Page 3 of 3

Re: Rev. 1:4 ὁ ἦν not ὁ γενόμενος

Posted: September 6th, 2020, 10:02 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
December 14th, 2015, 8:54 am
There is very little doubt that this is an intentional solecism on the part of the author.
It's a judgment call whether one case of pushing the boundaries of syntax and grammar is a solecism or something sublime. In this case, I've just had the thought today that it could be a blend of a quotative article (which is usually neuter) and some kind of a title (which usually has the right gender).

Re: Rev. 1:4 ὁ ἦν not ὁ γενόμενος

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 7:57 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 10:02 pm
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
December 14th, 2015, 8:54 am
There is very little doubt that this is an intentional solecism on the part of the author.
It's a judgment call whether one case of pushing the boundaries of syntax and grammar is a solecism or something sublime. In this case, I've just had the thought today that it could be a blend of a quotative article (which is usually neuter) and some kind of a title (which usually has the right gender).
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ...

Well, yes the quotative article is usually neuter. Can you think of a single example elsewhere where it's not neuter? And titles are normally "the right gender" but then we have the issue of case, which is what bothers most people here, the nominative following ἀπό. But that the writer is doing this deliberately seems clear to me from the fact that he does it right with ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων...

I like the your point "pushing the boundaries of syntax and grammar" as "something sublime." It's a sublime solecism... :lol:

Re: Rev. 1:4 ὁ ἦν not ὁ γενόμενος

Posted: September 7th, 2020, 9:05 pm
by Stephen Carlson
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
September 7th, 2020, 7:57 am
Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 10:02 pm
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
December 14th, 2015, 8:54 am
There is very little doubt that this is an intentional solecism on the part of the author.
It's a judgment call whether one case of pushing the boundaries of syntax and grammar is a solecism or something sublime. In this case, I've just had the thought today that it could be a blend of a quotative article (which is usually neuter) and some kind of a title (which usually has the right gender).
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ...

Well, yes the quotative article is usually neuter. Can you think of a single example elsewhere where it's not neuter? And titles are normally "the right gender" but then we have the issue of case, which is what bothers most people here, the nominative following ἀπό. But that the writer is doing this deliberately seems clear to me from the fact that he does it right with ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων...

I like the your point "pushing the boundaries of syntax and grammar" as "something sublime." It's a sublime solecism... :lol:
Interestingly, I just found an example of ὁ after ἀπό in a grammatical treatise of all things, Herodianus, De locutionum pravitatibus (ed. Cramer, p. 246): ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἡ πληθυντικὴ δοτικὴ τοῖς γένεσι γίνεται, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ ὁ συγγενὴς, τοῖς συγγένεσι. ("Just as the dative plural τοῖς γένεσι comes from τοῦ γένους, so too does τοῖς συγγένεσι from ὁ συγγενής.")

Re: Rev. 1:4 ὁ ἦν not ὁ γενόμενος

Posted: September 8th, 2020, 7:13 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Stephen Carlson wrote:
September 7th, 2020, 9:05 pm

Interestingly, I just found an example of ὁ after ἀπό in a grammatical treatise of all things, Herodianus, De locutionum pravitatibus (ed. Cramer, p. 246): ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ἡ πληθυντικὴ δοτικὴ τοῖς γένεσι γίνεται, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ ὁ συγγενὴς, τοῖς συγγένεσι. ("Just as the dative plural τοῖς γένεσι comes from τοῦ γένους, so too does τοῖς συγγένεσι from ὁ συγγενής.")
Oh, very nice catch, fishing in the sea of ancient Greek! I suspect he does this because he sees τοῖς συγγένεσι as having a masculine plural antecedent and therefore he puts both the article and the noun back into the masculine nominative singular, so not quite the same as the quotative article. But why doesn't he write ἀπὸ τὸ γένος?