Skip to content

1 Timothy 5:9

cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Randall Tan wrote:One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning "x years old", while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή -- a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, "committed life-long to one husband" -- strikes me as absurd. I think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. I see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
People are duscussing the relatives strengths of the (merel hypothetical /conjectured) participles, I would like to change that emphasis. I think that the strength (or recognisability ) of the element with which the particle is used will have bearing on the tendencies for elision. If ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή was a readily recognisable laudatory epithet (as claimed) (virtually = adjectival unit) for an older woman (alive or no longer alive) then it would be less likely to need the aid of the (a) participle to bring attention to bear on it's meaning, than the variable phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα would need. I think the force of the statement ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή requires a participle that can give the force of "she has always been". The ούσα suggested above may or may not convey that, and I feel that the suggestion of γενομένη might do so, but the best would be a doubling of the γεγονυῖα. If it was doubled, then it would be lost from the strongest (independent - self-standing) element and retained by the weakest (non-independent, the one that needs help to stand, least-able-stand-by-itself) element. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 29th, 2014, 4:41 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote: So if I understand Carl correctly: ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = 60 years old ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = less than 60 years old μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = not less than 60 years old And μὴ negates the entire phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, not just ἔλαττον?
Yes, that's precisely how i understand it. I believe that the perfect ptc. with an adverbial expression indicating number of years bears the sense "X years old." Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 29th, 2014, 12:10 pm
So if I understand Carl correctly: ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = 60 years old ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = less than 60 years old μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = not less than 60 years old And μὴ negates the entire phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, not just ἔλαττον? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 29th, 2014, 11:33 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote: Thanks for your comments, Randall. I appreciate your taking a look at this, as well as your scholarship generally.
Randall Tan wrote:The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα.
I have this concern as well. I was assuming that μή has to scope over a participle (or else be οὐ), but I began to wonder whether that was just an assumption I was making. Maybe it can take scope over a smaller constituent but takes its form as μή instead of οὐ because it is within the scope of some irrealis or other kind of operator.
Randall Tan wrote: One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what this is all about. It seems to me that γεγονυῖα is an integral part of the idiomatic expression meaning "x years old", while construing γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή -- a Greek equivalent of the idiomatic Latin laudatory epithet univira, "committed life-long to one husband" -- strikes me as absurd. I think that the μὴ does qualify just the phrase ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα and that the genitive phrase is clearly a genitive of comparison construed with ἔλαττον. I see no problem with assuming an elliptical ὢν with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. I guess I must be missing something. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 29th, 2014, 7:14 am
Thanks for your comments, Randall. I appreciate your taking a look at this, as well as your scholarship generally.
Randall Tan wrote: The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα.
I have this concern as well. I was assuming that μή has to scope over a participle (or else be οὐ), but I began to wonder whether that was just an assumption I was making. Maybe it can take scope over a smaller constituent but takes its form as μή instead of οὐ because it is within the scope of some irrealis or other kind of operator.
Randall Tan wrote: One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή.
I suppose γενομένη could be supplied to get the appropriate sense. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 29th, 2014, 1:41 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote: If it were an ουκ, then I suppose it would go with ἔλαττον, because ου is less likely to go with a participle than μή and it ordinarily goes with ἔλαττον, but ου is not used here. It is unlikely that there was a conscious choice to use μή rather than ου, except that if the writer wanted to make clear that the negative was not with ἔλαττον.
I was kind of wondering whether that was going on. Note that LSJM (not the best source for grammar) says:
LSJM 1123-4 μή wrote: D. POSITION of μή. When the neg. extends its power over the whole clause, μή prop. precedes the Verb. When its force is limited to single words, it precedes those words.
