# John 2:15 use of "πάντας"



## tfj

Below is Unicode Greek for John 2:15. My question regards Greek grammar. In this verse there is a dispute among grammarians about whether the whip was used a) on all men, sheep, and oxen, or b) on just the sheep and oxen. I've consulted all the various Greek grammar textbooks I could get my hands on, but it would be better to hear directly from a Greek native-speaker.  
 
Because πάντας is masculine, most English Bibles translate the verse by suggesting that Jesus used the whip on the men and animals, while other translations are either ambiguous or suggest that Jesus used the whips only on the animals. There is also translation ambiguity over the τε … καὶ phrase. I would deeply appreciate some help or advice. 
 
15 ﻿καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ του̂ ἱερου̂ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τω̂ν κολλυβιστω̂ν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν,


----------



## Kevman

Welcome to the forums, tfj.

I can see how the line could be interpreted either way ("oxen" is also masculine by the way, so it would make sense to use a masculine pronoun to refer to the oxen and sheep together, and τε...καί usually means "_both_...and"), but if you don't mind my own very amateur opinion I think πάντας includes the people.  I see it as a referent to "those selling oxen and sheep" (τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα) in the first part of the sentence, which lies in John 2:14.

See also Matthew 21:12:
Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἐξέβαλεν πάντας τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ...
_And Jesus went into the temple and cast out all those selling and buying in the temple..._

My own attempt at a more-or-less literal translation of the entire sentence in John goes like this (verse 2:15 in green):_And he found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and pigeons and the money changers sitting, and having made a whip out of cords he cast them all out of the temple, even the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the coins of the money-changers and upset the tables, and to those selling the pigeons he said: Take these hence, don't make the house of my father a house of commerce._
καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 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, καὶ τοῖς τὰς περιστερὰς πωλοῦσιν εῖπεν· ἆρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου.​As far as the whip, I don't see any _explicit_ mention that he actually whipped anyone.  I'm really splitting hairs here, but the verb ἐξέβαλεν itself technically doesn't give us much information about _how_ he cast everyone out.  But of course why would the whip be mentioned in John at all unless it was involved somehow?   Anyway, I think the specific manner in which he actually used the whip he had made is pretty open to interpretation.

So those are my thoughts.  Now let's wait and see what our _real_ Biblical Greek experts think....


----------



## tfj

Thanks for your feedback, Kevman, and it's the consensus among Bible translators, by the way -- that is, Jesus used the whip on both the humans and the animals. This is the way Jesus is portrayed in the movies (see esp. "The Greatest Story Ever Told") and in paintings (e.g. Rembrandt and el Greco): righteous wrath poured out on the greedy moneychangers. The problem is it makes Jesus the mother of all hypocrites. Didn't He preach love your enemies, turn the other cheek, resist ye not evil, etc., etc.?  

This is not a forum to debate bible hermeneutics, of course, but couldn't this issue be decided once and for all by Greek grammarians? I would be very much interested and thankful to hear from a Greek native speaker. Perhaps you could give me the email address of a professor of Greek language and literature in Greece who I could ask for help?  

Then again the Greek grammar could be intentionally ambiguous, that is, it could be translated / interpreted either way, kind of like a Rorschach Inkblot Test.  Those who think violence is justified will translate one way, and those who don't the other. Preconceptions guide the translators pen, subconsciously, invisibly, so to speak. Traduttore Traditore anyone?


----------



## Kevman

Hi tfj,

I'm not sure if the issue _can_ be settled purely grammatically.  There's no apparent specification of how or technically even _whether_ he used the whip on anyone at all.  The whip and πάντας are in separate little clauses:
1) "having made a whip out of cords" (ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων)
and
2) "he cast them all out of the temple" (πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ).
Precisely how his having made the whip is related to the casting out is not specified grammatically--the text merely mentions that he had made a whip.  I think it's fairly indisputable that the _casting out_, at least, applies to men and beasts alike, but the exact role of the whip in all of this would seem to me to be a more semantic or interpretive conclusion, and such ambiguity may have indeed been intentional.

