Substantive phrases with the neuter article
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Oct 3 08:37:01 EDT 2002
I have been continuing off-list the discussion with Mme Chabert d'Hyères
over the usage of the definite article in the thread with subject-header,
"Re: Lk 2:49 EN TOIS ... (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)." As we have come to
something of an impasse (or should I call it by its Greek name, an APORIA?)
regarding ways in which the neuter article is used to form substantival
phrases. Mme Chabert's original suggestions was that the phrase EN TOIS TOU
PATROS MOU in Lk 2:49 might or probably does intentionally refer back to
2:46 and the word DIDASKALWN (text:
EN MESWi TWN DIDASKALWN) or even in the GNWSTOI of v. 45. I think this is
highly improbable, but some other passages have been brought to bear upon
the question, and I'd like to solicit opinions from any B-Greekers who care
to comment on this question.
We had extended our discussion to the phrases TA KAISAROS and TA TOU QEOU
IN Lk 20:24. Mme Chabert had written as follows (I've Englished her French
here and in other citations below):
"In the episode of Caesar's coin, TA refers quite explicitly to the image
and the inscription of the Emperor's name, situated where? in Jerusalem,
even if not in the Temple itself! Jesus was not questioned because of his
political opinions but as "one who teaches the way of God", He had to
answer according to the Torah. What is at stake is the power of the coin,
its imprinted image and its inscription, all three implicit in this TA.
Doesn't translating TA with "things" or "affairs," make it all-inclusive?
The literary choice of TA, of EN TOIS opens the way to implied meanings,
such as one doesn't dare express too obviously."
In my response to the above, I wrote as follows:
"To put it in a nutshell, I'd agree that "Caesar's things" or "Caesar's
affairs" is an inadequate way to convey TA KAISAROS, but I think that the
sense of the "substantivized" genitive is essentially: "what concerns
Caesar"--and I think that includes a VERY BROAD range of possibilities and
yet one cannot point very directly to something that must SPECIFICALLY be
implied in it, such as Caesar's image and inscription; I would say that
image and inscription are INCLUDED within the domain to which TA KAISAROS
points, but that they are not solely and
exclusively what TA KAISAROS must refer to in the context of the saying of
Jesus: rather his assertion is more general: whatever has to do with
Caesar--take it to Caesar, and whatever has to do with God--take it to God.
I'm reminded of a German grammarian's (Schwyzer? I'm citing from a faulty
memory) statement about the the Genitive case: "der Kasus der Beziehung im
weitesten Sinne."
And she replied as follows (and I think she really means "ellipsis" when
she writes "elision"):
"When considering the neuter article in other Lucan usage, I wonder whether
it does not reflect the principle of elision [ellipsis?]: it is no longer
the final vowel which is omitted but a whole word and the article is there
instead of substantive in question: Thus the TA GENOMENA of Lk 24:18, would
have reference to 24:19, 27 and 35; in these three verses, we would have to
read TA GENOMENA in the place of TA alone.
"It would be the same thing in Lk 19:42 D05 TA PROS EIRHNHN SOI: the TA
would substitute for: PERI PANTWN hWN EIDON GINOMENWN (Lc 19:37 D05) This
practice of elision [ellipsis?] would be more or less observed by
particular writers; TA would have become a "catch" word"; in the Pauline
epistles, for example, according to the context it indicates as much the
mysteries of God as of the man, the "fric" or even the worldly pleasures.
"That's a hypothesis; I would be surprised if it hasn't been observed by
some grammarian."
I have to say that I am no more convinced in the case of Lk 19:42 or 24:18
than I was in the case of Lk 20:24. I think that TA PROS EIRHNHN SOI "what
bears upon your peace/well-being" in the broadest sense and not
specifically to some understood noun or substantive derived from the larger
context. Of course the wider context will lend specificity to the way in
which the TA substantive phrase must be interpreted, but I do not believe
that the use of the neuter plural article here implies necessarily any
specific antecedent in the surrounding context. In fact, it seems to me
that the idea that there is some "ellipsis" involved in this usage of TA
suggests that there's something remaining of the much-older demonstrative
function of the article--and I really don't think there's any residue of
that older demonstrative function of the article in the TA phrases here
under discussion.
Are there any comments or reactions? Can anyone throw further light upon
these TA phrases? Mme Chabert and I will both surely appreciate any
feedback, whether on- or off-list.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: Most months: 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828)
675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list