If this is right, so it would behave just as ούκ would, and can scope over the just the complement, which immediately follows it in 1 Tim 5:9. But I have to say that my feel for μή is not quite as strong as that for οὐ. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 29th, 2014, 1:13 am
When Jonathan first brought this discussion to my attention, my initial impression was that our current treebank analysis "was a bug," as Jonathan suggested. As a general comment, our trees were initially generated automatically using our rule-based grammar & then were manually checked by different annotators prior to my involvement as editor. Even though I did check through the whole NT in my editorial role, I only revised the annotation in places where I noticed a definite problem. So, for any remaining problematic places, it is possible that I may have overlooked the problem or that I may have allowed an annotator's suggestion to stand (even if I personally prefer a different analysis), if I thought the suggestion was worthy of consideration (even if it should ultimately be changed after more mature reflection & discussion). We definitely appreciate your feedback to alert us to any problematic analyses in our trees. We would also appreciate suggestions for alternative analyses, where more than one analysis seems viable. After reviewing our records & looking at the text more carefully, it seems that the annotation is actually our suggestion to solve some problems we see with taking μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα together, as is commonly done. Our suggestion may not be correct & I'd be happy to revise the annotation if it becomes clear that our suggestion is untenable. The first problem we noticed was the question, "What is the scope of μή?" (much like the question posed in Stephen Carlson's initial post for this thread). Then, we also noticed similar problems to what Stephen Hughes discussed in his "April 28th, 2014, 7:02 am" post above (though we did consider taking μὴ in the sense of μήπω & γεγονυῖα in the sense of ὤν as Stephen Carlson further suggested). In addition, οὐ would have been expected over μή, if the scope of the negation was just the nominative complement ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα. Our suggestion is to still assume that μή negates a participial clause, only it is [ὤν] ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα (adverbial participial clause with elided ὤν--the first of three parallel "conditional" participial clauses, which are then followed by five parallel "conditional" clauses introduced by εἰ). Then, we take γεγονυῖα ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή together to form the second adverbial participial clause--having been (i.e., having possessed the characteristic of being) the wife of one husband (presumably this additional condition is meant to disqualify widows who had remarried & came into their current widowhood from having lost more than one husband or to disqualify widows who could be discredited as having been unfaithful to their deceased husband[s]). A final note: γεγονυῖα appears to us to make sense with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. Without γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή seems to dangle grammatically. One could assume an elided participle--but γεγονυῖα is actually what would need to be elided, not ὤν (a widow is not currently the wife of one husband)--but the contextually-easily-supplied ὤν is more likely to be elided than the more affected form γεγονυῖα in the first place. This consideration contributed further to our conclusion that ὤν was elided in relation to ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα & that γεγονυῖα belongs with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. Again, we welcome additional feedback & would be happy to revise the analysis. Thanks. P.S. Our current tree for 1 Tim 5:9 actually doesn't quite fully reflect the analysis I gave above. The analysis I gave above was the reason why I let the current tree of a previous annotator stand (because it approximated my analysis & seemed plausible too). However, instead of AdvNP & an adverbial accusative noun phrase as in the current tree, my analysis above actually would call for ADV-P & an adverbial clause. Statistics: Posted by Randall Tan — April 28th, 2014, 10:19 pm
 
cwconrad wrote: There's no accusative, but I've always assumed that this is a Greek equivalent to the Latin expression, "LX annos natus" = "60 years old"'; I take the expression μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = ἥκιστά γε ἑξήκοντα ἔτη γεγονυῖα. cf. LSJ s.v. γίγνομαι
1 of persons, to be born , … freq. with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς Hdt.1.119 ; ἀμφὶ τὰ πέντε ἢ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενόμενος X.Cyr.1.4.16 ; γεγονὼς ἔτη περὶ πεντήκοντα D. 21.154 ; οἱ ὑπὲρ τὰ στρατεύσιμα ἔτη γεγονότες those of an age beyond . ., X.Cyr.1.2.4 : c. gen., γεγονὼς πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἢ πεντήκοντα Pl.Lg. 951c , etc.: rarely with ordinals, ὀγδοηκοστὸν ἔτος γεγονώς Luc.Macr. 22 , cf. Plu.Phil.18 .
I simply took it as a "genitive of time within which..." Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — April 28th, 2014, 8:10 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:As suggested by my parenthesised "yet", it seems that you are reading the meaning of μήπω too easily into the μή, when you read the μή with the γεγονυῖα. Is that justifiable?
No, I don't think the difficulty is here. And the adverbs seem equivalent.
Perhaps in some circumstances they are. If μήπω were to have been used, it would have to be taken with the γεγονυῖα, because it goes with verbs only, not adjectives / adverbs. If it were an ουκ, then I suppose it would go with ἔλαττον, because ου is less likely to go with a participle than μή and it ordinarily goes with ἔλαττον, but ου is not used here. It is unlikely that there was a conscious choice to use μή rather than ου, except that if the writer wanted to make clear that the negative was not with ἔλαττον.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I take γεγονυῖα to mean "if she has become".
