Dear all,
Does “anq wn” mean “since”? I thought “anti” is a preposition, but there does not seem to be any English “equivalent” for “anq” in this phrase, is there? It occurs in Luke 1:20, Luke 12:3, Luke 19:44, Acts 12:23 and 2 Thes 2:10. Is “anti toutou” in Eph 5:31 also similar? Does it mean “because of this:” (“this” referring to what comes next)?
Thanks! David Lim
As with most words in any language, there is not ONE equivalent word in another language else we would be able to simply program our computers to do a little substitution for us and have a translation of any writing — wait, that’s been tried. Have you ever checked a machine translation of some documents on the internet? They can be quite humorous and even meaningless. This is no doubt due to the phenomenon I mentioned first that there is no one equivalent for a particular word in any language. In the case of ἀνθʼ ὧν ANQ’ hWN which you raise, there are a number of uses for ἁ̓ντί ANTI which you would be well advised to examine.In fact, I would recommend that you sell your first-born child and buy a copy of BDAG (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_). ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTE for there is no substitute. BDAG lists five main uses of ἀντί ANTI (Examples are taken from BDAG): 1. Replacement by another = “instead of” or “in place of”. See Mt 2.22 2. Equivalence to another = “in place of”. Mt 5.38 3. Intervention = “on behalf of”. See Mt 17.27 4. Reason for something = “because of” or “for the purpose of”. See Eph 5.31 5. Result = “wherefore” or “therefore”. See Lk 12.3 Context will determine the usage.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Sat, April 9, 2011 2:20:25 AM
Dear all,
Does “anq wn” mean “since”? I thought “anti” is a preposition, but there does not seem to be any English “equivalent” for “anq” in this phrase, is there? It occurs in Luke 1:20, Luke 12:3, Luke 19:44, Acts 12:23 and 2 Thes 2:10. Is “anti toutou” in Eph 5:31 also similar? Does it mean “because of this:” (“this” referring to what comes next)?
Thanks! David Lim
Dear George,
Yes I was not looking for word-for-word equivalents, so that is why I excluded occurrences of the first three usages you listed; I was wondering why the relative pronoun was used and if “anq wn” is something like a standard phrase for “since”. But how do we know that Luke 12:3 does not mean “but there is nothing which has been covered that will not be revealed and nothing hidden that will not be known, since whatever you said in the darkness will be heard in the light and …”? How would a hearer determine that “since” was not intended?
David Lim
href=”mailto:B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LSJ has this to say:
“3. to denote exchange, at the price of, in return for…—hence ἀνθʼ ὥν wherefore, A.Pr.31, S.OT264, Th.6.83, Ev.Luc.12.3; ἀντὶ τούτου therefore, Ep.Eph.5.31; but ἀνθʼ ὧν also for ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι .., because,”
BDAG says: “④ … W. attraction of the rel. ἀνθʼ ὧν in return for which=because (Soph., Ant. 1068; X., An. 1, 3, 4; OGI 90, 35 [196 B.C.]; PLeid D I, 21; LXX; AscIs 2:14; Jos., Ant. 17, 201; SibOr 5, 68; B-D-F §294, 4) Lk 1:20; 19:44; Ac 12:23; 2 Th 2:10.”
ANQ’ hWN is a fixed phrase that means “in return for which” or “as a consequence of which”. So, if we have A ANQ’ hWN B, then in most cases event A has happened or will happen as a consequence of event B, but sometimes the idea is: A has happened. As a consequence of event A, B will also happen.
That event A is a consequence of event B is clear enough in the BDAG NT citations above, but note that they list all occurrences of the expression except the one in Luke 12:3 under sense 4. For this verse LSJ suggests “wherefore”, and BDAG lists Lk 12:3 under the next sense:
⑤ indicating result, w. implication of being a replacement for someth., wherefore, therefore, so then (Aeschyl., Prom. 31; Thu. 6, 83, 1; 4 Macc 18:3; Jdth 9:3; Jos., Ant. 4, 318) Lk 12:3
Although A is usually the consequence of B, B may be a consequence of A. That seems to be the case in Jdth 9:3 and 4 Macc 18:3 (I have not checked the others.) In these cases there is a full stop after the triggering event A. As a consequence of A, then B has happened or will happen.
Let me quote the full text, since we need the context:
οὐδὲν δὲ συγκεκαλυμμένον ἐστὶν ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται καὶ κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται. v 3 ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτὶ ἀκουσθήσεται
OUDEN DE SUGKEKALUMMENON ESTIN hO OUK APOKALUFQHSETAI KAI KRUPTON hO OU GNWSQHSETAI. ANQ’ hWN hOSA EN THi SKOTIAi EIPATE EN TWi QWTI AKUSQHSETAI
Nothing can be so completely covered up that it will not be uncovered and nothing is so hidden that it will not become known(.) ANQ’ hWN whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light.
The speech starts with a warning to the disciples about not becoming hypocrites like the Pharisees. Then comes a comment about a future judgment and there seems to be a general principle that “whatever is done under the cover of darkness will be heard in the light”. As a consequence of this general principle, nothing can be covered up or hidden forever. But it is also possible to turn it around and say that here B is a consequence of A. In that case, the first sentence would give the general principle and the second the consequence of the principle. Because the two statements are saying more or the less the same thing, it is difficult to decide on which is the better interpretation. Because of the hOSA, I think it is most likely that LSJ and BDAG are correct in interpreting these verses as: First A. As a consequence of A, then B. NA has a full stop before ANQ’ hWN here in Luk 12:3, but not in any of the other places. This agrees with KJV, RSV, ESV (therefore), NASB (accordingly) and NET, GNB (so then).
