John 2:6: attributive or predicate participles?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

John 2:6: attributive or predicate participles?

Post by moon jung »

In John 2:6, we have

Ησαν δὲ εκιεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ιουδαίων,
χωροῦσαι ανὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἠ τρεῖς.

I wonder whether participles κείμεναι and χωροῦσαι are attributive or predicative.
I would take both to be predicative. Any other opinions?

Moon Jung
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: John 2:6: attributive or predicate participles?

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

I've been reading this in greek for quite a while and the question you just asked has never occurred to me.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: John 2:6: attributive or predicate participles?

Post by moon jung »

moon jung wrote:In John 2:6, we have

Ησαν δὲ εκιεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ιουδαίων,
χωροῦσαι ανὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἠ τρεῖς.

I wonder whether participles κείμεναι and χωροῦσαι are attributive or predicative.
I would take both to be predicative. Any other opinions?

Moon Jung.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I've been reading this in greek for quite a while and the question you just asked has never occurred to me.
I guess this means that these participles are predicative without question, because they do not have the article in front of them?

Moon Jung
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

μεγάλαι & ἀκίνητοι for the participial phrases

Post by Stephen Hughes »

How about I suggest a change in the sentence, and perhaps you will be able to answer your own question more easily.

You seem to be taking the participles as adjectives, so why don't we substitute a couple of adjectives that could logically collocate with ὑδρίαι, with more or less the same meaning.
John 2:6 Byzantine Text-form wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς.
Let's change κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων to ἀκίνητοι "hard to move" and χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς to μεγάλαι "big".
John 2:6 with adjectives for the participles wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ¹ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι ²μεγάλαι ³λίθιναι ⁴ἀκίνητοι ⁵ἓξ.
What would you call those two adjectives now?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: μεγάλαι & ἀκίνητοι for the participial phrases

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:How about I suggest a change in the sentence, and perhaps you will be able to answer your own question more easily.

You seem to be taking the participles as adjectives, so why don't we substitute a couple of adjectives that could logically collocate with ὑδρίαι, with more or less the same meaning.
John 2:6 Byzantine Text-form wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς.
Let's change κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων to ἀκίνητοι "hard to move" and χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς to μεγάλαι "big".
John 2:6 with adjectives for the participles wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ¹ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι ²μεγάλαι ³λίθιναι ⁴ἀκίνητοι ⁵ἓξ.
What would you call those two adjectives now?
Stephen, I think that there may be some things that are easier to explain to six-year olds than to "older and wiser" people. Stirling's reaction/ response is, I think, the same as my own: "Why is this question being asked? What is there about this sentence that evokes that sort of question? I think that Stephen's response was about as helpful as possible, although I wonder how much help it actually rendered. A supplementary question might be: can you substitute adverbs for those two participles? Or perhaps: What sort of adverbs can qualify the verb εἶναι?

The question I want to ask about Moon's question is: did you understand the Greek text of this sentence when you read it or didn't you? Was it a failure to understand the function of the participial phrases that made the sentence incomprehensible or puzzling in some way? Or, on the other hand, if you did really understand the meaning of the text originally, was there some need to analyze the syntactic structure of this text?

I ask this because I've come to think that a text cannot be analyzed until it has been essentially understood, and that, once the text has been essentially understood, the analysis only helps us understand the "how" and "why" of the meaning conveyed by the text. I'm just wondering whether this sort of question isn't inculcated by the nature of the "grammar/translation" pedagogy for ancient Greek.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: μεγάλαι & ἀκίνητοι for the participial phrases

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:Stirling's reaction/ response is, I think, the same as my own: "Why is this question being asked? What is there about this sentence that evokes that sort of question?
You, Clay and me too. My reason for not giving a direct answer is that I am wondering why we are discussing it at all.

I found the placement of two participles together in the NA-UBS text much more difficult to understand than the separated ones in the Byzantine text-form.
John 2:6 NA-UBS wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, κείμεναι χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς
Jung, is there a dissimilarity between Korean and Greek grammar that requires you to create an abstract idea of the grammar followed by a transform before it makes sense for participles used in this way. I that the verb ἔχειν "to have" is difficult for Chinese students who only really understand it after the change to εἶναι τινός “be someone's". For me as a native English speaker it doesn't require much thought. How does it seem to you?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Grouping of the spatial elements, position of κείμεναι

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Hughes wrote:I found the placement of two participles together in the NA-UBS text much more difficult to understand than the separated ones in the Byzantine text-form.
John 2:6 SBL wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κείμεναι, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς
Thanks to David Lim for pointing out to me off-board that this was a vague statement. Let me clarify a little.

It is perhaps actually the placement of the comma that is as misleading as the position of the word κείμεναι itself.

They obviously are the two elements that readily refer to space here, ἐκεῖ and κείμεναι, so even if they don't modify each other, at least they have some relationship to each other, and would benefit from at least thinking about that. I think it is the placement (κείμεναι), not the number ἓξ that κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων refers to, so - as far as I understand the verse - it too probably has something to do with space too.

ἐκεῖ "in that place, (where)" could refer to the house in general where the wedding was taking place, or if taken with κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κείμεναι could mean, "there (at the house) (and more specifically) they were placed where they were required for the Jews to purify themselves, (there were 6 stone vessels for water, holding 20 or 30 gallons a piece)."

