EPI PASH TH MNEIA hUMON - Philippians 1:3
Carl Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Aug 11 20:07:04 EDT 1999
Note: I would have preferred to change the header on this to "Re: Dative
Subject (was EPI PASHi THi MNEIAi hUMWN)"--but I can't do this when
responding on the web, as I am doing while my home server is down.
On 08/11/99, ""Joseph Brian Tucker" <music at riverviewcog.org>" wrote:
> On 08/11/99, ""Joseph Brian Tucker" <music at riverviewcog.org>" wrote:
>> A dative noun or pronoun can function semantically as the subject of a
>> dative participle. The dative nominal will be coreferential with
another
>> dative construction in the sentence. The participial construction is to
>> be translated as an adverbial clause, changing the participle into its
>> corresponding verb with the dative nominal as its subject (Matt. 8:23
>> EMBANTI AUTWi EIS TO PLOION HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi). Therefore, there is a
>> possibility of considering the subject dative with an infinitive
instead
>> of a dative participle - or am I way off base?
>Technically I think we'd want to say that the dative of EMBANTI AUTWi is
>governed by HKOLOUQHSAN, since AKOLOUQEW regularly construes with a
>dative;then the participle EMBANTI is dative circumstantial participle in
>agreement with the AUTWi--and, of course, that would accord with the
>pronoun no matter what case the pronoun is in. What is extraordinary in
>this clause, however (Mt 8:23), is that the AUTWi is repeated after
>HKOLOUQHSAN. A redundancy? Or is there a Semitism involved?
>What about understanding the personal pronoun with a dative subject of
>dative absolute participle construction in (Mt. 8:23)? EMBANTI AUTWi
"when
>he embarked..." Is the second AUTWi to be taken as the direct object of
>HKOLOUQHSAN "when he embarked in the boat, they followed him."
I don't believe that such an animal as a dative absolute exists; I still
suspect that there may be a Semitism in the repeated AUTWi and that the
original AUTWI itself must depend upon HKOLOUQHSAN.
>Any thoughts on the substantial MS evidence (aleph; B; C; f1,13; 33)that
>supports the omission of the definite article "a boat"? Is it an issue of
>grammatical connection with Luke 8:22. I know it is not germane to our
>dative issue, but since I have your attention, I thought I'd ask.
Are you looking at the critical apparatus for vs. 23? And I suppose you
meant Mt 8:22 rather than Lk 8:22, but I don't see any thing in the
relationship of the two verses that is germane to this question. What IS
interesting is that we might have expected a genitive absolute here
(EMBANTOS AUTOU EIS TO PLOION) which might then have been followed by
HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU. I can't see any accounting for the
extra AUTWi following HKOLOUQHSAN in ordinary Greek narrative style.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list