***UPDATE #2: SEE BOTTOM OF POST***
In Rob Bell’s Nooma 016: Store he brings up some interesting points on anger. Much of what he says is good: we shouldn’t be so quick to get angry when we look at the wider world and realize just how small our problems are in the big scope of things. It’s a good point.
But then Rob does something that has become somewhat of a staple of his work: he attempts to use Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or ancient history to add validity to his point. The great irony in Rob’s use of these things is that is usually works in the opposite direction: his use of Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or ancient history actually undermine his main point by being completely wrong.
Case in point: in this Nooma Rob goes on to say:
And then, the Bible says [in Mark 3:5] that Jesus looked around at them in anger. Jesus gets angry. Now this story was first told in the Greek language, and there’s a subtle nuance to this word “anger” in the Greek language. It’s in what’s called the aorist tense, which is a technical way of saying that Jesus’ anger is a temporary feeling. It comes on him, and then it leaves him.
If you take the time to look at the Greek of this passage, you will notice at least two things that Rob has wrong here:
1) The term “anger” is not a verb, but a feminine genitive noun (ὀργῆς). Yet Rob parses this noun as an aorist tense verb. There are four aorists in this passage (περιβλεψάμενος [looked around], ἔκτεινον [stretch out], ἐξέτεινεν [stretched out], and ἀπεκατεστάθη [restored]), but notice that none of them are the noun anger (ὀργῆς).
2) The aorist tense is not “a technical way of saying” that something is temporary and then leaves. As Daniel Wallace points out, the aorist tense is concerned with the occurrence in summary without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 554-65). In this case, the aorist verb Rob seems to be referring to is actually an aorist participle περιβλεψάμενος [looked around], which means that the aorist participle refers to an action that happened prior to the action of the main verb (in this case λέγει [said]). To put it simply, the aorist tense affects how we understand the action of Jesus ‘looking around,’ not how we understand his anger.
Rob often has some very good insights and no one can deny his skill as a communicator. I just wish that he would be more careful in his use of Biblical languages and ancient historical sources.
Perhaps Rob would enjoy this video made by some students at Biola entitled All Things are Better in Koine.
UPDATE #2: I just became aware of Andrew Naselli’s blog, which looks like a blog worth adding to your RSS reader. It seems that Andrew beat me to the punch on this point as he pointed to Rob’s mistakes earlier last week. I would say ‘great minds think alike,’ but it seems that Andrew would be the only one to whom the term ‘great mind’ would refer to! Well done Andrew. A good reminder to always Google your blog ideas before you post to make sure someone hasn’t already said what you want to say.
16 January 2009 at 9.21 am
Art – to your points, absolutely. He does seem to misunderstand how to use the greek text here.
However, wouldn’t the use of “meta” (most often rendered “with” when paired with a genitive) with the noun orge (anger) make it an adjectival use of the noun modifying the participle parablepw? So one could say (if they were a bit more technically precise) that the looking around is contextually an angry looking around.
Of course, the second point is absolutely right, the aorist rarely carries any special connotation and even when it does it doesnt ever mean “a temporary state which is soon to change” or any such nonsense.
Pax Christi…Nick
16 January 2009 at 9.31 am
Nick: I agree that μετ’ ὀργῆς should be understood as conveying ‘manner’ (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 377) and functions adverbially in relationship to the participle περιβλεψάμενος so that it should be understood as “looked angrily.” It just shocked me that he specifically says that the nuance “to this word anger” is that it was in the aorist tense. It doesn’t take much to mention that the prepositional phrase “with anger” is functioning adverbially to a preceding participle. In fact, it took me about 3 minutes to look at the Greek, cross-reference with Wallace, and realize Bell was mistaken. As Bell has such a HUGE platform, I wish he would take the time to be precise and accurate so that things like this don’t come up and take the focus off his main points.
16 January 2009 at 9.34 am
ahhh.. reason #325 why i should not show my Greek knowledge (the lack there of…) in any sermon. If it is recorded or written, someone who actually knows the Greek or Hebrew will come around and need to correct me.
Thanks for the vivid reminder.
