Thayer - Mt 4:10 - A concrete example.

Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Wed Dec 26 02:16:37 EST 2001


Dear Richard,

Congratulations Richard, it looks like you have found
a main definition of Thayer's that is incorrect. With the 
help of Rick Stamp of course.

The definition for MOMOS as:"an adjective ,alone(without a 
companion)" is of course incorrect. The correct definition
that should be used here is:"an adjective,alone,only (in a singular
or collective sense)." John 6:22 and 1Thess. 3:1 would take MONOS
in its collective sense. That is, a group(represented by a plural
noun) predicated by MONOS as being *alone* from a previous member
of that group. As is the case of Jo. 6:22.

In 1Thess. 3:1 MONOI predicates the implicit plural subject of
EUDOKHSAMEN in the collective use of MOMOS. The *we* of EUDOKHSAMEN 
being the collective that a member or person is seperated from. 

In other words, "singular" represents an individual member of a class and
collective represents a class. This means that MONOS can predicate either
an individual of a class or a class itself as being *alone* or *only*.

Sad to say but it looks like we have a problem with BDAG in this area.
BDAG defines MONOS as:"pert. to being the only entity in a class,
only, alone adj." BDAG itself, doesn't seem to make a distinction 
between the singular and collective aspect of MONOS.

I welcome all input on this. Things have gotten very interesting now.

Best Regards to All,
Harry Jones

> Dear b-greekers,
> 
> Rick Stamp wrote:
> 
> << Let's try a different approach.  I will offer one or two examples from
> Grimm/Thayer which are representive of the types of entries which draw
> this type of criticism. If the entry is defective perhaps someone could
> provide references which invalidate it.
> 
> I'll start with just one example, the entry on MONOS, page 418.
> 
> MONOS 1. an adjective, alone (without a companion); a. with verbs ... b.
> it is joined with its noun to other verbs also, so that what is
> predicated may be declared to apply to some _one person alone_. [my
> emphasis] [cf. W. 131 (124) note]: Mt. iv. 10; Lk. iv. 8
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I am interested in any concrete examples which might prove this entry to
> be incorrect.>>
> 
> Well it is incorrect, Rick. I refer you, first of all, to IW. 6,22 which
> reads in part:
> 
> ...KAI hOTI OU SUNEISHLQEN TOIS MAQHTAIS AUTOU hO IHSOUS EIS TO PLOION
> ALLA MONOI hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU APHLQON
> 
> Notice that MONOI is a predicate adjective modifying MAQHTAI not an
> adverb modifying APHLQON. MONOI describes the state of the disciples
> after Jesus left them not the manner of their going. "his disciples,
> (being) alone, departed."
> 
> So the disciples are described as "alone" because one member of their
> band, Jesus, has departed from them, though they have each other as
> companions, contrary to Thayer. Theological considerations aside, this
> text shows that a group of people can be alone even if only one member of
> the group leaves.
> 
> Not convinced? Here's another text. QES A 3,1.2 which reads in part:
> 
> DIO MHKETI STEGONTES EUDOKHSAMEN KATALEIFQHNAI EN AQHNAIS MONOI 2 KAI
> EPEMYAMEN TIMOQEON...
> 
> Here Paul describes himself and his companion(s) (at least SILOUANOS was
> with him, 1,1) as "alone" just because Timothy had left for Thessalonika.
> Was Paul << one person alone >> << without a companion >> as Thayer
> claims? No!  :-) He was alone with a group of co-workers in Athens. I
> therefore conclude that Thayer's main definition of MONOS is defective.
> 
> (By the way, Paul is not using the "editorial we" here.)
> 
> Yours in His grace,
> 
> Richard Ghilardi -- qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
> New Haven, CT USA
> Nibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith,
> silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list