[B-Greek] Dative Absolute? Archives
Iver Larsen
iver at larsen.dk
Tue Jan 24 04:05:28 EST 2006
>> Acts 22:17 -- EGENETO DE MOI hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM KAI
> > PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI
>
> So, a dative absolute and a genitive absolute side by side and in the same sentence?
> Any difference in meaning or force between them, or why both are used, rather than 2
> datives or two genitives? On the other hand, the subject of the dative absolute and the
> subject of the genitive absolute are the same as the subject of the infinitive phrase -
> yet I thought "absolutes" were used when their subjects were NOT the subjects of the
> main clause - or is this not the case here because the main clause is an infinitive,
> clause, with the subject in the accusative case? Help!! ;^)
>
> Eric S. Weiss
>From a linguistic point of view I would describe the participle with peripheral elements as a subordinate clause, almost
like a parenthesis.
The main clause is EGENETO DE MOI
The dative personal pronoun MOI puts added emphasis on the experiencer/beneficiary of the event:
"It happened to ME"
EGENETO is regularly followed by an accusative with infinitive, so the subordinate clause that complements the main
clause is:
GENESQAI ME EN EKSTASEI
"(that) I came into an out-of-myself-experience"
We apparently have two subordinate clauses, both expressed by a participle with peripheral elements and coordinated by
KAI.
The first one is
hUPOSTREYANTI EIS IEROUSALHM
It is dative because it connects to and describes and is case-governed by MOI.
"(after I) had returned to Jerusalem". The aorist indicates that this event took place before the main event.
The second one is
PROSEUCOMENOU MOU EN TWi hIERWi
"while I was praying in the temple"
This clause is not attached to MOI, but in a looser sense to the main verb EGENETO. The present tense indicates that it
took place at the same time as the EGENETO MOI.
"It happened to me, after having returned to Jerusalem, and while I was praying in the temple, that...."
The subject of the genitive absolute is "I", but the subject of EGENETO is the semantically empty "it". The pertinent
question for the dative versus genitive is - as Carl has shown - whether the participle connects to a dative element and
therefore becomes dative, or whether it connects to the event/verb of the main clause and therefore is expressed using
the circumstantial genitive absolute.
An alternative analysis of the attachment of the genitive was given by Carl, but then the KAI is awkward, and in my
opinion the whole analysis becomes more awkward than necessary. It seems simpler to assume that the KAI coordinates the
two subordinate clauses of which one is dative because it is specifically attached to MOI and the second is genitive
because it is loosely connected to the main verb EGENETO with the impersonal subject "it".
The extra and apparently unnecessary AUTWi in Matt 8:23 is indeed awkward, and I can see why some would prefer to call
this a dative absolute. But this may be odd because it might reflect the Hebrew original version of Matthew's Gospel. I
don't know enough Hebrew to argue for or against. Translations sometimes have awkward grammar, especially if they are
literal ones.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list