Looking at the King James Version and the Lutherbibel, both render ἐξέβαλεν as "he drove out," which when combined with the mention of the whip certainly seems to _imply_ that he whipped them like cattle or something.  Not that "drove out" isn't among the legitimate translations of that verb, but the root verb βάλλω primarily means "to throw," which is where I got my more 'neutral' interpretation.  Indeed, Luther also used "he drove out" in Matthew 21:12, which seems to me a little more 'neutral' without the whip imagery, whereas the KJV went with "cast out" in that verse, like I did.  I guess the question is whether the juxtaposition of the whip in John was _intended_ to conjure the image of Jesus whipping and driving the people like cattle, but as far as the words written on the page in black and white, I think that image is implied rather than explicit.

Anyway, there are members of this forum (Greek and English native speakers alike) who are more knowledgeable about these things than I am, and perhaps they'll be along soon to either confirm my impressions or else tell us where I've gone wrong.


----------



## tfj

Thanks again, Kevman, especially for mentioning Luther, who later in his life became an hysterical anti-Semite (see his "On the Jews and their Lies").
 
Hitler in "Mein Kampf" said Luther was one of the three men he admired the most. In a speech on April 12, 1922, Hitler, who was fond of being photographed carrying a whip, said: "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage [John 2:15] which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the *scourge* to *drive out* of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."
The Greek word for cast or drive out ἐξέβαλεν could just as easily be translated "sent away" (in BDAG: 2. "to cause to go or remove from a position [without force], send out / away, release, bring out"), so translation decisions (granted the ambiguity in this verse, as you say) are of great significance. To translate in a way suggesting Jesus used the whip directly on the humans would, as I said before, make him the mother of all hypocrites, not to mention give some comfort to those with misanthropic intentions.
Did Hitler merely exploit the New Testament, and especially John, for his own nefarious ends, and would have done the same, regardless of how Luther translated John 2:15?  We'll never know, of course. Most modern English Bibles translate John's frequent use of "the Jews" as "the Jewish leaders," though inconsistently, to be frank. But there is acknowledgment among contemporary Bible translators that the way certain verses are translated can have lethal repercussions.


----------



## titinadoug

As a native greek speaker, but no way as a Bible expert, I would say that in greek, ancient as well as modern, the adjectives that refer to more than one nouns, of which at least one is of masculine gender, are set in masculine gender too. In any case, there is no doubt for me that in the passage  in question  *πάντας *refers to absolutelly *all *present in the temple, beasts as well as men.


----------



## tfj

Thanks, titinadoug, for your timely help. It takes a native speaker to settle these matters authoritatively. The Cleansing of the Temple incident is disturbing, to put it mildly.  I just downloaded the Eastern/Greek Orthodox translation of the NT, and the verse is translated exactly as you say: the whip was used on all those present in the temple. This is indeed depressing, for the reasons I cited in a previous post. I suppose in desperation you could say that Greek was not John's native tongue (Aramaic), and that he garbled the phrase, but no one would buy this ruse, of course.


----------



## ateaofimdomar

Actually, the way the text is written is open to interpretation, as many other passages of the NT, due to various reasons, the most prominent of which is that we can't be sure of what exactly was meant when written or if the text has been copied wrong or if the ambiguity is intentional etc. etc.

Kevman explains it very well.


----------



## tfj

Thanks, ateaofimdomar, for your kind input. I don't want to prolong this thread unnecessarily, but just one final question, please, just to make sure (Greek is still Greek to me, so pretend you are explaining this to a four- year-old):

Can't the phrase

, τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας , 

be taken as an appositive? That is, instead of commas perhaps dashes would be more suitable (as in Weymouth's NT)? None other than the great R. Bultmann (albeit a non-Greek native speaker) remarked that "both the sheep and the oxen" in 2:15 was a case of "clumsy" (_schlechte_) apposition (a poor apposition to the Greek for "all"), though he thought it was an editorial addition or insertion, perhaps to suggest that it was the animals and not the humans Jesus was taking his rage out on, so to speak (I'm tempted to say "beating the be-Jesus out of," the image we get in the movies or in paintings -- a false image perhaps due to an improperly nuanced translation?). True, πάντας is masculine, but so is the Greek for "the oxen," and in 2:14 the order is reversed (as if this matters). Don't forget, when it comes to Greek grammar, you are dealing here with a four-year-old.
 
Perhaps I am grasping at straws here (did Jesus really have a temple tantrum here?), but is the matter *from a* *Greek grammar standpoint* an absolute certainty? That is, must the "all" in 2:15 refer to the sellers mentioned in 2:14, and not just (only) to "the oxen" and "sheep" which follow in 2:15?  I appreciate you patient indulgence.


