I think I'd call this a demonstrative rather than a relative usage of the pronoun. Moreover, ἐσμεν is the original 1 pl. of the verb (εἰμεν results from loss of the σ with compensatory lengthening). Aratus is, to be sure, Hellenistic, but he writes deliberately in the Homeric Kunstsprache of epic dialect. The particular reason why this poem, the Φαινόμενα, was so popular is evidently its usefulness to the vast number of Hellenistic people concerned with knowing the night sky well enough to use astrological lore. As for the demonstrative ὄ ἥ τό, that is, of course, the original function of this pronoun; it survives in Hellenistic Greek in several usages. See BDF §§249-251, Ὁ ἡ τό AS A PRONOUN. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 15th, 2017, 9:31 amStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 15th, 2017, 4:38 amBesides the emplyment of the fossilised ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ ... etc structural markers, is this τοῦ in the quotation of Aratus the only NT example of ὁ employed as a relative? As the opening lines of one of the most widely read (and perhaps studied and recited), copied and translated verse works of antiquity, it is likely that it would have been recognised in situ by educated readers as a text employing the epic relative, rather than following the Attic / Koine habit of using αὐτός. Here are the opening few lines of the Phaenomena with the examples of the relative pronominally used ὁ emboldened and encolorated.Acts 17:28 (part) wrote:Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν.Aratus, Phaenomena, 1-7a wrote:ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί, πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες. τοῦ γάρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν: ὁ δ᾽ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισιν 5 δεξιὰ σημαίνει, λαοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἐγείρει, μιμνῄσκων βιότοιο,On τοῦ surviving redaction during the transmission process or being misquoted and εἰμέν being standardised to ἐσμέν at some point of time, there are a number of possible hypotheses that might explain that, from popularist quotations, or various paths to conformity to the style of the NT's genre.Phaenomena, translated by G. R. Mair, Loeb, 1921 wrote:[1] From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood.
Besides the emplyment of the fossilised ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ ... etc structural markers, is this τοῦ in the quotation of Aratus the only NT example of ὁ employed as a relative? As the opening lines of one of the most widely read (and perhaps studied and recited), copied and translated verse works of antiquity, it is likely that it would have been recognised in situ by educated readers as a text employing the epic relative, rather than following the Attic / Koine habit of using αὐτός. Here are the opening few lines of the Phaenomena with the examples of the relative pronominally used ὁ emboldened and encolorated.Acts 17:28 (part) wrote:Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν.
Aratus, Phaenomena, 1-7a wrote:ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί, πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες. τοῦ γάρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν: ὁ δ᾽ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισιν 5 δεξιὰ σημαίνει, λαοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἐγείρει, μιμνῄσκων βιότοιο,
On τοῦ surviving redaction during the transmission process or being misquoted and εἰμέν being standardised to ἐσμέν at some point of time, there are a number of possible hypotheses that might explain that, from popularist quotations, or various paths to conformity to the style of the NT's genre. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 15th, 2017, 4:38 amPhaenomena, translated by G. R. Mair, Loeb, 1921 wrote:[1] From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood.