Why not "if she is"?
It is a lot to hang things on that point of interpretation of the tense. If the γεγονυῖα is taken with the negative μή and it's sense is "is", then "if she is in the state of not being less than sixty years old" makes sense, but in that case wouldn't the predicate be adjectival, or the verb be έχουσα?
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm surprised by the accusative following the ἔλαττον rather than a genitive. I think that suggests that μὴ ἔλαττον is additional to the originally intended syntax.
Huh? ἐτῶν is genitive plural and ἑξήκοντα is indeclinable. There is no accusative in sight.
Yes, you are right. That statement, that statement can be entered directly into the Stephen Hughes' dumb quotes Starwalk of infamy. Such a silly thing to say is a clear indication of how well I am acquainted with the Greek at this point.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Stephen Hughes wrote:I can't answer the question why μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα is used rather than ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα ή μείζον. If that second option (which wouldn't have this ambiguity) was available, and wasn't taken, then it might suggest that μὴ was intended to be taken with γεγονυῖα, but not necessarily.
That's not my question. Perhaps "not less than" is more idiomatic in such kinds of rule making. One would need to do a proper study of legalistic terminology, and that won't answer the original question.
I don't have the Rudder here to work with you on the study of legal phrasing. If we ignore for a moment that this is probably very fixed legal phraseology, we could rearrange it more freely as, Χήραv μή καταλέγησον ει μὴ ου ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖαν / ούσαν if that helps you see it in 3-D. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 28th, 2014, 2:40 pm
There's no accusative, but I've always assumed that this is a Greek equivalent to the Latin expression, "LX annos natus" = "60 years old"'; I take the expression μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα = ἥκιστά γε ἑξήκοντα ἔτη γεγονυῖα. cf. LSJ s.v. γίγνομαι
1 of persons, to be born , … freq. with Numerals, ἔτεα τρία καὶ δέκα γεγονώς Hdt.1.119 ; ἀμφὶ τὰ πέντε ἢ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενόμενος X.Cyr.1.4.16 ; γεγονὼς ἔτη περὶ πεντήκοντα D. 21.154 ; οἱ ὑπὲρ τὰ στρατεύσιμα ἔτη γεγονότες those of an age beyond . ., X.Cyr.1.2.4 : c. gen., γεγονὼς πλειόνων ἐτῶν ἢ πεντήκοντα Pl.Lg. 951c , etc.: rarely with ordinals, ὀγδοηκοστὸν ἔτος γεγονώς Luc.Macr. 22 , cf. Plu.Phil.18 .
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 28th, 2014, 12:48 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
1 Tim 5:9 wrote:Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη,
What is the scope of μή? The whole participial phrase, as if: "not having become less than sixty years old"? Or just the complement, as if: "having become not less than sixty years old"?
I would take it as modifying ἔλαττον, "no less than 60 years of age..." Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — April 28th, 2014, 12:14 pm
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:I read this as: (μὴ (ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα)) (not (having become less than 60 years old))
What happened to γεγονυῖα? Does this mean option 2, that μή scopes with the complement of the participle but not the participle itself? Why do you read it that way?
I think PROIEL probably has it right for this verse: (γεγονυῖα (μὴ (ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα))), which is your Option 2 ("having become not less than sixty years"). What I showed above is the part that both treebanks have in common.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:This is also the reading of the Global Bible Initiative treebank (formerly known a ABSo) and of Dag Haug's PROIEL treebank.
How can these be accessed?
The data is in github for each, if you are comfortable with XML. The PROIEL web application shows nice graphical trees per verse, you have to register. They look like this: 1tim5.9.png I have put up an HTML-based representation of the GBI trees that you can use for comparison. I don't know if any of the Alpheios folks have treebanked 1 Timothy 5:9, it's possible. It's nice to be able to compare analyses at this level.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:GBI construes γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή: (γεγονυῖα (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή))
Presumably the widow is no longer the wife of one man, so how would the perfect make sense on this parsing?
I think it's a bug. Randall may comment on this. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 28th, 2014, 12:06 pm
 
Jonathan Robie wrote: I read this as: (μὴ (ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα)) (not (having become less than 60 years old))
What happened to γεγονυῖα? Does this mean option 2, that μή scopes with the complement of the participle but not the participle itself? Why do you read it that way?
