[B-Greek] ACTS 18:18 TOIS ADELFOIS
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 24 08:39:15 EST 2006
It seems our original text has gotten lost somewhere so rather than trying to find it, I'll just post it again.
hO DE PAULOS ETI PROSMEINAS hHMERAS hIKANAS TOIS ADELFOIS APOTACAMENOS ECEPLEI EIS THN SURIAN, KAI SUN AUTWi PRISKILLA KAI AKULAS, KEIRAMENOS EN KEGXREAIS THN KEFALHN, EIXEN GAR EUXHN
I might note that some speak of "processing" the text, but that seems too much like factory made cheese to me. I am reminded of an old Smith-Barney ad where John Houseman says, "They make money the old-fashioned way: They EARN it." I deal with texts in the old-fashioned way, I READ them. This is usually from left to right unless it happens to be Hebrew or one of the other Semitic languages that goes from right to left. If some would rather make cheese, I suppose that's their privilege.
When we speak of genitives, we may talk of a subjective genitive or an objective genitive or we may simply realize that it is a genitive which would have been sufficient for the native speakers who would have deduced the proper understanding(s) of its usage. I'm wondering if TOIS ADELFOIS might be similar in that being plunked down in between two verbs it might equally well be construed with either one or both. Then Paul would be understood as remaining "with the brethren" for a some time as well as waving bye-bye "to the brethren."
george
gfsomsel
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 4:32:53 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] ACTS 18:18 TOIS ADELFOIS
----- Original Message -----
On Dec 23, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
<snip>
First let me say thank you for supplying the kind of texts that I was looking for and did not have
access to outside the Bible. You have shown that PROSMENW can indeed occur with an accusative object
just like MENW and in the same sense of waiting for someone. This sense was not deemed worthy of
being mentioned in BAGD, either because it is rare or does not occur in the NT. I don't understand
what the PROS is doing there, but it gives credence to the suggestion by George that the alternative
manuscript of Tob 2:2 is acceptable in Greek, even though MENW would be more normal and standard.
This was an aside issue in exploring the senses of PROSMENW, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the
understanding of Acts 18:18 since we have no accusative object here. The rare (PROS)MENW with
accusative is rather a different sense than PROSMENW with dative.
> RE: methodology
>
> Should we make decisions about word order based on the patterns of a
> single word used a few times in a small corpus like the GNT? I wonder
> if this is valid methodology. Like Carl, I am not impressed by the
> position of TOIS ADELFOIS relative to APOTASSW or PROSMENW. See the
> following with a dative preceding PROSMENW.
No, we certainly should not, and that is not at all what I am doing. The principle of "left order
prominence" was apparenlty first explained by Joseph Rotherham in his "The New Testament Critically
Emphasized" from 1878. It amazes me to this day that some Greek scholars do not recognize or use
this basic and general principle. The principle says "The more to the left an item occurs, the more
prominent it is." You could also explain it in terms of markedness theory.
This principle has been well documented from all sorts of Greek texts rather than "a single word
used a few times". Now, there are some idiosyncracies with certain authors, and the principle needs
fleshing out with various consituents, since it operates somewhat differently within a phrase,
within a clause and within a sentence, but the basic idea is the same. Those who do not recognize
the principle or the importance of it, will not be impressed when the principle is invoked to
explain the Greek text.
> Clemens Homily 7, chapter 12, sect. 3, l. 2
>
> KAI GENOMENOS EKEI KAI
> MAQWN, hOTI SIMWN OUDE MIAS hHMERAS AUTOIS PROSEMEINEN, ALL EUQEWS
> EIS TRIPOLIN hWRMHSEN, OLIGWN hHMERWN AUTOIS EPIMEINAS KAI
> QERAPEUSAS OUK
> OLIGOUS KAI TAIS BIBLOIS AUTOUS ENASKHSAS,
Why does Clemens front each and every pronoun? This is non-standard, unless there is some contextual
reason to emphasize all of these pronouns. I would need more context to investigate that. Since I
agree with your statement on methodology, I would not base any decisions on one piece of text which
appears to be non-standard, but where I need more context to make a decision. I have not studied any
particular idiosyncracies of Clemens, and would be happy to hear from those who may have done so.
How does he generally employ word order?
---------------------------------
EK:
Flavius Josephus…, Antiquitates Ju…, Book 11, chapter 232, l. 1
KAI TROFHi KAI POTWi KAI TOIS hHDESIN APOTAXAMENH
TRISIN hHMERAIS HiTEI TON QEON ELEHQHNAI MEN AUTHN,
(232) and bidding farewell to meat and drink and all delicacies, for
three days’ time; and she entreated God to have mercy upon her ...
Note the three dative arguements in front of APOTAXAMENH.
Iver:
Thank you, this is nice example where the author employs the fronting principle to choose what to
put the spotlight on. The author has put relative prominence on the things that she is renouncing
rather that the verb. There are other things she could have renounced, but the topic here is "food,
drink and pleasurable things", or in short, complete fasting. Notice that TRISIN is fronted before
hHMERAIS. Now, numerals have inherent emphasis, because the mere mentioning of a number indicates
that there is focus on the amount. So, numerals often come before the noun they modify. Statistics
would show that the amount of fronted numerals is about the same as the amount of non-fronted ones.
The standard for most authors is to have the adjective follow the noun it modifies, but numerals are
often fronted because they easily lend themselves to emphasis. Compare the TREIS hHMERAS in Matt
12:40 with hHMERAI TREIS in Mat 15:32 and the TREIS hHMERAS in Acts 28:7 with hHMERAS TREIS in Acts
28.12. It is fairly simple to get a feel for the intended meaning by putting stress on the fronted
word when translated into English. The TREIS hHMERAS suggest emphasis on the "three" rather than 2
or 5, while hHMERAS TREIS suggests emphasis on "days" rather than hours or months. A theory of Greek
grammar that is not able to explain these word order choices, is seriously lacking in explanatory
power.
Josephus is emphasizing that she abstained from food, drinks and pleasures for no less than THREE
days. Notice also how the final AUTHN is placed all the way to the right in the least prominent
position, because the question is about God's mercy, and there is no contrast between showing mercy
to her or others.
So, this example by following the word order principle, supports my suggestion that ADELFOIS does
not belong to APOTAXAMENOS. In Acts 18:18. The spotlight is NOT on saying good-bye to the BROTHERS
rather than to other people. The spotlight is on the activity of saying good-bye.
It is not enough to find examples of different word orders. One needs to be able to explain the
pragmatic reasons for those choices.
Thank you for bringing further support to my preferred interpretation of Acts 18:18 and the general
principle of left order prominence.
Happy Christmas to all,
Iver Larsen
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list