Iver Larsen
As with most words in any language, there is not ONE equivalent word in another language else we would be able to simply program our computers to do a little substitution for us and have a translation of any writing — wait, that’s been tried. Have you ever checked a machine translation of some documents on the internet? They can be quite humorous and even meaningless. This is no doubt due to the phenomenon I mentioned first that there is no one equivalent for a particular word in any language. In the case of ἀνθʼ ὧν ANQ’ hWN which you raise, there are a number of uses for ἁ̓ντί ANTI which you would be well advised to examine.In fact, I would recommend that you sell your first-born child and buy a copy of BDAG (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker _A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature_). ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTE for there is no substitute. BDAG lists five main uses of ἀντί ANTI (Examples are taken from BDAG): 1. Replacement by another = “instead of” or “in place of”. See Mt 2.22 2. Equivalence to another = “in place of”. Mt 5.38 3. Intervention = “on behalf of”. See Mt 17.27 4. Reason for something = “because of” or “for the purpose of”. See Eph 5.31 5. Result = “wherefore” or “therefore”. See Lk 12.3 Context will determine the usage.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus _________
________________________________ Sent: Sat, April 9, 2011 2:20:25 AM
Dear all,
Does “anq wn” mean “since”? I thought “anti” is a preposition, but there does not seem to be any English “equivalent” for “anq” in this phrase, is there? It occurs in Luke 1:20, Luke 12:3, Luke 19:44, Acts 12:23 and 2 Thes 2:10. Is “anti toutou” in Eph 5:31 also similar? Does it mean “because of this:” (“this” referring to what comes next)?
Thanks! David Lim
Dear George,
Yes I was not looking for word-for-word equivalents, so that is why I excluded occurrences of the first three usages you listed; I was wondering why the relative pronoun was used and if “anq wn” is something like a standard phrase for “since”. But how do we know that Luke 12:3 does not mean “but there is nothing which has been covered that will not be revealed and nothing hidden that will not be known, since whatever you said in the darkness will be heard in the light and …”? How would a hearer determine that “since” was not intended?
David Lim
href=”mailto:B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>B-Greek@lists.ibiblio.org
LSJ has this to say:
“3. to denote exchange, at the price of, in return for…—hence ἀνθʼ ὥν wherefore, A.Pr.31, S.OT264, Th.6.83, Ev.Luc.12.3; ἀντὶ τούτου therefore, Ep.Eph.5.31; but ἀνθʼ ὧν also for ἀντὶ τούτων ὅτι .., because,”
BDAG says: “④ … W. attraction of the rel. ἀνθʼ ὧν in return for which=because (Soph., Ant. 1068; X., An. 1, 3, 4; OGI 90, 35 [196 B.C.]; PLeid D I, 21; LXX; AscIs 2:14; Jos., Ant. 17, 201; SibOr 5, 68; B-D-F §294, 4) Lk 1:20; 19:44; Ac 12:23; 2 Th 2:10.”
ANQ’ hWN is a fixed phrase that means “in return for which” or “as a consequence of which”. So, if we have A ANQ’ hWN B, then in most cases event A has happened or will happen as a consequence of event B, but sometimes the idea is: A has happened. As a consequence of event A, B will also happen.
That event A is a consequence of event B is clear enough in the BDAG NT citations above, but note that they list all occurrences of the expression except the one in Luke 12:3 under sense 4. For this verse LSJ suggests “wherefore”, and BDAG lists Lk 12:3 under the next sense:
⑤ indicating result, w. implication of being a replacement for someth., wherefore, therefore, so then (Aeschyl., Prom. 31; Thu. 6, 83, 1; 4 Macc 18:3; Jdth 9:3; Jos., Ant. 4, 318) Lk 12:3
Although A is usually the consequence of B, B may be a consequence of A. That seems to be the case in Jdth 9:3 and 4 Macc 18:3 (I have not checked the others.) In these cases there is a full stop after the triggering event A. As a consequence of A, then B has happened or will happen.
Let me quote the full text, since we need the context:
οὐδὲν δὲ συγκεκαλυμμένον ἐστὶν ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται καὶ κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται. v 3 ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ὅσα ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτὶ ἀκουσθήσεται
OUDEN DE SUGKEKALUMMENON ESTIN hO OUK APOKALUFQHSETAI KAI KRUPTON hO OU GNWSQHSETAI. ANQ’ hWN hOSA EN THi SKOTIAi EIPATE EN TWi QWTI AKUSQHSETAI
Nothing can be so completely covered up that it will not be uncovered and nothing is so hidden that it will not become known(.) ANQ’ hWN whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light.
The speech starts with a warning to the disciples about not becoming hypocrites like the Pharisees. Then comes a comment about a future judgment and there seems to be a general principle that “whatever is done under the cover of darkness will be heard in the light”. As a consequence of this general principle, nothing can be covered up or hidden forever. But it is also possible to turn it around and say that here B is a consequence of A. In that case, the first sentence would give the general principle and the second the consequence of the principle. Because the two statements are saying more or the less the same thing, it is difficult to decide on which is the better interpretation. Because of the hOSA, I think it is most likely that LSJ and BDAG are correct in interpreting these verses as: First A. As a consequence of A, then B. NA has a full stop before ANQ’ hWN here in Luk 12:3, but not in any of the other places. This agrees with KJV, RSV, ESV (therefore), NASB (accordingly) and NET, GNB (so then).
Iver Larsen