[B-Greek] Mt 9.18a Indefinite articles
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Mar 19 06:09:04 EDT 2008
On Mar 18, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Tony Pope wrote:
> Carl Conrad has mentioned that hEIS was in the process of coming
> into use as
> an indefinite article. And Steve Runge has given a helpful
> introduction to
> the intricacies of introducing participants to a narrative. But I am
> not
> sure that Mitch's question has entirely been answered.
>
> Essentially it is Matthew who uses hEIS as an indefinite for
> introducing
> participants rather than the TIS that it is used in other gospels.
> But why
> does Matthew introduce some of those who come to Jesus with hEIS,
> such as
> ARCWN hEIS (9.18) and hEIS (19.16), and others with no indefinite at
> all,
> such as hEKATONTARCOS (8.5), PARALUTIKON (9.2), ANQRWPOS (17.14),
> not to
> mention others that are qualified by an adjective or similar?
>
> Some readers will put such variations down to "style" and leave it
> at that.
> But my interest in details makes me look for a more complete answer.
> Is
> the author signalling that these particular stories are more
> important to
> his theme than the others, on the principle that the more unusual the
> linguistic signals used the more significant the content? Or could
> it be
> that hEIS is used for people who were important in the society of
> the day
> but who the author did not wish to name? (The man in 19.16 is the
> "rich
> young ruler".)
Questions are asked here, and perhaps they are more than rhetorical --
but I am not convinced that there are clear and straightforward
answers to these questions. This indefinite usage of hEIS is not
restricted to Matthew; I'd have to see some convincing evidence and
argumentation that the indefinite usage of TIS and hEIS has some
distinct semantic differentiation. I haven't done a search for hEIS
vs. TIS in the gospels, but the entry on hEIS/MIA/hEN in BDAG (3.)
shows instances in both Mark and Matthew and indicates that this is
not a Semitic usage. I should think there may be as much intentional
differentiation between second aorists conjugated with -O- endings and
those conjugated with -A- endings (e.g. Lk 1:59 HLQON (3 pl.), Lk 2:16
HLQAN (3 pl.).
> On Mar 16, 2008, at 11:20 PM, Mitch Larramore wrote:
>
>
> TAUTA AUTOU LALOUNTOS AUTOIS IDOU ARCWN hEIS ELQWN
> PROSEKUNEI AUTWi LEGWN....
>
> To take ARCWN hEIS as "one leader" seems awkward in
> this context. I note many translations prefer "a
> leader/ruler." It would seem then that this is pretty
> clearly to be taken as an indefinite article. Why,
> since this indefinite use was readily available to
> first century Greeks, did they use it in only rare
> instances? Obviously ARCWN itself could have been
> used, but at the risk of it being understood as
> Monadic or Well-Known, etc. As it is quite obvious
> from my questions, I only can "think" in English so
> many of my questions come from how an American in the
> 21st century looks at things. But it just seems like
> having a sure-enough indefinite article would come in
> rather handy now and then.
>
> Mitch Larramore
> Sugar Land, Texas
>
>
>
> ---
> 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
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list