Is any body interested to work through maybe a hundred lines of this is some form or another in this thread? Here are the first four lines that set the background for the Biblical quote (together with a few pointers that I think might be helpful):
ἀρχώμεσθα - let's begin hortative subjunctive, ie. an invitation to join somebody in an action or endeavour that thay are undertaking or planning to undertake τὸν ... ἐάω ... ἄρρητον - I let him be ..., I am leaving him to be ... a verb with two accusatives ἄρρητος - not spoken of In speaking of his rapture, the Apostle uses ἄρρητος to describe what he heard in heaven - 2 Corrinthians 12:4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα, ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. μεστός - (stuffed) full adjective + genitive of what sth is filled with. It is used in the NT and survives into Modern Greek. ἀγοραί - markets where people mean for commerce and social interaction, or the interactions that take place Διὸς - of Zeus the meaning is the pantheistic all pervading world-soul, rather than the fickle olympian ἀγυιαί - streets, highways a mostly Epic word that does not survive into Modern Greek λιμήν - harbour the word is third declension masculine. It is used three times in the New Testament. As an illustration of the Modern Greek diglossia, it survives into literary Modern Greek as λιμένας, and has developed into colloquial Modern Greek as λιμάνι. πάντη - in every way, altogether An adverbial form. It is used by Luke in Acts 24:2-3, Κληθέντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, ἤρξατο κατηγορεῖν ὁ Τέρτυλλος λέγων, Πολλῆς εἰρήνης τυγχάνοντες διὰ σοῦ, καὶ κατορθωμάτων γινομένων τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ διὰ τῆς σῆς προνοίας, 3 πάντῃ τε καὶ πανταχοῦ ἀποδεχόμεθα, κράτιστε Φῆλιξ, μετὰ πάσης εὐχαριστίας. κεχρήμεθα - we long for (From LSJ χράω) in pf. κέχρημαι (with pres. sense) c. gen., desire, yearn after, the usual sense in Ep. Any responses, translations or queries for me or the greater brains trust? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — May 20th, 2017, 3:44 amAratus Solensis, Phaenomena, 1-4 wrote:ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί, πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες.
This is a matter of what is called "compensatory lengthening": cf. Smyth §§768 (& 768D) for forms of εἰμί, §§37-38 for compensatory lengthening: in this instance, the σ of the original form ἐσμέν functioned with the short-vowel ε and the two consonants σ and μ to make the syllable -εσμ- quantitatively (prosodically) long, but when the σ stopped being pronounced, the ε lengthened to the "spurious diphthong" ει to retain the quantitative length of the syllable in pronunciation and prosody. Something comparable to that takes place in the pronunciation of -ar- in New England/Boston: "Harvard Yard" is pronounced by native Bostonians as "Hah-vahd Yahd" with the "a) seeming unnaturally long. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 21st, 2017, 4:36 amStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 20th, 2017, 1:23 pmI really feel that I lost the concept of versification in my 51 marks, 1 mark wwasted approach to study. Now in my 50th year, I am a little less headstrong, and if you'd care to set out just this, I might be ready to lsten, if you'd like to explain, I'd be okay.
I really feel that I lost the concept of versification in my 51 marks, 1 mark wwasted approach to study. Now in my 50th year, I am a little less headstrong, and if you'd care to set out just this, I might be ready to lsten, if you'd like to explain, I'd be okay. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 20th, 2017, 1:23 pm
An interesting question and one on which I must confess I'm confused: εἰμέν is unquestionably secondary to -- contracted from -- ἐσμέν, but εἰμέν is evidently the more common Homeric form. It may very well be that when the text is cited with the form εἰμέν the author knows this is the Homeric form, but I don't know for sure whether that's the case. Metrically it makes no difference, since either form will function here as a trochee before the third-foot caesura in the hexameter lineStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 10:27 pmAbout the ἐσμέν. Whether 1.) Paul used a slightly modified quotation with ἐσμέν instead of εἰμέν, 2.) this was a street-level popular (mis-)quotation, or 3.) the early redaction / transmission of Luke / Acts "standardised" the epic εἰμέν to the Koine form ἐσμέν, from the point of view of this text we have: How is / Is the versification affected by the change from εἰμέν to ἐσμέν?
