectators” does not arise.

    I find it far more credible that Jesus drove out the sheep and the oxen with a whip (probably with the help of his disciples) with their owners following them out than that Jesus drove out the traders wielding a whip, which is what your understanding of PANTAS entails. If that is what happened, whether or not Jesus actually used the whip on the traders, the fact is inescapable that he at least INTENDED to use it on them. Otherwise why qualify EXEBALEN with the adverbial KAI POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN? There is NO ambiguity there as some think. I think the traders were far more likely to have tolerated what Jesus did if his actions were directed only towards the sheep and the oxen than if he assaulted the traders with the whip or at least threatened to do so. The parallel in Matthew has Jesus quoting a combined form of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11: “My house shall be called a house of prayer but you have made it a den of thieves.” Zechariah had said, “And there will no longer be a Canaanite [or trader] in the house of the Lord of hosts in that day” (Zechariah 14:21). The traders had probably heard those scriptures before. Certainly the temple authorities were aware of them! These scriptures justified Jesus’ action and the Jews, including the traders, knew it. This would explain why they did not resist Jesus. But it would have been a different kettle of fish had Jesus used the whip on the traders instead of taking the more sensible course of driving out the animals with their owners following them out.

    > > KJV: ” 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen;”
    > >
    > > The English usage of the KJV has taken something of a beating in several posts of the last couple days. I really don’t feel compelled to defend it, but on the other hand, I don’t find the phrasing, ” … he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen … ” particularly unintelligible; it doesn’t seem to me a “verbless afterthought” so much as a clarifying parenthetical note (“yes, even the beasts — not just their exploiters”).
    > >
    > > Carl W. Conrad
    > > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
    > >

    LJ: As I have shown, there is abundance evidence for a phrase with a TE … KAI structure being in apposition to some other element in the sentence in all which cases the appositive is identical with the anchor, i.e., the appositive’s referent. Your interpretation above, that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is “a clarifying parenthetical note (“yes, even the beasts — not just their exploiters”),” ignores this fact and appears to be an ad hoc interpretation dictated by your particular understanding PANTAS.

    Leonard Jayawardena

    On Nov 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, George F Somsel wrote:

    > I think that rather than apposition Carl might have meant epexigetical. For > those of you in Rio Linda I’ll give the advice a teacher I had in junior high > was fond of dispensing — “look it up in the dictionary.” I hesitate to enter > this over-the-top discussion since I think it should have ended long ago. Can > we please stop now?

    But you’ve done so. I would accept “epexegetical” — but I would just note that it seems to me pretty much akin to the celebrated “aporetic” categories of case-usage that have been designated by Wallace in GGBB: it simply says that this expression is “explanatory” or “clarifying.” One speaks especially of “epexegetical” infinitives, but I honestly believe that we use such expressions in grammatical explanation when our snippets of text don’t fall into our handy categories and subcategories of traditional grammar. This interminable thread seems to me illustrative of my proposition that we understand what a Greek text BEFORE we can analyze it grammatically; when we understand a Greek text in different ways, we have some difficulty describing adequately WHY we think that our own understanding of the text “makes more sense” than the interpretation offered by others. Sometimes we attempt to explain a snippet of text in terms of a category that it doesn’t really fit.

    PERI DE TOU DEIN PAUSASQAI DIALEGOMENOUS hEWS BDELUGMIAS TON DIALOGON TOIOUTON, TIPTE LEGOIMI AN EGWGE? — AUTOS GAR POLLAKIS hEUREQHN hEWS BDELUGMIAS LEGWN.

    Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  2. Leonard Jayawardena says:

    On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:59 AM, Leonard Jayawardena wrote:
    >
    >
    > I came across the following instructive parallels to John 2:15–i.e., passages having the TE … KAI structure–while doing other studies in the NT. (The last thread on this topic was closed more than two months ago–due to no fault of mine–and I hope that it is not too soon to post another message on the same topic.)
    >
    > 1. PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hLLHNI (Romans 1:16)–“to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and to the Greek”
    >
    > 2. EPI PASAN YSUCHN ANQRWPOU TOU KATERGAZOMENOU TO KAKON, IOUDAIOU TE PRWTON KAI hLLHNOS (Romans 2:9)–“upon every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and of the Greek”
    >
    > 3. PANTI TWi ERGAZOMENOU TO AGAQON, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hALLHNI (Romans 2:10)–“to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and to the Greek”
    >
    > 4. IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hLLHNAS PANTAS hUF’ hAMARTIAN EINAI (Romans 3:9)–“all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin”
    >
    > In all of the above cases, the TE … KAI phrase is in aposition to PAS, furnishing an exact parallel to John 2:15.

