[B-Greek] Attraction of the Relative in Eph 2:10
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Dec 14 03:28:15 EST 2009
Well, "obsession" might be overstated. Call me sensitive to bilingualism. Those who have spent many years in multilingual situations may tend to develop this ... obsession. I am no purist when it comes to Hellenistic Greek and believe it is really the dynamic language it was, in part because those Semites, Latins, Gauls, Persians, etc. who spoke it simplified, extended and complicated the language in various ways in much the same way that Indians, Indonesians, Nigerians, and others do to the English language. I certainly understand that Greek with Semitic interference is hard to spot. I spent a lot of time in Spanish speaking countries and speak Spanish fluently, but it would be difficult (not impossible) to identify French influence/interference on Spanish or Spanish influence on English spoken in a bilingual environment. Yet the tell tale marks can be striking in the New Testament, I think. Please feel free to quibble with or through out my examples, which I have taken from Winer, Grammatik, p. 200-1. For example:
I find the addition of the relative to clauses with αὐτός (or vice versa) quite a striking, perhaps even slavish, simulation of Hebrew. I think where the Hebrew relative ASHER only receives a precise specification in gender, number and case by means of a personal suffix often added to a preposition (such as B). Isn't this likely explanation for the rather odd sounding occurrence in Acts 15:17 ἐφ᾽οὕς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ αὐτούς EF hOUS EPIKEKLHTAI TO ONOMA MOU EP AUTOUS (a citation from Amos 9:12 following the LXX which has many other examples). I think “semitic” influence here would be fairly clear, since it is a quotation of the LXX, the epitome of semitic influence on a Greek text. How about Rev 17:9 ἑπτὰ ὄρη ὅπου ἡ γυνὴ κἀθηται ἐπ᾽αὐτῶν hEPTA ORH hOPOU hH GUNH KAQHTAI EP AUTWN (ὅπου cannot possibly = “the place where”, but = “the seven hills where the woman sits upon them,” an example of scolecism.) Again, “semitic” influence seems clear to me. In the NT there are simple cases like 1 Pet. 2:24 οὗ τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἰάθητε hOU TWi MWLWPI AUTOU IAQHTE (Isaiah 53:5 doesn't have οὗ). Nestle-Aland, following Wescott and Hort, omit αὐτοῦ in this passage however, one wonders whether the Byzantine reading is a result of semitic influence or LXX harmonization, if these can be distinguished. It would be a matter of the intention and language background of the scribe. So that is moot.) But there is Rev. 13:8 οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς, hOU OU GEGRAPTAI TO ONOMA AUTOU EN TWi BIBLIWi THS ZWHS. in addition there is Mk 7:25 (N.B. ἧς ... αὐτῆς): ἀλλ᾿ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, ALL EUQUW AKOUSASA GUNH PERI AUTOU hHS EICEN TO QUGATRION AUTHS PNEUMA AKAQARTON and Rev. 20:8 (ὧν) ὧν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης hWN hO ARiQMOS AUTWN hWS hH AMMOS QALASSHS , and there are:
7:2οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι τὴν γῆν hOIS EDOQH AUTOIS ADIKHSAI
7:9ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο hON ARIQMHSAI AUTON OUDEIS EDUNATO
3:8 ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι αὐτήν, hHN OUDEIS DUNATAI KLEISAI AUTHN
further Rev. 13:12 where οὗ and αὐτοῦ cannot possibly refer to 2 different substantives:
οὗ εθεραπευθη η πληγη του θανατου αὐτοῦ, hOU EQERAPUQH hH PLHGH TOU QANATOU AUTOU
Mt 3:12 = L 3:12 οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ hOU TO PTUON EN THi CEIRI AUTOU KA DIAKAQRIEI THN hALWNA AUTOU (N.B. "ἐν τῇ χειρὶ" already means "in his hand" so, it seems that αὐτοῦ as a case uneccesarily reinforcing [from a Greek point of view] the reference of and οὗ. αὐτοῦ is "his," but referring only to the only winnowing fork not the hand.). Looks like semitic influence, but you may have a different take on this.
Mc 1:7 = L 3:16 οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς κύψας λῦσαι τὸν ἱμάντα τῶν ὑποδημάτων αὐτοῦ for which Mt 3:11 has simply: οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι).
ASHER in Hebrew constructions is used in other ways, and the analogue to what I have given above is Mk 13:19 οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως and the adverbial relative Rev. 12:6 ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ and then
12:14 ὅπου τρέφεται ἐκεῖ καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως as well as the correlative pronoun και τα ιματια αυτου εγενετο στιλβοντα λευκα λιαν οια γναφευς επι της γης ου δυναται ουτως λευκαναι Mc 9:3.
