[B-Greek] POLIAS kai KNHMAS
John Sanders
john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 06:42:20 EDT 2009
If I may make a couple general comments, then comment on Mark's idea of the
article as a possessive adjective.
1) I do not have a copy of the Brenton/Bagster LXX, but I do have a copy
of Ralf's LXX. I believe what Daniel has transcribed as APOKOLUYAI should
read APOKALUYAI.
2) Lust in A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint, Revised Edition
identifies in Is 47,2 TAS POLIAS as a translation of the Hebrew SYBH in
place of $BL (I believe I have the correct Hebrew transliteration scheme).
I noticed, though, that in LSJ, item III under the head word "πολιός, ά, όν
(POLIOS, A, ON) is the comment: πολιά, ἡ, ... a precious stone.... I wonder
if this may be an Alexandrian euphemism for what the upraised skirt would
reveal? It would be speculative, but no more so than Lust's proposition.
3) Now concerning Mark's idea that in this case the Greek article can
be function as a possessive adjective. One can present it that way, but I
do not think it is accurate. For my part, I look at this in three possible
steps: 1) how the Greek works, 2) how we can represent how the Greek works
in English, and 3) how we would translate the Greek in English.
First using your example, the Greek is: KATASEISAS is an aorist participle
and THI CEIRI is a noun preceded by the article in the dative case.
For the English representation of how the Greek works, I would think that it
goes something along this way:
The subject, PAULOS, was introduced and since there are no other
individuals connected with this phrase, I assume the article THI connects
the noun with the PAULOS and not someone else's hand. I believe this because
the Greek article still carries some of the force of the demonstrative from
which it originated. KATASEISAS is an aorist participle which form is not
present in English. So we would normally represent this in English as a
present participle.
For an English translation. Whereas in Greek the article will connects the
noun CEIRI with Paul, the article does not necessarily connect the noun
"hand" with the noun "Paul". So, I would think that in English we tend to
use a possessive adjective to make explicit this connection. Hence,
Paul...moving (shoving, gesturing, pushing, etc.) his hand.
Moving back to Daniel's original phrase, the TAS POLIAS, whether it is the
white hairs or the gemstone, belongs to someone, since we can assume it is
some type of body part. and body parts belong to someone. In verse one we
are given the subject, PARQENOS QYGATHR BABULWNOS and later on referred to
as QUGATHR XALDAIWN. So it is she who will reveal the TAS POLIAS. But in
English we need to say it is she who will reveal "her" TAS POLIAS.
I may be in error, but I think the way you are explaining this relationship
is in terms of English to represent the Greek rather than in terms of the
Greek.
John Sanders
Suzhou, China
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 4/15/09, Daniel Buck <bucksburg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> APOKOLUYAI TO KATAKALUMMA SOU, ANAKALUYAI TAS POLIAS, ANASURE TAS KNHMAS
> remove thy veil, uncover thy white hairs, make bare the leg
>
> 1.Since the Hebrew has 'lift the skirt', I question the translation of
> 'white hairs' for POLIAS (anyway, it should be 'the', not 'thy', right?).
>
> Daniel,
>
> The article in Greek, can function as a possessive adjective, particularly
> with body parts. Acts 13:16 ANASTAS DE PAULOS KAI KATASEISAS THI
> CEIRI EIPEN, means Paul motioned with HIS hand, not the hand. I don't
> remember for sure, but I think it works this way in Hebrew as well.
>
> Mark L
>
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list