    #2 doesn’t quite fit your mold exactly in terms of grammar, since the TE … KAI links ANQRWPOU KATERGAZOMENOU TO KAKON subspecies..
    >
    > In the following passages, a TE … KAI phrase is in aposition to some other word:
    >
    > 1. KATEBHSAN AMFOTEROI EIS TO hUDWR, hO TE FILIPPOS KAI hO EUNOUCOS (Acts 8:38)–“they both went down into the water, Philipp as well as the eunuch”
    >
    > 2. hOPWS EAN TINAS hEURH THS hDOU ONTAS, ANDRAS TE KAI GUNAIKAS (Acts 9:2)–“so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women”
    >
    > How many more such examples are necessary to prove that PANTAS … TA TE PROBATA AND TOUS BOAS in John 2:15 means “all … both the sheep and the oxen”?

    It would probably require more than this, since PANTAS is a general masculine plural not attached directly to a noun and not followed by an intervening verb. Your interpretation may be valid, but you haven’t convinced everyone that it’s the only way this text can be construed.

    ========

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    LJ: Though my parallels may not exactly correspond to John 2:15 in every way, they do give us an idea of what a phrase with the TE .. KAI structure can mean. I think we can at least say that, given the way the TE … KAI structure is used in the NT, the most reasonable position to take is that PANTAS … TA TE PROBATA AND TOUS BOAS in John 2:15 most likely means “all … both sheep and the oxen,” with the burden of proof lying on those who would translate it in any other wise.

    By the way, here’s another one: AUTOIS DE TOIS KLYTOIS, IOUDAIOIS TE KAI hELLHSIN (1 Corinthians 1:24)–“to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks.”

    ========

    Leonard Jayawardena

    LJ: Some additional comments on the above.

    Romans 1:20–TA GAR AORATA AUTOU APO KTISEWS KOSMOU TOIS POIHMASIN NOOUMENA KAQORATAI, hH TE AIDIOS AUTOU DUNAMIS KAI QEIOTHS, EIS TO EINAI AUTOUS ANAPOLOGHTOS.

    NASB transalation: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what is made, so that they are without excuse.”

    Note that hH TE AIDIOS AUTOU DUNAMIS KAI QEIOTHS is in apposition to TA AORATA AUTOU, in spite of the distance between them with the main verb and a participial phrase intervening. Therefore EXEBALLEN in PANTAS EXEBALLEN EK TOU hIEROU, TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS should not get in the way of our seeing TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS as being in apposition to PANTAS.

    TE alone used alone can mean simply “and,” e.g., Acts 2:37, AKOUSANTES DE KATENUGHSAN THN KARDIAN EIPON TE PROS TON PETRON …(“… and they said to Peter”). POLLA TE TERATA KAI SHMEIA DIA TWN APOSTOLWN EGINETO (Acts 2:43) is rendered usually “and many signs and wonders were done through the apostles.” Here we have two nouns in a TE … KAI structure where TE can be rendered “and.” It is possibly because of this possibility of translation that we have translations like “He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen” (KJV). This is rendered more idiomatically by some as “with the sheep and the oxen.” However, in Acts 2:43 POLLA TE TERATA KAI SHMEIA begins a new clause unlike TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, which, if rendered as it is in KJV, becomes just an addition to the preceding words–an awkwardly contructed verbless afterthought–quite different from the way phrases with a TE … KAI structure are used elsewhere, e.g. passages I have cited in my last two emails and many others.

    Leonard Jayawardena

    ========

    I don’t really have a problem with construing TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS as being in apposition to the PANTAS of PANTAS EXEBALEN (the verb is, I think, aorist rather than imperfect). Indeed I don’t think it’s possible to construe that phrase in any way other than as in apposition to PANTAS. My problem is rather with the insistence that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS must necessarily exclude any creatures capable of moving on legs other than sheep and cattle.

