[B-Greek] EINAI TON CRISTON IHSOUN, Act 18:5

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Nov 13 05:52:50 EST 2007


On Nov 13, 2007, at 2:32 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

>
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 10:10 PM, Webb Mealy wrote:
>
>> I'd really like to know people's opinion as to whether the words
>> EINAI TON
>> CRISTON IHSOUN are more likely to be making the one assertion or
>> the other,
>> and the Greek grammatical principles people are depending on in
>> forming
>> their assessments. ...
>
>
>
>> ...
>> The words EINAI TON CRISTON IHSOUN seem to me to be susceptible of  
>> two
>> different understandings:
>>
>> 1. You know the Messiah that you're all expecting? Well, Jesus is  
>> him.
>> 2. You know Jesus of Nazareth? Well, he's the Messiah you're all
>> expecting.
>
>
> Barrett ICC 1998:866, Parsons-Culy 2003:345, Wallace 1996:194-97
>
> Webb,
>
> It looks like you are reading this as a topic-comment articulation
> and you are asking which constituent is the topic TON CRISTON or
> IHSOUN. If this were a topic-comment construction then word order
> would be a significant issue since typically a topic is clause
> initial. However, I am not certain that topic-comment is the best
> frame work for dealing with this text where the infinitive and its
> arguments are a constituent in a clause at a higher level. When I say
> I am not sure that is exactly what I mean, I am not saying you are
> wrong, I just don't know.
>
> RE: the syntax question
>
> Perhaps George who has an e-version of Wallace would like to post
> pages 194-197 where this issue is discussed in some detail. I doubt
> if there is a solid answer to your question. Word order isn't going
> to answer it. The article with CRISTON doesn't answer it (contra
> Barrett) because IHSOUN is a proper name. Parsons-Culy seem to think
> the proximity of TON CRISTON to EINAI favors taking TON CRISTON as
> the subject. But Wallace disagrees and Wallace occasionally gets
> something right even though his general approach has been the object
> of regular criticism in this forum.

I have the e-text of Wallace, but after reading through it, I really  
don't think what he says is conclusive; it seems to me that he's  
reasonably honest here in recognizing that the choice between  
alternative ways of understanding the Greek in these passages may be  
subjective or arbitrary rather than clearly resolved by unquestionable  
criteria. My own subjective choice is "that Jesus is the Christ" --  
and I guess the criterion I prefer to go with is that the predicate  
term is the one marked by the article. "Ya pays yer money and ya takes  
yer choice."

I've decided to post only a part of those pages. This is under  
accusative usage; the specific section relevant to our passage is 5.  
Accusative Subject of the Infinitive, which begins on page 192. Under  
'(5) c. illustrations' he discusses "Problematic Texts""
---------------
	3)  Problematic Texts
	Phil 1:7  διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ  
ὑμᾶς DIA TO ECEIN ME EN THi KARDIAi hUMAS
	because I have you in [my] heart or
	because you have me in [your] heart
	This is the one passage that Cripe felt was highly ambiguous. It is  
possible to translate, “because you have me in your heart . . .” or  
“because I have you in my heart . . .” Either is possible because:  
(a) both subject and direct object are in the acc.; (b) the article  
τῇ (καρδίᾳ KARDIAi) implies possession (which could be  
either “my” or “your”); and (c) in Pauline literature  
“heart” is often used as a collective singular (i.e., referring to  
plural possession). The context must be determinative. But this has  
been argued both ways. In cases such as this, the best approach is to  
bring in word order—not as though nothing else mattered, but as the  
factor that tips the scales.77
	2 Cor 2:13  οὐκ ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν τῷ  
πνεύματί μου τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον  
OUK ESCHKA ANESIN TWi PNEUMATI MOU TWi MH hEUREIN ME TITON
	I had no rest in my soul when I did not find Titus or
	I had no rest in my soul when Titus did not find me
	Although this text could, in a given context, be read either way, it
{p. 197}	probably means “I did not find Titus.” The connection  
between the ἔσχηκα ἄνεσιν ESCHKA ANESIN and the  
infinitive clause suggests this: if Paul is looking for Titus, he is  
not resting.
	Cf. also 2 Cor 8:6 (S-O); Acts 18:5, 28 (S-P). Both Acts passages  
read, εἶναι τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν EINAI TON  
CRISTON IHSOUN. Note the differences in translation: “Jesus was the  
Christ” (AV, NASB, NIV) vs. “the Christ was Jesus” (RSV, NEB).78
----------------


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)


More information about the B-Greek mailing list