Jonathan Robie wrote: This is also the reading of the Global Bible Initiative treebank (formerly known a ABSo) and of Dag Haug's PROEIL treebank.
How can these be accessed?
Jonathan Robie wrote: GBI construes γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή: (γεγονυῖα (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή))
Presumably the widow is no longer the wife of one man, so how would the perfect make sense on this parsing?
Jonathan Robie wrote: PROEIL construes it with μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα: (γεγονυῖα (μὴ (ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα)))
Option 2, then ("having become not less than sixty years").
Jonathan Robie wrote: The punctuation for SBLGNT and 1904 Nestle both side with PROEIL here: μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή
Well, they side in the association of γενονυῖα, but they are ambiguous as to the scope of the negator. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 28th, 2014, 11:12 am
 
Stephen Hughes wrote: Forgive my low IQ, but your English sentence, "not (yet) having become less than sixty years old." seems to suggest that ages can decrease
Well, they can't. The gloss is to give you the intended scope of the negation, not a semantic analysis of every constituent. Maybe there is some wrong with one of the wooden glosses.
Stephen Hughes wrote: As suggested by my parenthesised "yet", it seems that you are reading the meaning of μήπω too easily into the μή, when you read the μή with the γεγονυῖα. Is that justifiable?
No, I don't think the difficulty is here. And the adverbs seem equivalent.
Stephen Hughes wrote: I take γεγονυῖα to mean "if she has become".
Why not "if she is"?
Stephen Hughes wrote: I'm surprised by the accusative following the ἔλαττον rather than a genitive. I think that suggests that μὴ ἔλαττον is additional to the originally intended syntax.
Huh? ἐτῶν is genitive plural and ἑξήκοντα is indeclinable. There is no accusative in sight.
Stephen Hughes wrote: I can't answer the question why μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα is used rather than ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα ή μείζον. If that second option (which wouldn't have this ambiguity) was available, and wasn't taken, then it might suggest that μὴ was intended to be taken with γεγονυῖα, but not necessarily.
That's not my question. Perhaps "not less than" is more idiomatic in such kinds of rule making. One would need to do a proper study of legalistic terminology, and that won't answer the original question. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 28th, 2014, 11:02 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
1 Tim 5:9 wrote:Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη,
What is the scope of μή? The whole participial phrase, as if: "not having become less than sixty years old"? Or just the complement, as if: "having become not less than sixty years old"?
I read this as: (μὴ (ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα)) (not (having become less than 60 years old)) This is also the reading of the Global Bible Initiative treebank (formerly known a ABSo) and of Dag Haug's PROEIL treebank. GBI construes γεγονυῖα with ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή: (γεγονυῖα (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή)) PROEIL construes it with μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα: (γεγονυῖα (μὴ (ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα))) The punctuation for SBLGNT and 1904 Nestle both side with PROEIL here: μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 28th, 2014, 10:45 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote: You confuse me, Stephen.
Forgive my low IQ, but your English sentence, "not (yet) having become less than sixty years old." seems to suggest that ages can decrease. As suggested by my parenthesised "yet", it seems that you are reading the meaning of μήπω too easily into the μή, when you read the μή with the γεγονυῖα. Is that justifiable? I take γεγονυῖα to mean "if she has become". I'm surprised by the accusative following the ἔλαττον rather than a genitive. I think that suggests that μὴ ἔλαττον is additional to the originally intended syntax. What would you take these two variations to mean had they been written instead?
  • Χήρα καταλεγέσθω ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα or
  • Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἑλάττων ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα
To me the first means that she only has a one year window of opportunity for enrollment. The second justifies taking μὴ with γεγονυῖα, but suggests that ages go down. I don't know the language or your thinking well enough to say, but my suspicion, when I wrote that thing that confused you is that to get the sense you want in "not having become less than sixty years old", it needs to be adjectival rather than adverbial, but that's part of the Greek idiom that I'm unfamiliar with. I can't answer the question why μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα is used rather than ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα ή μείζον. If that second option (which wouldn't have this ambiguity) was available, and wasn't taken, then it might suggest that μὴ was intended to be taken with γεγονυῖα, but not necessarily. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 28th, 2014, 10:02 am
 
1 Tim 5:9 wrote: Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη,
What is the scope of μή? The whole participial phrase, as if: "not having become less than sixty years old"? Or just the complement, as if: "having become not less than sixty years old"? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — April 28th, 2014, 7:50 am