----------



## wonderment

tfj said:


> Perhaps I am grasping at straws here (did Jesus really have a temple tantrum here?), but is the matter *from a* *Greek grammar standpoint* an absolute certainty?



A literal translation: 

και ποιησας φραγελλιον εκ σχοινιων παντας εξεβαλεν εκ του ιερου τα τε προβατα και τους βοας 

And having made a whip out of cords he drove all from the temple sheep and cattle.​
The English reflects the ambiguity of the original _koine_ Greek. In English, as in Greek, “all” can refer to both humans and animals, especially given the previous verse. What is less ambiguous (but perhaps more problematic because it’s been mistranslated many times, and not just in the English version) is the phrase τα τε προβατα και τους βοας (sheep and oxen). τε...και are correlative conjunctions; they serve as a unit to join complements that are either alike or opposite. While τε...τε and και...και can be translated as “both...and” τε...και is a weaker pairing and so should be translated as “and”. τε is not always translable, and sometimes it simply signals that you have a και coming up. (See this link for a more extensive discussion on the syntax of the particle τε ) What the Greek does not say is “...he drove all from the temple and the sheep and cattle.” (That’s one too many and’s.) So yes, you can take τα τε προβατα και τους βοας as an apposition to παντας. But that doesn’t make παντας unambiguous given the whole context; παντας could still include the humans. 

On the issue of the text’s openness to interpretation, I fully agree with both Kevman and ateaofimdomar. All the reasons they’ve already articulated seem very sensible and thoughtful to me.


----------



## tfj

Thanks, wonderment, for the wonderful post. At home I happen to have a copy of Smyth's "A Greek Grammar for Colleges," and earlier this morning I happen to look at the very page you referred to in the link. But soon all the dense erudition there made my head spin, and I had to lie down. Will we ever see the likes of "Ancient Greek Grammar for Dummies"?

Two quick questions, if you don't mind. I read in one of the Greek lexicons that comes with BibleWorks 7.0, that, in regard to the correlative conjunction τε ... και, "... the member [in 2:15 τους βοας] with και is the more emphatic." I also read somewhere that because "oxen" is masculine, it "could" take priority over neuter and feminine nouns, even though it follows in the series. I'm not making this up. Is this kosher, and if so, could this explain why παντας is masculine? 

Also, in the Codex Sinaiticus, the τε is omitted. Would this have much affect on the subsequent English translation?


----------



## orthophron

tfj said:


> Can't the phrase
> , τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας , be taken as an appositive?


 
*Use of word **«πάντας»** (masc pl acc), **without article*
If there is no noun to qualify, in the same clause,“πάντας” *EITHER* :

*1*. leads us to expect an interpretation, *UNLESS* it has already been given to us (as in the extract we're talking about: τοὺς πωλοῦντας…, τοὺς κερματιστάς... dealers, money-changers...) *OR*:

*2*. means "everybody", refers to people, crowd, men or women.
*example* Actions 11-23
καὶ παρεκάλει πάντας τῇ προθέσει τῆς καρδίας προσμένειν τῷ Κυρίῳ
... and asked everybody to wait for the Lord...

I am of the opinion that if a pronoun in plural like "πάντες" (all) or "ούτοι" (these) refers to *persons* of both sexes then the masculine form predominates. *BUT* I cannot say this if the pronoun qualifies *things/animals* of different grammatical genders. You can see examples in next paragraphs.

*«πάντα» **(neuter, pl) without article*
“πάντα”(neuter pl) either qualifies a noun of neuter gender in plural, or more than one nouns (objects/animals/situations etc.) of any gender/number (mainly when pronoun and nouns are not in the same clause).

*example 1* Seirach 39-29 
πῦρ (n) καὶ χάλαζα (f) καὶ λιμὸς (m) καὶ θάνατος (m), πάντα (n pl) ταῦτα (n pl) εἰς ἐκδίκησιν ἔκτισται 
fire, hail, starvation and death, they all exist for punishment...
It is an apposition where "ταῦτα" and "πάντα" refer to masc, fem and neuter nouns. It don't think it could be "πάντες ούτοι" (m pl); I mean there is no predomination of masculine.

