[B-Greek] Lk 21:1 ptc, adj or subst?

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 29 05:59:03 EDT 2004


Scott Wells wrote me off-list with this follow-up (prior, I think, to
Iver's response on the same query); I include it expecting he won't object
to my citing that message along with my reply.

At 9:18 AM -0400 10/28/04, Scott Wells wrote:
>Dr. Conrad,
>
>Thank you for your reply.  Please bear with this struggling grad student as
>I wrestle with this.  While I see the rationale behind your statement, I
>find the resultant meaning a bit awkward.  There seems to be a sense in the
>two renderings you give that all those who were contributing to the treasury
>were wealthy, with the lone exception being the poor widow. Though that is
>not necessarily the case on strictly grammatical terms, the suggestion seems
>to be there, or so it seems to me.
>
>The English translations I checked indeed rendered it as you say.  Allow me
>to make sure I understand how these trss are reading this.  They are taking
>TOUS to go with the adj PLOUSIOUS (reading it as substantival), which
>together are the dir obj of EIDEN (he saw the rich).  BALLONTES is therefore
>taken as an adverbial ptc with TA DWRA as its obj.  While this reads
>smoothly in English, the only way I could see this as possible is if it
>could be demonstrated that the article immediately before BALLONTES does in
>fact not go with BALLONTES (if TOUS BALLONTES were read as a unit it would
>necessarily not be an adv ptc (b/c the art is modifying the ptc) but as an
>attributive ptc (either attributive (proper) or as a substantive, using
>BDF's terms (BDF, sec 412)).  Am I understanding the rationale behind the
>Eng trss correctly and if so are the criticisms I offered legitimate?  This
>is what prompted my 1st question on my 1st post regarding the # of words
>that may intervene between an article and the subst it modifies.
>
>It seems unlikely to me that an early reader of Luke would encounter TOUS,
>and after 7 intervening words, link it up with PLOUSIOS.  Maybe I am just
>too influenced by English.  Another way I thought of rendering it (though I
>didn't include it in my 1st post b/c I felt it was too unlikely) was to read
>PLOUSIOUS as apposition (he saw those who were putting their gifts into the
>treasury, rich men.  I found that unlikely b/c it seemed to suggest that all
>(except the widow) who were contributing were wealthy (I am assuming that
>wealthy people were not the norm in 1st cent Palestine and that Jesus didn't
>just happen to be observing at a time when a group of wealthy contributors
>arrived).
>
>One last suggestion.  Would it be possible to render the ptc "some who were
>putting their gifts into the treasury, (i.e.) wealthy men"?  I assume the
>normal way of writing this would be with TIS + a relative clause.

In looking back again at Lk 21:1-2 I think I really would prefer to analyze
the construction as you suggest: TOUS BALLONTAS EIS TO GAZOFULAKION TA DWRA
AUTWN is, I think the primary object of EIDEN, while PLOUSIOUS should
probably be understood as a substantive in apposition to TOUS BALLONTAS.
Iver has argued that TOUS PLOUSIOUS is primary and that the participial
phrase is dependent upon that phrase and that this is a natural Greek
collocation of words; while I wouldn't rule that out of the question, I
think it is NOT a natural Greek collocation of words. I would, on the other
hand, agree with him that chiastic arrangement likely accounts for the way
the two verses are formulated: EIDEN TOUS BALLONTAS EIS TO GAZOFULAKION TA
DWRA AUTWN PLOUSIOUS 2 EIDEN DE TINA CHRAN PENICRAN BALLOUSAN EKEI LEPTA
DUO ... That is to say, Luke positions the words PLOUSIOUS and TINA CHRAN
PENICRAN centrally in the sequence and reformulates what the poor widow
does in BALLOUSAN EKEI LEPTA DUO. I don't believe, however, that BALLONTAS
... AUTWN is an attributive participial phrase sandwiched in between the
article TOUS and its 'head noun' PLOUSIOUS.

While Synoptic criticism is not open to discussion in this forum, I think
that the Marcan formulation of this text, which many, myself included,
would consider earlier than the Lucan formulation, lends some weight to the
view you have suggested and I have concurred with above: Mk 12:41 KAI
KAQISAS KATENANTI TOU GAZOFULAKIOU EQEWREI PWS hO OCLOS BALLEI CALKON EIS
TO GAZOFULAKION, KAI POLLOI PLOUSIOI EBALLON POLLA; 42 KAI ELQOUSA MIA CHRA
PTWCH EBALEN LEPTA DUO, hO ESTIN KODRANTHS. My guess would be that Luke
observed the sequence of the Marcan version: people putting their money
into the treasury, rich people putting lots in, a single poor widow putting
in her tuppence; then Luke reformulated the sequence so that the
substantive participial phrase TOUS BALLONTAS ... TA DWRA AUTWN identifies
the whole group of donors putting money into the treasury, but then singles
out PLOUSIOUS as an appositive to the participial phrase, and immediately
points to the CHRHAN PENICRAN as a distinct figure putting her own money
in. The Lucan formulation intensifies the contrast, but at some cost to the
clarity of expression in the more repetitive (hO OCLOS BALLEI ... PLOUSIOI
EBALLON ... CHRA EBALEN) but clearer Marcan formulation.

Finally, as to the English translations that have been noted, I think they
have simplified in the version the more complex expression of the Lucan
Greek text; rather than "saw the ones putting their gifts into the
treasury--rich people" they give us "saw the rich people putting their
gifts into the treasury." And, as I said above, I wouldn't rule out
altogether that this was Luke's intention, but I really don't think the
positioning of the lengthy participial phrase between the article TOUS and
the noun PLOUSIOUS is "natural."
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list