    Text: John 2:14 Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 15 καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, …
    [14 KAI hEUREN EN TWi hIERWi TOUS PWLOUNTAS BOAS KAI PROBATA KAI PERISTERAS KAI TOUS KERMATISTAS KAQHMENOUS, 15 KAI POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN PANTAS EXEBALEN EK TOU hIEROU TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, KAI TWN KOLLUBISTWN EXECEEN TO KERMA KAI TAS TRAPEZAS ANETREYEN, … ]

    That is to say that, perverse as it may seem, I continue to believe that PANTAS in the predicate PANTAS EXEBALEN refers to all the same objects indicated as objects of the initial verb εὗρεν [hEUREN]. I think that the addition of TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is to make it clear that they too were made to evacuate the premises posthaste. What I find harder to believe is that during this stampede of the beasts, clatter of coins, and upending of furniture, the vendors remained on the scene as indignant spectators.

    KJV: ” 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen;”

    The English usage of the KJV has taken something of a beating in several posts of the last couple days. I really don’t feel compelled to defend it, but on the other hand, I don’t find the phrasing, ” … he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen … ” particularly unintelligible; it doesn’t seem to me a “verbless afterthought” so much as a clarifying parenthetical note (“yes, even the beasts — not just their exploiters”).

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

    LJ: Regret the delay in replying. My computer went out of order around 31 of last month and I got back the repaired computer only day before yesterday.

    You have now conceded that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, but I don’t understand what kind of apposition you have in mind. A definition of apposition is “A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation to the other elements in the sentence.” Therefore, if you agree that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, you have to accept that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS explains PANTAS and they are co-referential–unless, of course, you can produce your very own definition of apposition 🙂 .

    > > Text: John 2:14 Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 15 καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, …
    > > [14 KAI hEUREN EN TWi hIERWi TOUS PWLOUNTAS BOAS KAI PROBATA KAI PERISTERAS KAI TOUS KERMATISTAS KAQHMENOUS, 15 KAI POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN PANTAS EXEBALEN EK TOU hIEROU TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS, KAI TWN KOLLUBISTWN EXECEEN TO KERMA KAI TAS TRAPEZAS ANETREYEN, … ]
    > >
    > > That is to say that, perverse as it may seem, I continue to believe that PANTAS in the predicate PANTAS EXEBALEN refers to all the same objects indicated as objects of the initial verb εὗρεν [hEUREN]. I think that the addition of TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is to make it clear that they too were made to evacuate the premises posthaste.

    LJ: The objects of hEUREN are the “the sellers (of oxen and sheep)” and “the moneychangers (seated).” If PANTAS refers to the sellers and the moneychangers, the objects of hEUREN, then how is TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS in apposition to PANTAS?

    CWC: What I find harder to believe is that during this stampede of the beasts, clatter of coins, and upending of furniture, the vendors remained on the scene as indignant spectators.

    LJ: I am not sure I understand your point: Your interpretation has Jesus, either alone or with the help of his disciples, chasing the traders out with a whip, so the question of the vendors “remain[ing] on the scene as indignant spectators” does not arise.

    I find it far more credible that Jesus drove out the sheep and the oxen with a whip (probably with the help of his disciples) with their owners following them out than that Jesus drove out the traders wielding a whip, which is what your understanding of PANTAS entails. If that is what happened, whether or not Jesus actually used the whip on the traders, the fact is inescapable that he at least INTENDED to use it on them. Otherwise why qualify EXEBALEN with the adverbial KAI POIHSAS FRAGELLION EK SCOINIWN? There is NO ambiguity there as some think. I think the traders were far more likely to have tolerated what Jesus did if his actions were directed only towards the sheep and the oxen than if he assaulted the traders with the whip or at least threatened to do so. The parallel in Matthew has Jesus quoting a combined form of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11: “My house shall be called a house of prayer but you have made it a den of thieves.” Zechariah had said, “And there will no longer be a Canaanite [or trader] in the house of the Lord of hosts in that day” (Zechariah 14:21). The traders had probably heard those scriptures before. Certainly the temple authorities were aware of them! These scriptures justified Jesus’ action and the Jews, including the traders, knew it. This would explain why they did not resist Jesus. But it would have been a different kettle of fish had Jesus used the whip on the traders instead of taking the more sensible course of driving out the animals with their owners following them out.