*example 2* Chronicles B 29-32
καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῆς ὁλοκαυτώσεως, ἧς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡ ἐκκλησία, μόσχοι (m pl) ἑβδομήκοντα, κριοὶ (m pl) ἑκατόν, ἀμνοὶ (m pl) διακόσιοι· εἰς ὁλοκαύτωσιν Κυρίῳ πάντα ταῦτα (n)...
... and the amount of the "sacrifice offer" was calfs 70, rams 100, lambs 200; they all were for sacrifice...
It is not an apposition, but the pronouns "πάντα ταῦτα" (n pl) refer to three masc nouns in plural.

*Omitting a verb*

Anybody that speaks english can read the greek grammar in english on-line and may bump into the rule of omitting a verb when implied. Let's read the same happening as described by Math (21-12)
Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ἱερόν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐξέβαλε πάντας τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν κατέστρεψε καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστεράς [κατέστρεψε]*,13 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς...
.... and also the tables he destroyed and the desks ...[destroyed]*....

* word "κατέστρεψε" is implied and thus omitted.

So the *the lack of the verb* in the clause «τα τε πρόβατα και τους βόας» *does not mean* that it is an apposition/interpretation of “πάντας” of previous clause.

As a conclusion, the answer to "tfj's" question is no, I do not see indication of apposition.
So good so far?
_________________________________________________ 
Oh! I almost forgot it. About the meaning of "*εκβάλλω*"
If anybody thinks "εκβάλλω" cannot be "innocent" at all I ‘ll cite an extract from Luke 8-54 (greek language of the same era) to see how Jesus led out the people from the sick child's room.
Luke 8-54
αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλὼν ἔξω πάντας καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς ἐφώνησε λέγων · Ἡ παῖς, ἐγείρου
after he ...* ... everybody out and held her hand he said "girl get up".
* anybody willing to help me fill the gap?

What I would say is *if you pour out the coins* of the money-changers and *upset the tables* and drive the sheep and the oxen out, you *force* their owners to go out. Common sense, isn't it?


----------



## tfj

Thanks, orthophron, for your detailed contribution, but I'm afraid I don't understand. As I said, I am dumb as a post when it comes to Greek grammar, but I'll read and re-read your post and see if I can figure it out. 

I really appreciate this forum, but I hope the experts will try a little harder to make their explanations a little easier to understand.


----------



## wonderment

tfj said:


> I read in one of the Greek lexicons that comes with BibleWorks 7.0, that, in regard to the correlative conjunction τε ... και, "... the member [in 2:15 τους βοας] with και is the more emphatic." I also read somewhere that because "oxen" is masculine, it "could" take priority over neuter and feminine nouns, even though it follows in the series. I'm not making this up. Is this kosher, and if so, could this explain why παντας is masculine?



tfj,

I think orthophon is right. τα τε προβατα και τους βοας can’t be in apposition to παντας because the rule of adjective agreement doesn’t allow it. The rule that the masculine grammatical gender predominates applies only to _persons_, not animals and things. In a series of nouns of different genders, the adjective is commonly masculine if one of the nouns is a masculine _person_. The adjective is commonly neuter if the nouns are _things_, regardless of the grammatical gender of those nouns. (Smyth )

The “sheep and cattle” can only be in apposition to “all” if we change παντας to παντα. As written, παντας has to include the humans:

και ποιησας φραγελλιον εκ σχοινιων παντας εξεβαλεν εκ του ιερου τα τε προβατα και τους βοας
And having made a whip out of cords he drove them all out of the temple (along with) the sheep and cattle.

What seems to be missing is not a verb, but some sort of “and” (_και_). I see now why people would want to translate τα τε προβατα και τους βοας as “and the sheep and cattle” or “along with the sheep and cattle”—it reads better than a strictly literal translation, and paradoxically is more accurate (it seems) because the literal translation can mislead by suggesting an apposition. 



> Also, in the Codex Sinaiticus, the τε is omitted. Would this have much affect on the subsequent English translation?


I don't see how it would.


----------



## Kevman

Hi, me again. 



orthophron said:


> Luke 8-54
> αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλὼν ἔξω πάντας καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς ἐφώνησε λέγων · Ἡ παῖς, ἐγείρου
> after he ...* ... everybody out and held her hand he said "girl get up".
> * anybody willing to help me fill the gap?


