cwconrad wrote:
Just to update my current state of thinking/confusion about this text:πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;
Would the construction be better if the φαγεῖν were omitted?
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 8th, 2014, 3:27 pm
To resolve the issue raised in this thread, I googled and hit the following book:
The Greek Article: A functional grammar of o-items in the Greek New Testament by Ronald D Peters et al.
There are some interesting quotes:
p. 3: The article functions as a reduced form of the relative pronoun.
p. 4: Both parts of speech are used by the speaker to indicate that information is
being provided that the recipient is to use FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFICATION.
.. This stands in contrast to the English definte article and demonstratives, which indicate
that the recipient posseses the information necessary for identification or direct the recipient
to the information respectively.
p. 77: The article functions as a form similar to that of the relative pronoun because it is demonstrable
that the article is used to produce structures that fill the same slot as relative clauses. This represents
a system of choice, whereby a Greek speaker may choose one form or the other. With regard to the production
of text, both structures will the same slot, and thus perform the same function. However, with regard to
the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, the choice of one structure over the other reflects a difference
in meaning.
——–
Very interesting viewpoint! It seems quite convincing. It answers to my long-held question:
the article + long participial clause looks almost the same as the relative pronoun + finite clause.
The participial clause which can have all compoments of the finite clause, does not seem to so
different from the finite clause structurally speaking.
My question in Gal 1:7 disappears if it is treated as a reduced form of a relative clause,
The same applies to Jude 4.
Moon Jung
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 16th, 2014, 1:07 am
Dmitriy Reznik wrote:timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:While hendiadys makes reasonable sense, I’m wondering about the use of the article with both nouns.I found the answer to this in Blass and Debrunner, where there are examples of hendiadys with the article with both nouns:
James 5:10:
τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας (of perseverance in suffering)Luke 2:47:
ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (at his intelligent answers)Mk 6:26 = Mt 14:9:
διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους (because of the oath taken before the guests)Also, I found that a famous medieval Jewish commentator Rashi understood חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת (lovingkindness and truth) as hendiadys (חסד של אמת, i.e. true lovingkindness)!!
(http://parsha.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-% … iadys.html)Thank you again,
DmitriyP.S. Maybe somebody would like to add something to our discussion?
Thanks.
You must be refrring to Blass, Debrunner here:
§442 (16) The co-ordination of two ideas, one of which is dependent on the other (hendiadys), serves in the NT to avoid a series of dependent genitives
They do suggest translations like “perseverance in suffering” for James 5:10 and “intelligent answers” in Luke 2:47, but I don’t think this is the best or only way of interpreting them.
James 5:10 could as well be understood as the unjust suffering the prophets had to endure and their perseverance in spite of those sufferings. Of course, the two ideas are closely connected and overlapping in time, but is one dependent on the other? I usually think of hendiadys as two nouns where one describes the other and therefore one may be translated by an adjective. There is a tendency to look at the sense of καὶ from an English perspective which sees the two nouns as more distinct than they were intended. Two nouns joined by καὶ are often overlapping in sense, reference or time. It may well be more natural and clear in English to say “patience in the face of suffering” (NIV) than “suffering affliction and of patience” (KJV) or “suffering and patience” (NET).
In Luke 2:47 I am not sure it is accurate to reduce “his understanding and his answers” to “his intelligent answers”, because the previous verse says that Jesus was listening to them and asking questions. I think rather Luke is talking about his insightful questions and his excellent answers to their questions. A Rabbinic dialogue was often in the form of questions and counter-questions in addition to answers.
I have similar hesitation for Mk 6:26. The king could not retract for two reasons: He had made an oath, so he might fear God if he went against it. It would be dangerous. He had made it in public so he would fear the reaction of the guests. It would be shameful.
Nor would I consider it likely that a hendiadys is intended in John 1:17.
ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
There are 3 pairs of lexical contrasts/comparisons:
ὁ νόμος — ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια
διὰ Μωϋσέως — διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
ἐδόθη — ἐγένετο
The initial ὅτι probably explains the previous χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος (grace instead of grace). The two words grace and truth also pick up on the same two words in verse 14:
καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
It seems to me that John is talking about a new and fuller expression of the grace and truth from God which came with Jesus and goes far beyond what was given through Moses. It does not mean that there was no grace or truth in the Torah, but there is a fuller reality of grace and truth through Jesus. So, I think grace and truth are best kept separate rather than trying to make them graceful truth or truthful grace. If there is a true grace, is there also a false grace?