In contrast to these cases which seem to reflect an unnecessary strengthening of the correlative or adverbial relative on the analogy of ASHER, it seems, to me at least, that in Gal 2:10 ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι the relative followed by αὐτὸ is not semitic, but a marked emphasis done in a very Greek way and in 1 Pet 3:24 ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν the αὐτός means "himself," semantically quite disntinct from a case where αὐτός functions to unnecessarily specify the relative. So, I think it appropriate to ask whether E. 2:10 οἷς προητοίμασεν is really or not attraction to the antecedent or a case in which the relative is again unnecessarily strengthened by the pronoun in the prepositional phrase ἐν αὐτοῖς on the analogy of the pronominal suffix in Hebrew.
Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
On Dec 13, 2009, at 11:43 PM, George F Somsel wrote:
> You seem in this and in other posts to be obsessed with the possibility of Semitic influence. While there may be some such, I think it incumbent upon you to establish that this phenomenon is not similarly present in non-Semitic Greek of the period.
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
>
>
> … search for truth, hear truth,
> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
> defend the truth till death.
>
>
> - Jan Hus
> _________
>
>
> From: "yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
> To: greek B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 10:36:08 PM
> Subject: [B-Greek] Attraction of the Relative in Eph 2:10
>
> I think that the point of saying that the attraction is largely semantic and only loosely or potentially grammatical (conforming to rules of syntax) is really that attraction/assimilation does, potentially, say something regarding the thought process of the writer. For example, in the New Testament Greek relative clauses are sometimes appear to be assimilated according to semitic usage. The situation is further complicated in that Greek does not distinguish restrictive from unrestrictive relative clauses. It seems to me that Eph 2:10 is an example of a restrictive relative, not just any good works, but those good works God prepared before hand for us to walk in. That complicates the picture. Ephesians 2:10 is a particularly good example of how difficult this matter of attraction can be to sort out. Winer, in his Grammatik neutestamentlich Sprachidioms 24, 4 (p. 225) has an interesting discussion of this passage. Here is a translation (my German is not very good, so I will include the original text. Iver or another list member could do better.) To me, Winer seems to suggest that οἶς is not necessarily an example of attraction to the antecedent at all, which is why I suggested it is, rather, "attracted" to ἐν αὐτοῖς (which would not be not "attraction" at all):
>
> κτισθέντες ... επὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἶς προητοίμασεν ὀ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν cannot mean (without attraction to the antecedent): for which God has prepared us, etc, since ἠμᾶς would not then be elided. But simple attraction is unacceptable: “the [works] which (οἶς = ἅ) God has prepared beforehand,” because the phrase would then not construe with the phrase “we might walk in them” that is, the good works need not be the works previously prepared. Therefore οἶς (without attraction to the antecedent) should not therefore be masculine: we, for whom God has prepared them, to walk in them (Rüchert), taken in this way οἶς would be construed with ἐν αὐτοῖς = ἐν οἶς as in 22,7 (p. 200). Thus (also) without attraction to the antecedent: "in which to walk God has prepared for us," or, more closely replicating the structure: "with regard to which God has prepared that we should walk in them."
>
> κτισθέντες … επὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἶς προητοίμασεν ὀ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν kann nicht (ohne Assimilation) heißen: für die uns Gott vorherbereitet hat, damit usw., da ἠμᾶς dann nicht zu entbehren wäre. Aber auch die einfach Assimilation ist unannehmbar: die (ἅ) Gott vorherbereitet hat; denn dazu, dass die Menschen in guten Werken wandeln, müssen nicht die Werke vorherbereitet werden. Soll also οἶς nicht (ohne Assimilation) Maskulinum sein: wir, denen es Gott vorherbereitet hat, in ihnen zu wandeln (Rüchert), so ist es nach 22,7 mit ἐν αὐτοῖς zusammenzufassen = ἐν οἶς (also ebenfalls ohne Assimilation): in denen zu wandeln Gott für uns vorherbereitet hat, oder mit genauerer Nachbildung der Struktur: bezüglich deren Gott vorherbereitet hat, dass wir ihnen wandeln sollen.
>
> Yancy Smith, PhD
> yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
> Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
> yancy at wbtc.com
> 5636 Wedgworth Road
> Fort Worth, TX 76133
> 817-361-7565
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> 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