16 January 2009 at 10.05 am
art – yeah thats understandable
By the way is the use adjectival or adverbial. I never know if we should treat the participle as a verbal noun or as a verb proper when it comes to describing modifying words. I actually paused and questioned that before posting…Is it modifying “looking around” as a noun phrase and is therefore an adjective, or is it modifying a proper verb, and is an adverb. Or does it matter and is it always an adverb.
Do you know Art (or anyone else) which is preferrable?
Pax Christi…Nick
16 January 2009 at 10.26 am
Nick – Not that it makes a huge difference in your point but participles are usually described as “verbal adjectives” while infinitives are “verbal nouns.”
16 January 2009 at 10.39 am
Great to see so many former students talking Greek… warms the heart!
16 January 2009 at 11.14 am
I love the “truth bomb” art, tracy j would be proud.
16 January 2009 at 12.09 pm
Jared,
Yes, you are right, that is more precise.
So Tommy, you chimed in but didn’t answer our question. Speak O wise one…
erubesco meum magistrum…
Nick
16 January 2009 at 1.59 pm
I think I’ll take a shot at this.
I just read through a part of Wallace’s introduction to participles (612-21) and I think (unless I am misreading him, which could always be the case) that even if the participle is functioning as a noun in the sentence anything that modifies that participle would be considered an adverb.
My reasoning is that even when the participle functions as a noun, it is considered an adjectival participle functioning as a substantive in the same way that an adjective can function as a noun, but is still considered (and parsed) as an adjective.
Here’s a good example:
Galatians 6.6 — κοινωνείτω δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον τῷ κατηχοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς
“Now, the one who is taught the word” [δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον] — participle functioning as a substantive
“Must share with the one who teaches” [κοινωνείτω...τῷ κατηχοῦντι] — another participle functioning as a substantive
“(in) all good things” [ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς] —an adjective functioning substantively as a noun. It would still be considered an adjective and parsed as an adjective, even if it is functioning as a noun.
Would this be right Tommy?
16 January 2009 at 2.08 pm
What’s that clicking sound you’re hearing?
My geek meter hitting it’s peg.
16 January 2009 at 2.10 pm
I am not sure why substantival use would make any difference but certainly adverbs and adjectives can both modify another adjective (at least in english.)
This may be a second level of problem with the question, because I am really asking an english grammar question not a Greek grammar question. However I will defer to your reading of wallace until I hear otherwise.
Pax Christi…Nick
16 January 2009 at 2.14 pm
Pardon, I am wrong.
On further consideration only an adverb can modify an adjective, so assuming that the substantival is a noun its possible to be both, assuming its an adjective then the use is adverbial.
Nick
16 January 2009 at 2.20 pm
The reason I brought up the substantive is because the other functions of a participle are adjective, adverb, and verb, which all take adverbial modifiers. It would only make sense for an adjective to modify a noun. But in the case of a participle, even when it is functioning as a noun, it is still considered as and parsed as a substantival verbal adjective…which would mean that it could only be modified by an adverb…right?
We need the Greek professor to help us out.
16 January 2009 at 3.59 pm
Art,
Actually, I suspect you are correct. The only possible way I could be right is if the substantive usage takes on a special circumstance because it is functioning like a noun. This would seem very odd, IMO.
If I see Dan Wallace online (which happens occasionally over at paltalk) I will ask him, however.
Nick…
16 January 2009 at 8.18 pm
Y’all were doing such a great job beating up on poor Rob that I did not feel the need to comment! But since you asked…
Art’s basic argument is correct, in my judgment.
(1) ὀργῆς is, most obviously NOT a verb, and therefore cannot be aorist, which is enough to invalidate the whole discussion. One little wrinkle is that ὀργή is a verbal noun—that is, a noun formed from a verbal idea/root. These types of nouns are usually dependent, in form and in meaning, on the aorist of the corresponding verb, and it is possible therefore to argue that they represent a deep-structure aorist verbal idea. Somehow I don’t think this is what Rob is getting at, though, and it certainly wouldn’t justify the point he is trying to make.
