Is there method to the madness why is the interrogative used here not the ((Attic) Koine) demonstrative τηλικοῦτος?Galatians 6:11 wrote:Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί.
My thinking is that an unemphatic word order might have been,
[Is the οἷς the correct relative to use? Would ἃ be suitable (even though it would be strange to use a relative when no chnage of case is needed), considering that some people understand them to be physically letters which he wrote, rather than by which (dative) he wrote. Though ultimately, it doesn't make much difference to the overall sense. [γράμμα can also mean "letter" as in the "message I wrote to you (rather than spoke)"]]Ἴδετε πηλίκα γράμματα οἷς ἔγραψα ὑμῖν [τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην] τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί.
"Look at how big the letters [A, B, C...] are, with which I wrote [this letter] to you with my hand."
It doesn't seem to be πηλίκος instead of τηλικοῦτος on account of the ἔγραψα "I wrote" being first person, and asking, πηλίκοις γράμμασιν ἔγραψα ὑμῖν; "How big are the letters which I wrote to you?", which of course he knows the size of, because he is writing them.[/list]
For comparison, we can look at:
This is the other New Testament instance in which πηλίκος is used. Ἴδετε is similar to Θεωρεῖτε, but the relative is spelt out here. I suppose that to rearrange this construction in Hebrews after the manner of the one in Galatians, it might have been.Hebrews 7:4 (Byz 2005) wrote:Θεωρεῖτε δὲ πηλίκος οὗτος, ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην Ἀβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων ὁ πατριάρχης.
To look further afield:Hebrews 7:4 rearranged to emphasis the (adverbial) ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων wrote:Θεωρεῖτε δὲ πηλίκῳ ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων τούτῳ δεκάτην ἔδωκεν Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατριάρχης.
Here Perrin takes it as an actual interrogative.Plutarch, Comparison of Agis and Cleomenes and the Gracchi 1.4b wrote:πηλίκον οὖν ἐνόμιζε κακὸν εἶναι τὸ κερδαίνειν ἀδίκως ὁ καὶ δικαίως πλέον ἔχειν ἑτέρου πλεονεξίαν ἡγούμενος;
How great a baseness, then, would unlawful gain have been held to be by one in whose eyes even the lawful possession of more than another was rapacity?
Similar to the two New Testament examples, however, it is constructed here with νομίζειν "consider", and with no relative. Because there are only two "parties" involved here, the τὸ κερδαίνειν ἀδίκως would have to be resolved (unabstracted) first to οἱ διεφθαρμένοι πρεσβύτεροι κερδαίνουσιν ἀδίκως, and the description of Agis separated (as was done with Melchisadek in the book of Hebrews) then the emphasis changed to them, before (perhaps) a relative could be added (but I think keeping it as a particle is better, because requires two accusatives in the construction). Perhaps it is enough to leave it as a participle
ὁ Ἆγις δικαίως πλέον ἔχειν ἑτέρου καὶ πλεονεξίαν ἡγήσατο. οὖτος οὖν πηλίκους ἐνόμιζε διεφθαρμένους (κακοὺς) εἶναι τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς κερδαίνοντας ἀδίκως.
Also taken as a full question by Bernadakis, but in keeping with the similarity with the New Testament examples, it (perhaps) does not neccessarily have to be taken as such (afterall maths is not the most exciting subject at school, is it?). The τὴν διάμετρον τηλικοῦτον is an accompished fact, not something questionable.Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum 11 wrote:τίνας οἰόμεθα καὶ πηλίκας ἡδονὰς ἀπὸ γεωμετρίας δρέπεσθαι καὶ ἀστρολογίας Εὐκλείδην γράφοντα τὰ διοπτρικὰ καὶ Φίλιππον ἀποδεικνύντα περὶ τοῦ σχήματος τῆς σελήνης καὶ Ἀρχιμήδην ἀνευρόντα τῇ γωνίᾳ τὴν διάμετρον τοῦ ἡλίου τηλικοῦτον τοῦ μεγίστου κύκλου μέρος οὖσαν, ἡλίκον ἡ γωνία τῶν τεσσάρων ὀρθῶν: καὶ Ἀπολλώνιον καὶ Ἀρίσταρχον, ἑτέρων τοιούτων εὑρετὰς;
what and how great satisfactions may we then suppose to have been reaped from geometry and astronomy by Euclid when he wrote his Dioptrics, by Philippus when he had perfected his demonstration of the figure of the moon, by Archimedes when with the help of a certain angle he had found the sun's diameter to make the same part of the largest circle that that angle made of four right angles, and by Apollonius and Aristarchus who were the inventors of some other things of the like nature?