Personally I'd say _But he, kicking everybody out, and having taken her hand, called, saying: girl, get up_, but that's a little bit modern colloquial. 
"_Shooing out_" is an even milder version.  Maybe simply "_sending out_," or even "_expelling_" would work, too.  Clearly, though, no one is getting beaten up here.

I also still think it's instructive to compare the description from Matthew 21:12, where, with the reference to the whip removed, even Luther's "drove out" ("_trieb hinaus_") carries no implication of whipping or beating (that I know of, anyway--if you're mainly concerned with Hitler's interpretation of Luther you may want to ask in the German forum whether the transitive verb *treiben* has any inherent connotation of "whipping," but I'm pretty sure it just means the same as English "drive," or maybe "force" or "impel").



tfj said:


> must the "all" in 2:15 refer to the sellers mentioned in 2:14, and not just (only) to "the oxen" and "sheep" which follow in 2:15?


Here's an additional contextual way to look at it: Since "πάντας...τὰ τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας" are all objects of the verb ἐξέβαλεν, regardless of the amount of force or violence you associate with the expulsion, your question really boils down to whether Jesus threw all the people and animals out of the temple or only the animals (and hey what about those pigeons?!).  If only the animals were being cleared out then it follows that the people would have remained in the temple, which is contradicted by Matthew's version of the story (as well as orthophron's common sense argument ).


----------



## orthophron

Kevman said:


> (and hey what about those pigeons?!)


Remember that birds have wings; you cannot confront them anyway! 
But after such disturbance they must have been the fisrt to fly away.


----------



## berndf

Kevman said:


> ...if you're mainly concerned with Hitler's interpretation of Luther you may want to ask in the German forum whether the transitive verb *treiben* has any inherent connotation of "whipping," but I'm pretty sure it just means the same as English "drive," or maybe "force" or "impel").


Correct _treiben_ means _to drive_ in general and in particular it is what a herdsman does with his animals. No particular connotation of using a whip.


----------



## tfj

Thanks Kevman and berndf, you are both a big help. I'm glad someone introduced me to this excellent forum.

As I understand it, this the consensus of the experts so far:

a) πάντας certainly includes the humans and (also) the animals, 
b) there is no explicit mention (grammatically or otherwise) that the whip was used on the humans or the animals (it is left up to the imagination [intentionally?], but therein lies the danger), 
c) ἐξέβαλεν is preferably translated "drove out" (though "sent out" would be acceptable, and 
d) the τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας phrase is not appositive, though admittedly ambiguous (I am still a little confused on this point, though).

I am still left wondering why Jesus went through the trouble of making a whip. I realize this is off topic for such a forum, but (assuming  the gospels are accepted as historically true) Jesus had the power to calm storms, drive out unclean spirits, raise the dead, and so on, simply by the power of his voice, by the words from his mouth.  But as I said, this is way off topic and suitable for discussion in other forums.

Be that as it may, thanks for all your help.


----------



## orthophron

tfj
It seems to me that you had prepared this last post before posting your first one, regardless of the answers you 'd receive in the meantime...


----------



## tfj

Huh? orthophron, how could you say such an absurd and insulting thing? I realize English is not your native tongue, but in my last post I summarized what the experts on this forum posted, and not my opinions. I asked these questions out of ignorance. Good grief! To repeat: how could you say such an absurd thing?

So if I summarized the consensus of the experts incorrectly, then where is my mistake? Good grief!


----------



## wonderment

tfj,

These are legitimate questions, and for what it’s worth, I don’t think the issue has been resolved definitively from a purely textual viewpoint. 

και ποιησας φραγελλιον εκ σχοινιων παντας εξεβαλεν εκ του ιερου τα τε προβατα και τους βοας
And having made a whip out of cords he drove them all out of the temple (along with) the sheep and cattle.​What is in parentheses has been supplied by me; without it you would have a strictly literal translation. The text feels corrupt without an additional και (and), and makes it tempting to take τα τε προβατα και τους βοας as an apposition. But just as it’s possible that a scribe left out a και, it’s also conceivable that he inadvertently added a ς to παντα instead. And in my opinion, the reading with παντα gives more narrative coherence to the sequence of events in John 2:14-16:

In the temple, Jesus finds the moneychangers and sellers of sheeps, cattle and pigeons. He makes a whip to herd all the sheep and cattle out, overturns the moneychangers’ tables, and tells the pigeon sellers to take the birds away.  ​These actions disrupt business-as-usual and effectively cause the buyers and sellers to leave as well. Everybody gets a tongue-lashing, but nobody needs to be beaten.

