Substantive phrases with the neuter article
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Oct 3 13:31:11 EDT 2002
At 12:58 PM -0400 10/3/02, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>For: George Somsel <Polycarp66 at aol.com>:
>Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 10:25:48 EDT
>
>In a message dated 10/3/2002 8:41:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
>Since I feel partly responsible (whether rightly or wrongly) for the
>consideration that TOIS TOU PATROS in Lk 2.49 might refer back to
>DIDASKALWN in 2.46, it seems incumbent upon me to say something regarding
>this. It was due to an immediate reaction to Mme Chabert's remarks under
>influence of the plural form of TOIS that I suggested it might refer to
>DIDASKALWN. I soon began to have doubts regarding this reading and now
>incline toward the reading in the footnote or the NASB as "affairs". I do
>not feel even now that it can be read as traditionally is done as "my
>Father's house" due to the plural.
>
>In regard to Lk 20.24, 25 I think we have an entirely different situation.
>One of the functions of the article in Greek is to refer back to something
>which has already been mentioned. In this case we have
>
>TINOS EXEI EIKONA KAI EPIGRAFHN?
>
>in v. 24. It would seem that this is a deictic use of the article to point
>to what has here been mentioned -- "image and inscription". It would
>therefore be equivalent to
>
>APODOTE TA EIKONA KAI EPIGRAFHN KAISARI . . .
>Give the image and incription [of Caesar] to Caesar . . .
This was precisely Mme Chabert's assertion, so evidently, George, you are
in agreement with her on that; my own position would still be that TA
KAISAROS points INCLUSIVELY to [KAISAROS] EIKONA KAI EPIGRAFHN but that it
goes beyond that specific reference to a larger contrast between TA
KAISAROS and TA TOU QEOU--that is, I think that the substantivizing article
is not solely backwards-referring but generalizing. And what would you say
about TA PROS EIRHNHN SOI in Lk 19:42?
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
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