Statistics: Posted by Iver Larsen — July 2nd, 2014, 3:17 am
RandallButh wrote:
There are also two ways to look at Mt 26.51
ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον1. One may view αὐτοῦ as attracted to a head phrase for strengthening it, in this case the verb. This is a syntactic device that also fits with what happens with ‘enclitics’.
2. Also, the αὐτοῦ may be fronted within the noun phrase, picking up additional mini-focus.
A live pronunciation would distinguish these two.
In case 1, I would guess that the pronoun may have lost its accent like an enclitic, even though the spelling system retains it. I find myself naturally reading this way when thinking through the clause as in number one, where the pronoun is highly pre-supposed information. Such modern reflexes may indeed reflect antiquity, especially remembering the classic case where Israelis naturally contract “et ha-” -את ה as ta- ת. Even first graders write things like שתיתי תמץ in place of the correct שתיתי את המץ “I drank the juice,” without knowing that BarKochba did the same 1900 years ago מעיד אני תשמים “I call heaven as witness,” and a few other examples. Such writing was not learned in school.
If one reads the written text Mt 26.51 as is, then number 2 is the result. However, the ‘mini-focus’ would probably have had a normal intonation level, not a full focus intonation like in a hypothetical:
αὐτοῦ ἀφεῖλεν τὸ ὠτίον.
This article here http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/ocs-uploads … on-NTG.pdf suggests that a genitive in this position is an external possessor construction.
I still need to evaluate it, but I’m tossing it out there.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — May 19th, 2014, 5:37 pm
ronsnider1 wrote:
My question relates to how one understands and classifies the genitive string in Romans 1:23 that follows the en clause. The entire phrase relates to that which was exchanged for the glory of the incorruptible God, but I am having a little trouble identifying the type of genitives used here.καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.
It’s pretty clear, I’d say, that εἰκόνος depends upon ὁμοιώματι and that φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν all depend upon εἰκόνος. I would think too that φθαρτοῦ, although linked directly with ἀνθρώπου, is implicitly understood also with the other genitive nouns as well. The four genitive nouns dependent on εἰκόνος all fall under the most basic category of adnominal genitives, whether you call it “possessive” or “genitive of belonging”. Categorizing the adnominal linkage of εικόνος to ὁμοιώματι is perhaps less clearcut (if it really matters — the meaning of the phrase is hardly in doubt!); I think I’d call it an “appositive” or “explanatory” genitive (cf. Smyth, §1322): “a likeness, i.e. an image of … “.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 30th, 2014, 11:08 am
It seems like this is a Hebraism. In Hebrew, “to be” + preposition “Le” means “to become”, e.g. to become a wife, a people, son, father etc.
Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — January 30th, 2014, 10:50 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Actually, the phrase is καὶ ἐάν = even if.
WOW. That’s it. Thanks.
Moon
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 13th, 2014, 4:51 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:Philippians 4:10 wrote:Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως, ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν· ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ.What explanation can be put forward to describe why ἠκαιρεῖσθε is in the middle voice here?
[The antonym εὐκαιρεῖν is used in the active voice, both absolutely ἐλεύσεται δὲ ὅταν εὐκαιρήσῃ. (1 Corinthians 16:12), and in conjunction with an infinitive οὐδὲ φαγεῖν εὐκαίρουν. (Mark 6:31).]