The movement in the narrative from general location to specific location is also seen at
John 2:14 wrote:Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστεράς, καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους.
The temple is the big space and the various sellers are the details. The writer of the Gospel introduces where we are then lets us look at the details. That is opposite to the natural tendency for English speakers.
John 2:6 Byzantine Text-form wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ ὑδρίαι λίθιναι ἓξ κείμεναι κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς.
John 2:6 SBL wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κείμεναι, χωροῦσαι[/u] ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς
I have highlighted the spatial elements in each case, to show how the spatial elements are stylistically built up around the κείμεναι in the usual way in the first case. I at least am left looking for what is on the other side of the κείμεναι with nothing to find after it in the SBL/NA-UBS text-form. The Byzantine text form is read with position talked about, the SBL balances on the ἓξ and the positional relationship is obscure on first reading.

I'm not sure that being specific has made things any more clear :oops: :?:
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Grouping of the spatial elements, position of κείμεναι

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I found the placement of two participles together in the NA-UBS text much more difficult to understand than the separated ones in the Byzantine text-form.
John 2:6 SBL wrote:Ἦσαν δὲ ἐκεῖ λίθιναι ὑδρίαι ἓξ κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κείμεναι, χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ἢ τρεῖς
Thanks to David Lim for pointing out to me off-board that this was a vague statement. Let me clarify a little.

It is perhaps actually the placement of the comma that is as misleading as the position of the word κείμεναι itself.

They obviously are the two elements that readily refer to space here, ἐκεῖ and κείμεναι, so even if they don't modify each other, at least they have some relationship to each other, and would benefit from at least thinking about that. I think it is the placement (κείμεναι), not the number ἓξ that κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων refers to, so - as far as I understand the verse - it too probably has something to do with space too.

ἐκεῖ "in that place, (where)" could refer to the house in general where the wedding was taking place, or if taken with κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων κείμεναι could mean, "there (at the house) (and more specifically) they were placed where they were required for the Jews to purify themselves, (there were 6 stone vessels for water, holding 20 or 30 gallons a piece)."

[...]
I don't know but it seems from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ikveh.html that the reference to Jewish cleansing has to do with the material and size of the water-pots, not the placement nor the number. In particular, they should be made of stone and large enough.

In any case I consider "εκει" to modify "κειμεναι", but I'm not certain.
δαυιδ λιμ
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: John 2:6: attributive or predicate participles?

Post by moon jung »

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:I've been reading this in greek for quite a while and the question you just asked has never occurred to me.
Hi, Stirling. I was puzzled by your answer. I googled the internet for some information. I found your blog comment related
to this, http://alternate-readings.blogspot.kr/2 ... ciple.html

You talked about:

1Pet. 3:19 ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, 20 ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί, διεσώθησαν δι᾿ ὕδατος

The participial clause ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε definitely describes further the previously mentioned referent
τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν.

Your complaint is that the term "predicative participle" is confusing. A. T. Roberston, in his grammar book, also considers
"circumstantial participial clauses" which modify the action of the main verb to belong to "predicative participles".
I also think this way of explanation is not helpful. "Circumstantial participial clauses" had better be treated separately.

But John 2:6 is not exactly the same as 1 Pet 3:19-20. In 1 Pet 3:19-20 τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν specifies the
referent, which is further predciated by ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε.

But in John 2:6, it seems unclear whether λιθιναι ὑδριαι ἑξ specifies a referent, which is then further characterized by
the following two participial clauses, OR the two participial clauses help specify the referent. That was the motivation of
my question.

Having said this, I feel that in the case of John, the distinction is not intended by the Greek speaker.

Moon Jung
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: John 2:6: attributive or predicate participles?

Post by moon jung »

I skimed over the book written by Stephanie Bakker, "The noun phrase in Ancient Greek".
It has some relevance to the issue in this thread.

In section 6.3 Summary and conclusion, she says:

In this chapter, I have analyzed what determines the articulation of the various constituents of a definite NP with
one or more modifiers. For modifiers [ e.g. adjective, adverb, genitive, numeral, participle, possesive, prepositional phrase]
, I argued that their articulation does not, as is traditionally assumed, depend on their attributive or predicative value, but
on their functions. Modifiers are articular if they SPECIFY THE REFERENCE, i.e. if they clarify WHICH referent is referred to by providing information that distinguishes the intended referent FROM OTHER possible entities satisfying the description
of the noun. Non-articular modifiers, on the other hand, do not specify the reference, but CHARACTERIZE THE REFERENT. They provide descriptive information on the REFERENT WITHOUT the purpose of DISTINGUISHING
this referent FROM OTHER ENTITIES.

For adjectives, numerals and some participles the opposition "reference specification vs. referent characterization" has turned out to be inappropriate. For although articular adjectives, numerals and participles are genuine reference modifiers,
their nonb-articular counterparts (in single modifier NPs at least) are predicative elements instead of referent modifiers.
Yet, even though these predicative modifers do not express a feature but a temporary state of the referent, they still provide information on the REFERENT rather than the REFERENCE. For that reason, I have argued that REFERENT CHARACTERIZATION is the basic characterization of all non-articular modifers.

But she notes an important observation in p. 245:

The crucial difference between reference and referent modifiers, on the one hand, and adjunts of state, on the other,
is that the former express a feature of the referent, whereas the latter provide an indication of a temporary state of the
referent. ,,,, In English, the use of adjuncts of state is rather limited as they can only express a temporary
state of the SUBJECT or OBJECT of the sentence. In Ancient Gree, howerver, the use of adjuncts of state is far more extensive.

==>
According to the scheme of Bakker, participles of John 2:6 does not belong to the "predicative use", but
to the "referent modifiers".

Moon Jung
Locked

Return to “New Testament”