Hope this helps


----------



## tfj

Thanks, wonderment. By the way, I have no idea what provoked orthophron to say what he did in his last post. I can assure you that I came to this forum looking for advice, and not confirmation for whatever preconceptions or biases I may have.

I checked all the manuscript evidence and they all have πάντας. It's a slippery slope, of course, to posit scribal mistakes, esp. in this very important verse, so I will just deal with the text as it is.

As you undoubtedly know, two of the earliest MSS -- P66 and P75 -- have ὡς φραγέλλιον, a "kind of whip," which many commentators alledge was added to "tone down" Jesus' behavior (overturning tables, scattering coins, and [perhaps] whipping people and animals right and left, as portrayed in, as far as I know, all Hollywood movies), which suggests that to the early Christians this verse stuck out like a sore thumb.


----------



## orthophron

> καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, 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, ...





> It has been said earlier: παντας has to include the humans


I think there is something to clarify:
We do not have a series of nouns qualified by “πάντας” as indefinite *adjective* (or should I call it indefinite determiner?).
“πάντας” here is indefinite *pronoun*, it stands alone, refers to humans only.
examples
... πάντα τα πρόβατα και τους βόας ->… all sheep and oxen (all: indef det)
... πάντα, τα πρόβατα και τους βόας ->… all (of them) - sheep and oxen (all: indef pron; the “comma” signals the apposition).
… πάντας, τα τε πρόβατα και τους βόας -> …all (of them) as well as sheep and oxen 
(all: indef pron referring to certain people obviously mentioned before).
______________________________________________________________



> tfj is wondering: "how could you say such an absurd thing?"


Because you surprised me dear. On the one hand I had the feeling that there was somebody here, 4 years old, with the patience to attend a class of greek grammar (which is time consuming). But on the other hand there is a hurry to close the thread saying sth like “I do not understand, thank you for not been able to change my mind”. Yeah, that’s the idea. I may be wrong. Sorry.

I ended my first post with the question “so good so far?” before going on with the discussion of “τε... και” structure, waiting for your reply first and since it all still seemed to look completely greek to you, I had started collecting more indicative examples when ...  ... you suddenly gathered conclusions so fast!
I personally find this topic interesting and I 'd expect a real expert to dedicate his slot to correcting us all (I mean grammatically). But it is Friday and a bit windy; time for real surfing isn't it?
See you


----------



## berndf

orthophon,

your detailed arguments are at times difficult to follow (please do not understand this to be a criticism) and I find it quite natural that tfj tried to relate the arguments presented so far back to his problem with this particular sentence. 

I also find it understandable that he tries to establish what already consensus view in this thread is and what not. I, being a novice to Greek myself, just like tfj, would at that point in time also not have been aware that you do not (yet) concur with his conclusions.

So, give him at least the benefit of the doubt.



Bernd


----------



## Outsider

Can some input from a total layman (in Biblical studies as well as in Greek) be of any help?



wonderment said:


> A literal translation:
> 
> και ποιησας φραγελλιον εκ σχοινιων παντας εξεβαλεν εκ του ιερου τα τε προβατα και τους βοας
> 
> And having made a whip out of cords he drove all from the temple sheep and cattle.​


*Wonderment* has said, in his latest post, that the Greek here is a little off. Something seems to be missing. I can believe that, since something is certainly missing in the English version. Without looking at the context, I'd be tempted to correct the English to:

And having made a whip out of cords he drove all from the temple*,* sheep and cattle.​In other words, to interpret "sheep and cattle" as an appositive, as *Tfj* at one point suggested. This would mean that _the sheep and the cattle_ had been driven out of the temple.

But other posters who know more Greek than I have said that this is not an appositive phrase. And, anyway, one would assume that, if the sheep and the cattle were driven out of the temple, their owners would follow them in haste, so as not to lose their livelihood. All this to say that Jesus would not need to whip the sellers to drive them out. Whipping a couple of animals and causing a stampede would by itself compel the people to leave also, to go get the animals back. I'm not saying this is the _only_ possible interpretation of the passage, mind you!

Orthophron made the same point earlier, though it may have gone unnoticed, since it came at the end of a rather long post:



orthophron said:


> What I would say is *if you pour out the coins* of the money-changers and *upset the tables* and drive the sheep and the oxen out, you *force* their owners to go out. Common sense, isn't it?