I’ve noted Mike’s comment and the further elaboration Stephen has offered. I think Mke is right here to say we’d have a better notion if we had more instances of the verb’s usage, but DGE (see Logeion) offers additional support for middle-passive usage;
it’s also the case that we don’t have much doubt about what Paul is saying in this rather informally-phrased locution: “Your impulsive thoughtfulness on my behalf has deeply gratified me — the fact that you wanted to do something but had no opportunity.” It seems to me that ἠκαιρεῖσθε here is a personal usage involving deprivation: Subject-affectedness is discerned and expressed in the middle voice here.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — March 18th, 2017, 8:44 am
MAubrey wrote: ↑November 27th, 2017, 7:25 pmIf you remember, Rachel and I talked about a comparable example in Galatians back in Cambridge in June/July.starting on page 40…https://www.academia.edu/34125524/The_c … structionsThanks, this is exactly…
Stephen Carlson wrote:cwconrad wrote:At any rate, the likelihood of the sense intended in the proposed Englishing of this text in Codex Bezae seems low to me; I still find it easier to think that ἀναγκαῖον was negligently omitted by the scribe.The theory of the text of Acts that Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger follow is that the Codex Bezae D text of Acts is more likely to be authorial than that of the Codex Vaticanus B text of Acts. As a result, they are wont to read as intelligible what may appear to other textual critics as scribal nonsense.
Right. I am cautions about accepting the readings (interpretations of Bezae) of Acts in Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger for precisely that reason.
BTW, I have another Text Critical project going on behind the scenes which will eventually see the light of day but at this time is kind of under wraps due to copyright negotiations. Wondering if there is anyone here who would like to do a little work in text of Acts in support of a worthy cause. It could be anywhere from a hours work to a big project depending on how much interest you have in it. All you would need is the ability to read the critical apparatus in UBS4. A copy of NA27 and Swanson for Acts would be nice but not essential. I have a rather full apparatus for Acts in a word file I can send you.
My immediate need is for someone to simply look through the the full apparatus for Acts and mark (color highlighting or some sort of marking) any variant that is found in the UBS4 apparatus. A simple task should not take more than hour. I don’t have UBS4. If anyone has an interest in a project like this send me a PM and I will give you more detail.
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — December 13th, 2013, 5:18 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amI don’t want this to get lost – Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP.ταυτη is not referring back to …
With regard to F. F. Bruce’s opinion that τῆς δόξης is being used adjectivally in a way that is Hebraic, I found this in Moulton and Turner, Vol. 2, p.21 with regard to the likelihood of their being Semitic influence in Paul’s Greek:
As to his Greek, it is obvious from all we know of him that he must have spoken Greek from the first as freely as Aramaic. He calls himself Ἐβραῖος ἐξ Ἐβραίων, ” a Hebrew of Hebrew descent,” and the term naturally implies the familiar use of the Semitic mother-tongue. But the most patriotic Jew of the Dispersion could not get on without Greek. It need not be added that for Paul’s missionary work in the West, Greek had no possible alternative except Latin. A man thus accustomed to use the language of the West was not likely to import into it words or constructions that would have a foreign sound. The LXX had no such supreme authority for Paul that a copying of its language would strike him as natural. And if Greek was an alternative mother-tongue to him, he would use it too unconsciously to drop into Aramaisms, defective renderings of a language he could correct as well as any one. The a priori view thus sketched tallies satisfactorily with the observed facts. Paul very rarely uses phrases which come from a literal rendering of the Semitic. His Semitisms are secondary at most—defensible as Greek, and natural to a Greek ear.
They detect a few semitisms in Ephesians (p.22-23), but hardly elsewhere.
Andrew
Statistics: Posted by Andrew Chapman — November 6th, 2013, 11:04 am
“`html The Genitive of Product in Romans 15:33: A Linguistic and Grammatical Analysis This exegetical study of The Genitive of Product in Romans 15:33: A Linguistic and Grammatical Analysis is based on a b-greek discussion from August 11th, 2013. The initial inquiry concerned the interpretation of the expression “ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης” at Romans…
Pat Ferguson wrote:
Here’s what another source relates:Old English hors, from Proto-Germanic *hursa- …, of unknown origin, connected by some with PIE root *kurs-, source of Latin currere “to run”.
The usual Indo-European word is represented by Old English eoh, from PIE *ekwo- “horse” (see equine). In many other languages, as in English, this root has been lost in favor of synonyms, probably via superstitious taboo on uttering the name of an animal so important in Indo-European religion. (Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary 2013)
That quote just says that the Germanic etymon of English horse is of obscure origin; it doesn’t say anything about ἵππος. And if you click on the word equine from where you quoted it, it says that ἵππος comes from the PIE *ekwo-.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 11th, 2014, 5:44 pm