(2) Even if ὀργῆς was aorist, it would not validate Rob’s point, since the aorist does not indicate some kind of “snapshot” or “temporary” action. That’s a pretty outdated (pre-Aspect) understanding of the aorist. Campbell’s book would be a good place to go for this. The idea is simply that the action is being viewed as a whole, rather than in progress, etc. (Campbell uses tha analogy of viewing a parade from an overhead blimp, rather than down on the streets).
(3) So how do we translate this. Well, the participle is the center of the clause, since it is our verb. Yes, it is aorist, but again this just indicates that the “looking around” is viewed as a whole. In theory, the participle could be adjectival, adverbial, or substantival. The last of these is out because it clearly has a head noun (the subject of the main verb, λέγει, namely Jesus). So is the clause adjectival or adverbial? The latter is preferred here because of the lack of the article. So what kind of adverb? Reason makes since, but time is better. Temporal adverbial clause, then, in the aorist, so “after” or “when” (depending on the tense/idea of the main verb). I’m going with “after.”
Now to the phrase μετ᾽ὀργῆς . Prepositional phrases should be translated adverbially, unless there is a good reason not too. Good reasons include a preceeding article (none here) or that it “just doesn’t make sense” as an adverbial clause (not true here). So the μετ᾽ὀργῆς is here describing how the action of the verb takes place: Jesus looked around in anger. So all the looking around that Jesus did in the temple was angry looking. If you want to get creative, “After Jesus scowled about the temple…”, though that’s a little Living Bible for my tastes. Safer would be the NIV or NAS. Or, my translation would be: “After he looked about in anger (or angrily)”.
Well, that’s my two cents.
16 January 2009 at 8.20 pm
Thanks for clearing that up Tommy! It’s not often I am found to be basically correct!
16 January 2009 at 8.36 pm
Wow, my comments look a lot longer once they get posted. Perhaps I should try to be briefer in the future…
18 January 2009 at 5.14 pm
My reasoning is that even when the participle functions as a noun, it is considered an adjectival participle functioning as a substantive in the same way that an adjective can function as a noun, but is still considered (and parsed) as an adjective.
Art: You’re very close, but a clarification should be made that isn’t in Wallace. Adjectival participles are adjectival in that they structurally fill the same attributive positions of the adjective and carry similar argreement markings, but there is a caveat:
The participle itself is not in the attributive position, rather the participial clause is. That’s why we see BDF referring to the participle functioning as a relative clause. Murray Harris in his NIGTC 2 Corinthians commentary also mentions this at 2 Cor 1:6. But probably one of the better examples is Ephesians 4:24 where a prepositional phrase within the participial clause appears between the article and the participle:
τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας
Tommy As for Aspect, I’m extremely uncomfortable with the term “pre-aspect,” The Aspect studies in Curtius, Moulton, and Robertson from the 19th and early 20th centuries were generally on par with those of today – in fact, Campbell draws heavily from Curtius’ work from the 19th century. Historically what happened is that between the 1930s and the 1980s what was written about Aspect was both misunderstood and ignored, which resulted in the need for articles such as Stagg’s “The Abused Aorist” and all the dissertation work on Aspect of the 90′s and following. The fact is, Robertson and Moulton would be just as horrified by Bell’s comment about a temporary aorist as we are today.
18 January 2009 at 5.20 pm
[...] a comment » John Hobbins has pointed us to an interesting discussion about Rob Bell’s use of Greek in the Nooma videos (incidentally, Andy Naselli beat that [...]
18 January 2009 at 5.21 pm
Mike: Thanks for your comment and for the clarification. Your clarification was one of those ‘Oh yeah, I knew that, why didn’t I say that’ moments. Truth is that I forgot! Thanks for the reminder.
18 January 2009 at 5.45 pm
No problem. Its good post.
I hadn’t seen your blog before. I’ll be keeping an eye in my reader now on.
20 January 2009 at 12.19 pm
[...] Post: Greek 101 with Rob Bell. This comment and this comment do a good job of putting out the nuance of the Greek in Mark 3:5 if [...]
26 January 2009 at 8.12 am
[...] yourself — so that you can check the accuracy of those who use Greek in their teaching (see this discussion for a current example). Greek is often (more often than we think) used to support one’s a [...]