That is to say, the form εῖμεν displays the diphthong ει which is metrically long as the original εσμ was "long by position." What we've noted in this discussion, however, is something to bear in mind: some NT authors understood and could cite verse texts in epic dialect. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 20th, 2017, 6:28 amτοῦ γάρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν: ὁ δ᾽ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισιν
The reason I often use the erotic pastoral novels as exemplars is that I speak from my limited reading experience. It just so happened that in the rotating cycle of reading options, both Theocritus Idylls and The Hellenistic Novels came up for me. That, of course, was all in a flurry 25 years ago, but authours being bicycles, it is not too much effort to pick them up and ride / read again. It is only in these last few years that I have began to see perspective and interaction between generi of Greek that I was once a little familiar with. As you mention, it is interesting to see the definite literary background to the world of the New Testament that to some extent includes, but is different from the Classical canon. As I am finding, looking at the development of the binary speech styles from the earlier consecutive to the later alternating usage has given me a chance and impetus to engage with a broad range of new and exciting texts. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 19th, 2017, 11:31 pm
About the ἐσμέν. Whether 1.) Paul used a slightly modified quotation with ἐσμέν instead of εἰμέν, 2.) this was a street-level popular (mis-)quotation, or 3.) the early redaction / transmission of Luke / Acts "standardised" the epic εἰμέν to the Koine form ἐσμέν, from the point of view of this text we have: How is / Is the versification affected by the change from εἰμέν to ἐσμέν? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 19th, 2017, 10:27 pm
Yes, it is Cleanthes, not Chrysippus. What's interesting is certainly the way Stoics can infuse an intense sort of spirituality into a system that permits allegorical application of a sort of mythical formulation. This governs some of the argument of Paul in Romans 1 also and the Roman conception of natural law. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 19th, 2017, 6:29 pmStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 12:52 pmDo you mean Cleanthes of Assos, (successor of Zeno and predecessor of Chrysippus)? If that is the one, then here is a scan of Blakeney's edition with a commentary and notes published by the SPCK in 1931. An older translation here. Until now, no, but now, vaguely yes. I'm supposing that you saying that I would be benefited also understanding the features of theism exhibited by the Stoics, by looking at an example of how praise (and perhaps prayer) can occur within an ostensibly pantheistic system.
Do you mean Cleanthes of Assos, (successor of Zeno and predecessor of Chrysippus)? If that is the one, then here is a scan of Blakeney's edition with a commentary and notes published by the SPCK in 1931. An older translation here. Until now, no, but now, vaguely yes. I'm supposing that you saying that I would be benefited also understanding the features of theism exhibited by the Stoics, by looking at an example of how praise (and perhaps prayer) can occur within an ostensibly pantheistic system. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 19th, 2017, 12:52 pm
Good: you’re learning something that is by no means insignificant about the original authors and readers/audience of the GNT texts.Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 7:47 amWe in the broadest sense is a reference to all readers (and listeners) from the literary creation till our time, includes many such levels of engagement with the language, as you have described. The "me" part of the (greater or narrower) "we", was unaware that he was in fact supposed to be using epic grammar to read this phrase until a few days ago.cwconrad wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 7:00 amNow the question becomes: "Who, precisely, are we? If you're referring to those of us who are reading these texts today, we certainly differ widely in our experience of reading different kinds of Greek from different eras of antiquity. I think it's true that many of us on are not very familiar -- in any meaningful measure -- with Greek texts outside of the Greek NT (and perhaps the LXX) and the relatively brief chronological range that those texts represent. But some of us have urged those seeking to read the GNT that they might have a better understanding of the text of the GNT by reading more widely in extra-Biblical Greek of antiquity. A language is shaped, in considerable measure, by its literary heritage. English speakers who have not themselves read any or much of Shakespeare or of the English Bible read and write English that has been impacted by Shakespeare and the English Bible. I think it's very hard to talk with much precision about what we can -- or should -- "expect" to find in a NT Greek text.
I don't mean to be patronizing, but to ask that question is to have your answer; every confrontation with a text that confounds your expectations should, among other things, bring you to question your own assumptions. But your readiness to ask questions is itself important: you realize that you don’t already know.Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 7:47 amMy "expectation" has been built up by my training and reinforced by my experience. I'm wondering if that self-confirming process is something that would benefit from being questioned.
Perhaps you haven’t yet encountered the great “Hymn to Zeus” by the Stoic Chrysippus?Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 7:47 amNo explanation is given in Acts 17:28 for the quote - neither of its grammar or of the significance that "Zeus" here in the Phaenomena does not refer to an anthropomorphic deity of polytheism, but to the pantheistic world-soul of Stoic thinking.