    > > KJV: ” 14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen;”
    > >
    > > The English usage of the KJV has taken something of a beating in several posts of the last couple days. I really don’t feel compelled to defend it, but on the other hand, I don’t find the phrasing, ” … he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen … ” particularly unintelligible; it doesn’t seem to me a “verbless afterthought” so much as a clarifying parenthetical note (“yes, even the beasts — not just their exploiters”).
    > >
    > > Carl W. Conrad
    > > Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
    > >

    LJ: As I have shown, there is abundance evidence for a phrase with a TE … KAI structure being in apposition to some other element in the sentence in all which cases the appositive is identical with the anchor, i.e., the appositive’s referent. Your interpretation above, that TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is “a clarifying parenthetical note (“yes, even the beasts — not just their exploiters”),” ignores this fact and appears to be an ad hoc interpretation dictated by your particular understanding PANTAS.

    Leonard Jayawardena

    On Nov 18, 2010, at 9:08 AM, George F Somsel wrote:

    > I think that rather than apposition Carl might have meant epexigetical. For > those of you in Rio Linda I’ll give the advice a teacher I had in junior high > was fond of dispensing — “look it up in the dictionary.” I hesitate to enter > this over-the-top discussion since I think it should have ended long ago. Can > we please stop now?

    But you’ve done so. I would accept “epexegetical” — but I would just note that it seems to me pretty much akin to the celebrated “aporetic” categories of case-usage that have been designated by Wallace in GGBB: it simply says that this expression is “explanatory” or “clarifying.” One speaks especially of “epexegetical” infinitives, but I honestly believe that we use such expressions in grammatical explanation when our snippets of text don’t fall into our handy categories and subcategories of traditional grammar. This interminable thread seems to me illustrative of my proposition that we understand what a Greek text BEFORE we can analyze it grammatically; when we understand a Greek text in different ways, we have some difficulty describing adequately WHY we think that our own understanding of the text “makes more sense” than the interpretation offered by others. Sometimes we attempt to explain a snippet of text in terms of a category that it doesn’t really fit.

    PERI DE TOU DEIN PAUSASQAI DIALEGOMENOUS hEWS BDELUGMIAS TON DIALOGON TOIOUTON, TIPTE LEGOIMI AN EGWGE? — AUTOS GAR POLLAKIS hEUREQHN hEWS BDELUGMIAS LEGWN.

    Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

  3. Iver Larsen says:

    In v. 14 we are told that Jesus discovered all the traders and moneychangers. He also saw the cattle, sheep and doves on sale as well as the coins on the tables. He then made a whip and chased them all out of the temple compound. The object is the masculine PANTAS which probably refers to both traders and their animals (not the doves and coins). Even if TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, that is a syntactical description. One cannot from that infer that they are exactly co-referential in terms of semantics and pragmatics. You are asking too much of the grammar. It is very common in Semitic flavoured Greek to have a generic reference followed by a clarifying specific reference, where the specific gives details about part of the generic without necessarily being identical to it. The text says that he drove all three groups out (PANTAS), which is a generic statement. We are not given all the details as in a film script. We are not told how he used the whip, but by using it he drove out the cattle and sheep together with their owners. He then poured out the coins and overturned the tables so that the moneychangers busily collected them and ran out to safety. Finally he told the dove sellers to remove their wares and get out, which we can assume that they did.

    This generic-specific pattern is captured nicely by the NLT:

    Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers’ coins over the floor, and turned over their tables. Then, going over to the people who sold doves, he told them, “Get these things out of here….

    Iver Larsen

  4. Iver Larsen says:

    In v. 14 we are told that Jesus discovered all the traders and moneychangers. He also saw the cattle, sheep and doves on sale as well as the coins on the tables. He then made a whip and chased them all out of the temple compound. The object is the masculine PANTAS which probably refers to both traders and their animals (not the doves and coins). Even if TA TE PROBATA KAI TOUS BOAS is in apposition to PANTAS, that is a syntactical description. One cannot from that infer that they are exactly co-referential in terms of semantics and pragmatics. You are asking too much of the grammar. It is very common in Semitic flavoured Greek to have a generic reference followed by a clarifying specific reference, where the specific gives details about part of the generic without necessarily being identical to it. The text says that he drove all three groups out (PANTAS), which is a generic statement. We are not given all the details as in a film script. We are not told how he used the whip, but by using it he drove out the cattle and sheep together with their owners. He then poured out the coins and overturned the tables so that the moneychangers busily collected them and ran out to safety. Finally he told the dove sellers to remove their wares and get out, which we can assume that they did.

    This generic-specific pattern is captured nicely by the NLT:

    Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers’ coins over the floor, and turned over their tables. Then, going over to the people who sold doves, he told them, “Get these things out of here….

    Iver Larsen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.