Another remark of Wonderment's that caught my attention was where he seemed to say that the sentence is grammatically off; that it's missing a conjunction before "sheep and cattle". He and others have suggested this might be due to a scribal error (but which one!), but I see another possibility. John the evangelist was probably not a carefully schooled Greek intellectual. And his retelling of the events was probably based on the reports of other common people. So maybe this apparent error was actually a normal way of speaking for the men on the street, at the time.


----------



## berndf

Outsider said:


> ...but I see another possibility. John the evangelist was probably not a carefully schooled Greek intellectual. And his retelling of the events was probably based on the reports of other common people. So maybe this apparent error was actually a normal way of speaking for the men on the street, at the time.


 
To my knowledge, this is a commonly accepted view. If I remember correctly, it was Erasmus of Rotterdam who said: "In the New Testament, the Holy Ghost is writing very bad Greek."


----------



## tfj

Thanks, Outsider, but I don't think we have any other choice than to accept the Greek text as it is, because claims of scribal or authorial error lead one down a slippery slope. We are stuck with an (intentionally?) ambiguous text which was, and as I said at the very beginning, Adolf Hitler's favorite Bible verse.


----------



## wonderment

tfj said:


> As you undoubtedly know, two of the earliest MSS -- P66 and P75 -- have ὡς φραγέλλιον, a "kind of whip," which many commentators alledge was added to "tone down" Jesus' behavior...which suggests that to the early Christians this verse stuck out like a sore thumb.


Actually, I didn't know  Have you looked at a facsimile of the earliest extant NT manuscript? It's stunning (see here and here)--all caps and no word division. All the things we take for granted in a print culture--punctuation, accents, and breathing marks--were a later invention (I don't know how late).



orthophron said:


> I think there is something to clarify:
> We do not have a series of nouns qualified by “πάντας” as indefinite *adjective* (or should I call it indefinite determiner?).


That is clear from context and translation. Still, the rule of (predicate) adjective agreement which I cited in post #14 is applicable. You can think of πάντας and πάντα as adjectives acting as a nouns:

πάντας = “all men”, “all men and women”, or “all men, women and things,” ect...depending on context.
πάντα = “all things”, “all animals”, “all children” (neuter in Greek), ect...depending on context​


> “πάντας” here is indefinite *pronoun*, it stands alone, refers to humans only.


Technically, it could refer to both humans and animals because the verse that comes before mentions moneychangers, sellers, sheep, cattle and pigeons. But in context I would agree; it makes more sense to say “he drove out all the people along with the sheep and cattle.”   



berndf said:


> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe this apparent error was actually a normal way of speaking for the men on the street, at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, this is a commonly accepted view. If I remember correctly, it was Erasmus of Rotterdam who said: "In the New Testament, the Holy Ghost is writing very bad Greek."
Click to expand...

Irreverent Erasmus! Actually, compared to classical authors (whom I greatly admire), I find NT Greek refreshingly clear and accessible precisely because it's closer to the language of everyday life and speaks to ordinary people (like me ).

In any case, you all have convinced me that πάντας is not a scribal error, and since orthophron has shown unambiguously that "sheep and cattle" is not an appositive, I have no problem accepting that τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας means “as well as the sheep and cattle.”


----------



## tfj

Thanks again, wonderment. I think there is finally light at the end of the tunnel and thanks to the input from the experts this thread has reached a conclusion, though in my case it's a little dark and depressing because I was hoping the "all" referred only to the animals, but such is life, unless, ala deus ex machina, some Greek grammar expert on this forum comes up with a long-forgotten Greek grammar rule, and saves the day!

I deeply appreciate all those who contributed their thoughts and comments on this Greek passage. This forum is truly an invaluable resource. If I could make one suggestion it would be this: try to make your grammar explanations as easy to understand as possible. You are the teachers, and we are the learners, so please have mercy on us.


----------



## Kevman

tfj said:


> it's a little dark and depressing because I was hoping the "all" referred only to the animals,


Aw, cheer up, tfj.

I believe your real problem was never with the "all" at all, but rather with the act of whipping, and I think we've demonstrated that that is merely inferred by some readers and not explicit in the actual text after all.


----------



## tfj

Amen to that, Kevman. Case closed.


----------