I haven’t seen this spelled out anywhere, but it seems to me that much of this could be spelled out. The GNT was composed by authors of a considerable range of cultural backgrounds, but several of those authors were literate to a considerable degree. The GNT was composed during a period when verse was still important and poetic texts were not read like “dime-novels” but committed to memory. Epic dialect was being used by poets like Meleager of Gadara (yes, the same Decapolis city where Jesus confronted the demoniac) in the first century C.E. And in the same area across the Jordan Lucian of Samosata was writing beautiful Attic prose. You’re right to think of the novelists, but these other genres were read too. The author of Titus (1:12) cites Epimenides of Crete in an epic hexameter line that must have been widely known. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 19th, 2017, 10:40 amStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 7:47 amPerhaps either it was outside the contour and camber of the Christian message to go into details, or it was knowledge that it could be assumed on the part of the wider hellenistic audience. With thr poems of Homer toping the Times bestseller list of the day, and this Phaenomena coming in at third, the features of epic grammar are likely to be familiar. On a scale of high to low in the pastoral (escapist) erotic fiction, from Theocritus down to Longus, we see many similarities been the lower levels of literature and the Gospels, but even Longus occasionally includes some features from the higher registers of literature. This passage in Acts is a direct quotation, but if there were "inadvertant" inclusions of epic grammar, that might be "expected" in the New Testament too.
We in the broadest sense is a reference to all readers (and listeners) from the literary creation till our time, includes many such levels of engagement with the language, as you have described. The "me" part of the (greater or narrower) "we", was unaware that he was in fact supposed to be using epic grammar to read this phrase until a few days ago. My "expectation" has been built up by my training and reinforced by my experience. I'm wondering if that self-confirming process is something that would benefit from being questioned. No explanation is given in Acts 17:28 for the quote - neither of its grammar or of the significance that "Zeus" here in the Phaenomena does not refer to an anthropomorphic deity of polytheism, but to the pantheistic world-soul of Stoic thinking. Perhaps either it was outside the contour and camber of the Christian message to go into details, or it was knowledge that it could be assumed on the part of the wider hellenistic audience. With thr poems of Homer toping the Times bestseller list of the day, and this Phaenomena coming in at third, the features of epic grammar are likely to be familiar. On a scale of high to low in the pastoral (escapist) erotic fiction, from Theocritus down to Longus, we see many similarities been the lower levels of literature and the Gospels, but even Longus occasionally includes some features from the higher registers of literature. This passage in Acts is a direct quotation, but if there were "inadvertant" inclusions of epic grammar, that might be "expected" in the New Testament too. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 19th, 2017, 7:47 amcwconrad wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 7:00 amNow the question becomes: "Who, precisely, are we? If you're referring to those of us who are reading these texts today, we certainly differ widely in our experience of reading different kinds of Greek from different eras of antiquity. I think it's true that many of us on are not very familiar -- in any meaningful measure -- with Greek texts outside of the Greek NT (and perhaps the LXX) and the relatively brief chronological range that those texts represent. But some of us have urged those seeking to read the GNT that they might have a better understanding of the text of the GNT by reading more widely in extra-Biblical Greek of antiquity. A language is shaped, in considerable measure, by its literary heritage. English speakers who have not themselves read any or much of Shakespeare or of the English Bible read and write English that has been impacted by Shakespeare and the English Bible. I think it's very hard to talk with much precision about what we can -- or should -- "expect" to find in a NT Greek text.
