[B-Greek] Prep phrase and DA

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 22 00:32:09 EST 2007


I think George (and Robertson!) are right about two points.  There is a tendency in some instances after prepositions for the article to be lacking where you might expect it otherwise.  But in these cases, and in every case, the presence or lack of the article always means SOMETHING.  It never "doesn't matter."  You've peaked my interest now, and it would be fun every time an article does or does not appear with a prep to try to figure out why.  I bet a disseration could be done in every case.
   
  But just off hand look at Mt 6:10, "your will be done EPI GHS" versus Mt 6:19, "don't build up treasure EPI THS GHS."  In each case a definite earth is meant, so why no article in the first one?  (And why do other manuscripts of Mt. 6:10 have the article?)  I don't know, except that it appears, like EN OIKWi, it became a fixed expression.  But it means something.  I actually think it probably DOES work like in English.  If I tell my son "get in bed" and he does not and so I tell him again, "get in the bed." it does not mean because I now have a specific bed in mind.  The sublte difference (I think now I am upset and want to use an extra syllable to drive the point home) is there but I bet only a native English speaker would be able to figure it out.  I bet it's the same thing in Greek.  If Paul said that women should learn from their own husbands EN TWi OIKWi instead of EN OIKWi (1 Cor. 14:35,) it would not "not matter."  There would be meaning there even if we could not
 figure it out.  To ask when the definite article does matter, even after prepositions, is like asking when it doesn't matter whether a sentence has an adverb or not. It always matters.
   
   
George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:
  My initial reaction is to think that this might be due to the specificity of the noun in one case and the indefiniteness in another. For example, in Mt 3.6 we see

6 καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν. 

KAI EBAPTIZONTO EN TWi IORDANHi POTAMWi hUP' AUTOU ECOMOLOGOUMENOI TAS hAMARTIAS AUTWN

Wereas in Mt 3.11 we read 

11 Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν, ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μοÏ
 ἐρχόμενος ἰσχÏ
ρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ Ï€Ï
ρί· 

EGW MEN hUMAS BAPTIZW EN hUDATI EIS METANOIAN, hO DE OPISW MOU ERXOMENOS ISXUROTEROS MOU ESTIN, hOU OUK EIMI hIKANO TA hUPODHMATA BASTASAI AUTOS hUMAS BAPTISEI EN PNEUMATI hAGIWi KAI PURI

It appears that the Jordan is a specific river whereas the water can be any water (which happens to be in the river). There is something of a problem with this formulation. This regards the second part of 3.11 which has βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ Ï€Ï
ρί·BAPTISEI EN PNEUMATI hAGIWi KAI PURI. Here it would seem that the PNEUMA hAGION should be a specific indivitual entity. It does seem that if the object is the NAME of a specific entity such as a person or a city then it does not require the article which may explain PNEUMA hAGION, but the Jordan would likewise seem to be a specific river and would not require an article. What this amounts to is that Greek is not English and does not followi the rules of English. As A. T. Robertson says regarding this

The use of a preposition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as ἐν οἴκῳ EN OIKWi. Possessive pronouns also make definite, as do genitives. The context itself often is clear enough. The demonstrative may be used besides the article. Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not be. The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom, as in ἡ σοφία hH SOFIA, ὁ Παῦλος hO PAULOS. It is not a matter of translation. 

Robertson, A. (1919; 2006). A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (756). Logos.


george
gfsomsel

Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.

- Jan Hus
_________



----- Original Message ----
From: Mitch Larramore 
To: B Greek 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:22:27 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] Prep phrase and DA

Some prep phrases (prep + DA + Object) have the
definite article included, and some (prep + object) do
not. Is there a reason, semantically speaking, when
the DA is 1) there or 2) not there? I'm assuming at
times that it really doesn't matter, but I'm
interested in knowing when it does matter (either when
the DA is include or not).

I don't want to give a specific example because
sometimes responders zero in on that one example
rather than on the grammatical phenomenon (rule?).

Mitch Larramore
Sugar Land, Texas


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
---
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


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
---
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


       
---------------------------------
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.  Make Yahoo! your homepage.


More information about the B-Greek mailing list