Lk 1:26 APESTALH APO/hUPO TOU QEOU
Frank Gee
frankrgee at outpost.net.au
Wed Aug 28 05:18:26 EDT 2002
In response to Carl Conrad's:
>the eighth of the questions concerned with distinctive
> readings of Codex Bezae in the text of Luke's gospel.
>
> Lk 1:26 NA27/USB4: APESTALH hO AGGELOS APO TOU QEOU; D05: ... hUPO TOU
QEOU
>
> Is there a significant difference between APESTALH APO TOU QEOU and
> APESTALH hUPO TOU QEOU? It has been suggested that the distinction between
> APO + gen. and hUPO + gen. may have weakened with time, so that one may
> have been substituted for the other. What do list-members think?
My vestigial knowledge of classical Greek has suffered with the passing of
time, but my very intuitive impression is that in earlier times APO was an
indicator of source rather than agency, while hUPO prevailed through time as
an indicator (solely) of agency. But this is all very tentative. So,
feeling my inadequacy for any serious contribution on this topic from a
diachronic perspective, my efforts have to be limited to some concordance
searching, and a little
inquiry from Louw and Nida, with the following results:
APO with the genitive is characterised by Louw and Nida as " a marker of
agent which may also be regarded as a source - 'by, from.'
A straightforward instance of the former (agentive) function which they cite
is in Acts 4:36 - IWSHF DE hO EPIKLHQEIS BARNABAS APO TWN APOSTOLWN
('Joseph, who was called Barnabas by the apostles'. Nothing remarkable so
far.
What is more interesting is their analysis of 1 Thessalonians 2:6 -
OUTE ZHTOUNTES EX ANQRWPWN DOXAN, OUTE AF' hUMWN OUTE AP' ALLWN, 'neither
seeking to be honored by people, neither by you nor by others' or 'neither
seeking glory from people, neither from you nor from others' - on which
they comment: "The expression ZHTOUNTES DOXAN in 1 Thes. 2:6 clearly
indicates an event of 'seeking to be honored' or 'seeking to be given glory.
' In such an instance, APO + gen. serves to mark not only the agent but
also a source."
Now from the diachronic perspective which our question seems to presuppose,
I would have probably put the emphasis in L & N's last sentence in reverse:
that APO marks not only source but also agent.
There are plenty of examples in the GNT where APO + gen. is used for source
with NO idea of agency, for example: TREIS ANDRES . . . APESTALMENOI APO
(from) KAISAREIAS (Acts 11:11). Such examples are unremarkable, in the
light of the likely history of the earliest function of APO + gen. (if, of
course, my intuitive account above is correct!!)
It seems to me that the only way Carl's question can be answered within the
scope of the GNT is to observe that both functions of APO + gen. are found
quite extensively, such that APO could by NT times be substituted for hUPO;
but that substitution is not reciprocal (ie UPO is not substituted for an
APO of source).
What really aroused my interest in this question is a parallel with another
Greek preposition with genitive, namely PARA. My thoughts immediately went
to the phrase in John 1:6 -
. . . ANQRWPOS, APESTALMENOS PARA QEOU. Here is another ambipollent
preposition, leaving me wondering whether the writer here has source or
agency more strongly in mind. Is John sent FROM (the presence of) God, or
BY him? For a couple of reasons, I think agency is the stronger
possibility here, as I think is probably also the case in Matthew 18:19,
though the sense of source does not seem to have been entirely lost in that
verse: ... GENHSETAI AUTOIS PARA TOU PATROS MOU TOU EN OURANOIS.
It would seem that we have an almost exclusively agentive use of PARA in
Luke 1:45 :
(TA LELALHMENA) AUTHi PARA KURIOU - though one could argue that the words
to Mary were actually spoken by the angel, whereas the Lord was their
source!
All this leads me to finish up with some further questions about
prepositions with the genitive:
1. Can we find in the GNT instances of the use of PARA + gen. which have
an EXCLUSIVELY agentive function?
2. A preliminary look through the Gospel of John seems to indicate that,
while John uses APO + gen. to indicate source, whether local or personal, he
NEVER uses APO to indicate agency.
Why is it so?
3. More oddly, it seems that John never uses UPO with the genitive
either. Is there some reason for this? (This does not seem to be a form of
absence that can simply be explained on stylistic grounds.)
Frank Gee
Jamberoo, Australia
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list