Now the question becomes: "Who, precisely, are we? If you're referring to those of us who are reading these texts today, we certainly differ widely in our experience of reading different kinds of Greek from different eras of antiquity. I think it's true that many of us on are not very familiar -- in any meaningful measure -- with Greek texts outside of the Greek NT (and perhaps the LXX) and the relatively brief chronological range that those texts represent. But some of us have urged those seeking to read the GNT that they might have a better understanding of the text of the GNT by reading more widely in extra-Biblical Greek of antiquity. A language is shaped, in considerable measure, by its literary heritage. English speakers who have not themselves read any or much of Shakespeare or of the English Bible read and write English that has been impacted by Shakespeare and the English Bible. I think it's very hard to talk with much precision about what we can -- or should -- "expect" to find in a NT Greek text. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 19th, 2017, 7:00 amStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 6:28 amTo phrase it another way; Is it possible that because we are expecting to find prose grammar in the Koine, that that is what we find? Are there other instances where we could take what appears to us as an article disjointed from its nominal unit, as an epic demonstrative? I don't expect to find any such examples, except in the μέν ... δέ .... constructions, but I would like to see if reading, and being able to recite poetry had affected the grammatical range of the prose Koine.cwconrad wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 5:59 amThe question seems oddly phrased. This text is found in the NT, but it is not describable in terms of standard NT Koine usage. The passage is cited from a poem composed in epic dialect; the construction may "look like" an articular adjective separated by a finite verb, but it isn't that: τὸν is a demonstrative pronoun and ἄρρητον is a predicate adjective governed by εῶμεν: "him/that one we do not ever allow (to be) unmentioned."Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 4:11 amAre there other places in the New Testament where it looks like an articular adjective is separated by a finite verb?
To phrase it another way; Is it possible that because we are expecting to find prose grammar in the Koine, that that is what we find? Are there other instances where we could take what appears to us as an article disjointed from its nominal unit, as an epic demonstrative? I don't expect to find any such examples, except in the μέν ... δέ .... constructions, but I would like to see if reading, and being able to recite poetry had affected the grammatical range of the prose Koine. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 19th, 2017, 6:28 amcwconrad wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 5:59 amThe question seems oddly phrased. This text is found in the NT, but it is not describable in terms of standard NT Koine usage. The passage is cited from a poem composed in epic dialect; the construction may "look like" an articular adjective separated by a finite verb, but it isn't that: τὸν is a demonstrative pronoun and ἄρρητον is a predicate adjective governed by εῶμεν: "him/that one we do not ever allow (to be) unmentioned."Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 4:11 amAre there other places in the New Testament where it looks like an articular adjective is separated by a finite verb?Arat. Phaen. 1 - 2 wrote: τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν ἄρρητον:
One thing I do miss about the (from the NT period's point of view) anachronistic spelling-correspondence-to-sound pronuncuation systems is the pout-and-point lip movements in that demonstrative pronoun. Saying "ta" + the pouting "u" to point in a far direction followed by the root again declined according to the dictates of syntax. I mean, I used to enjoy being able to guesture as I read. Even though the bilabial fricative does use the lips, it doesn't have the same scope for pouting as the vowel can achieve. Personally I don't find pouting to point a well-mannered behaviour, but perhaps at the time when the demonstratives like τοῦτο were coming into fashion, people did go around indicating things wth their lips. The other demonstrative that is also fun to play with in "literal" (etymological) translation is αὐτός. With an etymology of αὖ + a pronominal ending - "an againer", "a repeated one", or "one mentioned again". By way of comparison, in English we have, "the afore mentioned" in some registers. In the history of Greek, at sometime when αὐτός was coming into vogue, the thinking must have been, "the again mentioned one", used distinctly from the article used for "the one I assume you already know", and whatever other uses of the article we now see. It is like saying "ditto for the lexical information, I only need to give you the syntactically required declensional information. An etymological translation - one that captures, what the understanding of what it might have meant to somebody hearing the new idiom for the first time - might be like this:Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 8:36 amit's a demonstrative usage, the equivalent of τούτου
That is anachronistic of course because the use of participles have also undergone changes, and especially at Thucydudes' hand. BTW It is not easy to find the density of demonstrative usage, which we see in the gospels, in Classical texts. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 19th, 2017, 6:17 amὉ δὲ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς σημεῖον, λέγων, Ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν· κρατήσατε αὐτόν. The one who plays the role of betraying the again being mentioned (of masculine gender and singular number), let the again being mentioned (of masculine gender and plural number)(know) the sign he would use to indicate, when he says, The again being mentioned (of masculine gender and singular number) is the one whom I might kiss.
