Substantive phrases with hOI/TA, ellipsis, and Lk 2:49

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 14 10:08:26 EDT 2002


I want to  bring closure for my part to the discussion thread initiated
over two weeks ago (Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:23:52 -0400) with subject-header
"Lk 2:49 EN TOIS ...  (Luke in Codex Bezae issue)." I had meant to do so
sooner, but have been considerably preoccupied with family matters during
the last two weeks. I don't think I have anything new to say, but I want to
withdraw at least one mis-statement and re-state my fundamental stance on
the original issue.

Text: Lk 2:46 KAI EGENETO META hHMERAS TREIS hEURON AUTON EN TWi hIERWi
KAQEZOMENON EN MESWi TWN DIDASKALWN KAI AKOUONTA AUTWN KAI EPERWTWNTA
AUTOUS. 48 KAI IDONTES AUTON EXEPLAGHSAN, KAI EIPEN PROS AUTON hH MHTHR
AUTOU: "TEKNON, TI EPOIHSAS hHMIN hOUTWS? IDOU hO PATHR SOU KA'GW
ODUNWMENOI EZHTOUMEN SE." 49 KAI EIPEN PROS AUTOUS: "TI hOTI EZHTEITE ME?
OUK HDEITE hOTI EN TOIS TOU PATROS MOU DEI EINAI ME?" 50 KAI AUTOI OU
SUNHKAN TO hRHMA hO ELALHSEN AUTOIS.

Mme Chabert had proposed (particularly with regard to the reading in Codex
Bezae of 2:49 DEI ME EINAI where the critical text has DEI EINAI ME), that
TOIS in EN TOIS TOU PATROS MOU in Lk 2:49 might be understood as masculine
plural dative rather than neuter and as referring back to the DIDASKALOI
mentioned in Lk 2:46.

I don't think anyone joined into this discussion other than George Somsel
and myself. If I understood him aright (I think there was a fair amount of
"hemming and hawing" in this matter), George conceded the possibility that
EN TOIS might perhaps refer back to DIDASKALOI in 2:46. I continued to
think this unlikely and argued that we really don't need at all to think of
any referent of the TOIS in 2:49, that EN TOIS TOU PATROS MOU is a
perfectly intelligible standard Greek substantive phrase of the sort
commonly formed with an article and almost any type of expression.

In the course of the discussion I said some foolish things about ellipsis,
including the following: "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." This was foolish because, of course the article in all such
expressions MUST have some residue of the older demonstrative function of
hO/hH/TO comparable to a French "celui/celle,ce" or "ceci/cela\." Which is
to say, hOI/TO/TA KTL. must always really mean "the ones" or "the one." So
we may understand TOIS as masculine plural dative and we may understand EN
TOIS TOU PATROS MOU to mean "among the ones of my father" or we may
understand TOIS as neuter plural dative and in that case understand EN TOIS
TOU PATROS MOU to mean "amid my father's things/matters/concerns" or, in
the familiar KJV language, "about my father's business."

I will grant that reading TOIS here as masculine rather than neuter is
plausible (and I guess I didn't concede that previously), but I still don't
think it is likely or imperative to understand it as referring backwards to
the DIDASKALOI of 2:46. What I really want to say is that I think that the
substantivizing article with a genitive phrase functions pretty much like
an English substantivized genitive with an elliptical but more-or-less
readily understood referent, as when we say, "I'm going to my brother
Edward's" and we understand "house" or "home" as implicit. Or we may in a
conventional salutation say something like "Felicitations to you and
yours"--where "yours" means the same as Greek would expression by TOIS SOIS
or TOIS SOU. I think that's really what we have in EN TOIS TOU PATROS MOU;
we really don't need to supply an implicit noun or look for a referent in
the text preceding, although we may choose to do so if we wish.

In the course of the discussion of this problem there was an ancillary
discussion of the synoptic dominical saying APODOTE (OUN) TA KAISAROS
KAISARI KAI TA TOU QEOU TWi QEWi (Mt 22:21, Mk 12:16, Lk 20:24. In this
case it was argued that TA KAISAROS must refer back to the EIKWN and
EPIGRAFH of Caesar in the preceding verses, and of course there is indeed
that reference, BUT the substantive content of TA KAISAROS in the dominical
saying is clearly broader than "Caesar's image and inscription." The
traditional English versions make it "the things that are Caesar's" and TA
TOU QEOU as "the things that are God's." Surely more than tribute money is
involved in the dominical saying. I suspect that there are divergent views
over how widely applicable or practical a distinction between secular and
religious obligations is intended here. This is, after all, in its own
context fundamentally a demonstration of Jesus' wit when confronted by
representatives of the religious establishment with questions intended to
be embarrassing. But I think we could as well translate the dominical
saying as, "Pay Caesar's to Caesar and God's to God."

I think that I am herewith conceding with one hand the possibility of
backward reference of EN TOIS TOU PATROS MOU of Lk 2:49 to the DIDASKALOI
of Lk 2:46 while taking it back with the other. I think the substantivizing
phrase with the article + genitive phrase is always broader rather than
narrower in its compass, that when Jesus says in Lk 2:49 "OUK HDEITE hOTI
EN TOIS TOU PATROS MOU DEI EINAI ME?" Luke probably means us to understand
something more than that this child is obliged to spend time with the
learned men in the Temple. And I hope that this may be a sufficiently
"wishy-washy" response to bring closure at long last to what is now getting
to be TA TOU PALAI.
-- 

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