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

Iver Larsen ialarsen at multitechweb.com
Sat Oct 30 16:46:41 EDT 2004


[Carl:]
> 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.

Is it acceptable or normal to have an *anarthrous* substantive like
PLOUSIOUS function as an apposition to an *arthrous* substantive like TOUS
BALLONTAS? I don't have access to many grammars, and I could not find an
answer in BDF. I would have expected another TOUS before PLOUSIOUS, if that
is the case.

> 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 agree that it is unusual, but cannot tell whether it is unnatural in this
construction.

> 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.

BDF has a note in 412 about the participle functioning in the same way as a
relative clause, e.g.
Mt 25:34 THN hHTOIMASMENHN hUMIN BASILEIAN = THN B. hH hUMIN hHTOIMASTAI

In 412(4) he notes that "The articular participle is striking in some
instances where Attic usage would have preferred to express the attributive
relationship by means of a relative clause, e.g.
Ac 4:12: OUDE GAR hONOMA ESTIN hETERON TO DEDOMENON
Lk 18:9: PROS TINAS TOUS PEPOIQOTAS EF' hEAUTOIS
He also says that the article is not absolutely necessary.

The BALLOUSAN in verse 2 looks like such a use of an anarthrous participle
as equivalent to a relative clause.
I am still not sure about how best to analyze verse 1.
If the order had been EIDEN TOUS PLOUSIOUS BALLONTAS EIS TO GAZOFULAKION TA
DWRA AUTWN,
it would have been parallel to v. 2.
I am wondering whether the two orders are syntactically equivalent with only
a slight difference in focus because of the different word order? Maybe Luke
was focusing on the act of dropping money into the box as Jesus was looking
at the money box and saw many people pass by dropping something into it.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list