The question seems oddly phrased. This text is found in the NT, but it is not describable in terms of standard NT Koine usage. The passage is cited from a poem composed in epic dialect; the construction may "look like" an articular adjective separated by a finite verb, but it isn't that: τὸν is a demonstrative pronoun and ἄρρητον is a predicate adjective governed by εῶμεν: "him/that one we do not ever allow (to be) unmentioned." Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 19th, 2017, 5:59 amStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 19th, 2017, 4:11 amAre there other places in the New Testament where it looks like an articular adjective is separated by a finite verb?Arat. Phaen. 1 - 2 wrote: τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν ἄρρητον:
Are there other places in the New Testament where it looks like an articular adjective is separated by a finite verb? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 19th, 2017, 4:11 amArat. Phaen. 1 - 2 wrote: τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν ἄρρητον:
Caragounis (Development, page 229) sees προτοῦ as more or less an eqivalent to πρίν + infinitive. There alsoseems to be the suggestion that προτοῦ was what was being used in the popular speech. In that case, if the προτοῦ that survives into Modern Greek, is an outgrowth of developments in the Koine, then we may be looking at a pair of homographs that ended up being mistaken for each other. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 18th, 2017, 6:00 am
Nothing really to add to the discussion (except that I agree that it's a demonstrative usage, the equivalent of τούτου), but how cool is it to know that when one reads this text, one is reading something that Paul read, and knew well enough to cite in a sermon? I agree with SH, it's rather pleasant Greek particularly if one has some Homer as background for the the "poetic" forms. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — April 17th, 2017, 8:36 am
What I thought SC was saying is that προτοῦ is non-classical in that it's used as a single-word adverb meaning "beforehand" rather than as the phrase compounded of the preposition πρὸ and the demonstrative τοῦ.Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 16th, 2017, 12:08 pmI hope I understand the rhetorical questiin correctly, as meaning since it continued to be used in the classical period, it is classical, even if its original can be traced back further.cwconrad wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2016, 5:28 amStirling Bartholomew wrote:You know, at times I find the the classical scholars’ (plural!!) reasoning hard to follow. It would appear that translation is dictating syntax analysis. Since some choose to translate προ του w/finite verb as if it were πρὸ τούτο, (a pattern found 2000+ TLG-E), we reverse the process in syntax analysis and don't even consider προ του w/finite verb as possibly a free standing adverbial constituent.Non-classical? One of the oddities observable over the centuries in ancient Greek is the survival of the demonstrative function of what has become the definite article.Stephen Carlson wrote:Another possibility is that πρὸ τοῦ is really προτοῦ, a non-classical subordinator that means "before." Its lexical word status is indicated by the placement of δέ and γάρ, after the article instead of the preposition.LSJ s.v. πρό wrote:II of Time, before, ... π. τοῦ (sts. written προτοῦ) A. Ag. 1204, Hdt. 1.122, 5.83, Ar. Th. 418, Pl. Smp. 173a
I think these are all instances of the articular infinitive in the genitive case because they follow the preposition πρὸ. In these instances we don't have the demonstrative ὁ ἡ τό at all but rather the genitive of the article with an infinitive phrase. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — April 17th, 2017, 5:29 amStephen Hughes wrote: ↑April 16th, 2017, 12:08 pmMy question, after reading those sections of BDF, Are constructions like the following read in terms of προτοῦ "before" (ie preserving the older demonstrative force) + infinitive? My thinking is that whether προτοῦ is being used as maybe a subordinate conjunction or πρὸ is the beginning of a adverbial prepositional phrase:Matthew 6:8 wrote:Μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε, πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.Luke 2:21 wrote:Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν, καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου πρὸ τοῦ συλληφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ[/color].Luke 22:15 wrote:Καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·John 1:48 wrote:Λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, Πόθεν με γινώσκεις; Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι, ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν, εἶδόν σε.John 13:19 wrote:Ἀπ’ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα, ὅταν γένηται, πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.John 17:5 wrote:Καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ , παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.Acts 23:15 wrote:Νῦν οὖν ὑμεῖς ἐμφανίσατε τῷ χιλιάρχῳ σὺν τῷ συνεδρίῳ , ὅπως αὔριον αὐτὸν καταγάγῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὡς μέλλοντας διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ· ἡμεῖς δέ, πρὸ τοῦ ἐγγίσαι αὐτόν, ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν τοῦ ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν.Galatians 2:12 wrote:Πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.Galatians 3:23 wrote:Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα, συγκεκλεισμένοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.
I hope I understand the rhetorical questiin correctly, as meaning since it continued to be used in the classical period, it is classical, even if its original can be traced back further. My question, after reading those sections of BDF, Are constructions like the following read in terms of προτοῦ "before" (ie preserving the older demonstrative force) + infinitive? My thinking is that whether προτοῦ is being used as maybe a subordinate conjunction or πρὸ is the beginning of a adverbial prepositional phrase:cwconrad wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2016, 5:28 amStirling Bartholomew wrote:You know, at times I find the the classical scholars’ (plural!!) reasoning hard to follow. It would appear that translation is dictating syntax analysis. Since some choose to translate προ του w/finite verb as if it were πρὸ τούτο, (a pattern found 2000+ TLG-E), we reverse the process in syntax analysis and don't even consider προ του w/finite verb as possibly a free standing adverbial constituent.Non-classical? One of the oddities observable over the centuries in ancient Greek is the survival of the demonstrative function of what has become the definite article.Stephen Carlson wrote:Another possibility is that πρὸ τοῦ is really προτοῦ, a non-classical subordinator that means "before." Its lexical word status is indicated by the placement of δέ and γάρ, after the article instead of the preposition.LSJ s.v. πρό wrote:II of Time, before, ... π. τοῦ (sts. written προτοῦ) A. Ag. 1204, Hdt. 1.122, 5.83, Ar. Th. 418, Pl. Smp. 173a
Matthew 6:8 wrote:Μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε, πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.
Luke 2:21 wrote:Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν, καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου πρὸ τοῦ συλληφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ[/color].
Luke 22:15 wrote:Καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·
John 1:48 wrote:Λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, Πόθεν με γινώσκεις; Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι, ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν, εἶδόν σε.
John 13:19 wrote:Ἀπ’ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα, ὅταν γένηται, πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.
John 17:5 wrote:Καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ , παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
Acts 23:15 wrote:Νῦν οὖν ὑμεῖς ἐμφανίσατε τῷ χιλιάρχῳ σὺν τῷ συνεδρίῳ , ὅπως αὔριον αὐτὸν καταγάγῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὡς μέλλοντας διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ· ἡμεῖς δέ, πρὸ τοῦ ἐγγίσαι αὐτόν, ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν τοῦ ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν.
Galatians 2:12 wrote:Πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 16th, 2017, 12:08 pmGalatians 3:23 wrote:Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα, συγκεκλεισμένοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.
Yes. I meant to say that one: the one that opaquely encapsulates the person or thing rather the one that parenthetically shows us what is inside or in the history of a person or thing.
It's quite jolly and readable. I was just reading through a couple of hundred lines of it this afternoon looking for the alternating speech styles, when I came across the reference to Paul's speech.cwconrad wrote: ↑April 15th, 2017, 9:31 amAratus is, to be sure, Hellenistic, but he writes deliberately in the Homeric Kunstsprache of epic dialect. The particular reason why this poem, the Φαινόμενα, was so popular is evidently its usefulness to the vast number of Hellenistic people concerned with knowing the night sky well enough to use astrological lore.
Luckily that is a book, which graces my bookshelves with its presence. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 15th, 2017, 11:59 am