Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by Stephen Hughes »

David Lim wrote:You got the meaning of "indefinite relative pronoun" wrong. It does not mean that it has no reference in the sentence. If you looked at the example of "οστις" that I gave earlier, you can see that "ητις ..." is in apposition to "την ζωην ...", but is called an indefinite relative pronoun. I don't know how the name "indefinite relative pronoun" came about, but if you want my own idiosyncratic explanation of its precise meaning: It creates an indefinite (unspecified) entity X, takes a phrase P of the same type that a relative pronoun takes (where P captures X as the missing part), and returns a noun phrase referring to X. This noun phrase can then be put in apposition to another noun phrase, just as in the example I gave.
While that is logical, it crosses the boundaries of how Greek is used. Nominal phrases do not have to agree to the same degree as relative clauses do. Relative clauses are relative clauses and while they have many of the same properties as nominal phrases they are constrained by more rules than nominal phrases - the reason for this is compensation for ambiguity. A noun has a reference, while a pronoun borrows its reference already in the sentence or implied by context - because of which dependency it has to agree more closely in number case and gender than a noun would have to. Without the extra requirements for agreement there is too much ambiguity in meaning and there is a likelihood that understanding would suffer.

The creation of an initially null-value indefinite entity is a theoretical step which doesn't exist in the language and remains an indefinite entity even when it has the returned likeness of a noun phrase (similarly as you can't get rid of i (the unreal number) by assumption). The indefinite entity noun phrase that you have hypothesised has to always draw its existence from the process and the process can only continue to occur in understanding while there is agreement in number, case and gender with an element in the context. A noun has its own existence and can exist when it does not have full agreement with the thing in its context so long as that thing also enjoys its own existence. Nouns seem to be able to be juxtaposed in Greek simply on the basis of case. In the same vein, adjectives in Greek have no independent meaning, so they are required to agree in number, case and gender with their nouns etc.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Hughes wrote:This is an infectional language where things have to agree to the linguistically most possible degree (with a few well-known exceptions - neuter plural with singular verbs) and in which lanugage accusative singulars (and plurals) tend to be treated as adverbs.
Hmm I think many "infectional" languages get infected by a disease that causes it to use "it" (or close equivalents) for lots of things, even if plural. If you need to have more examples, John 17:2 has "ο" referring to a group of multiple individuals that are later referred to by "αυτοις", and 2 Thes 3:17 has "ο" referring to "ο ασπασμος". Rom 6:10 has "ο" referring to the implicit "θανατον", but you can ignore this instance if you don't consider it to count.

Also, I would appreciate if you get to the point instead of using various analogies half of which I don't get and the other half of which I disagree with. I've already explained how a singular neuter can be used to refer to more than just grammatically singular neuter entities, and many grammars agree with me.

Carl, there's always the possibility that "ο" is a scribal mistake, but I don't think it's ungrammatical or stemming from some Hebrew. The repetition of the pronoun is not often especially in short phrases, so why would you expect "αυτους"? Also, how exactly is the instance of "ητις" in 1 John 1:3 different from the "ο" in Matt 12:4? Unless you mean that "ος" cannot function the way "οστις" does, I can't quite see your point. But if they are the same grammatically, then the "ο" and "αυτοις" in John 17:2 are equally jarring.
δαυιδ λιμ
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by cwconrad »

David Lim wrote:Carl, there's always the possibility that "ο" is a scribal mistake, but I don't think it's ungrammatical or stemming from some Hebrew. The repetition of the pronoun is not often especially in short phrases, so why would you expect "αυτους"? Also, how exactly is the instance of "ητις" in 1 John 1:3 different from the "ο" in Matt 12:4? Unless you mean that "ος" cannot function the way "οστις" does, I can't quite see your point. But if they are the same grammatically, then the "ο" and "αυτοις" in John 17:2 are equally jarring.
I don't think there's a scribal mistake, and I'm certainly not committed to the Semitism, but it does seem to me that Mt 12:4 -- again I quote:
... πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;
is not quite like the verses you've cited:
Mark 10:9 ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.,
Mark 13:37 ὃ δὲ ὑμῖν λέγω πᾶσιν λέγω, γρηγορεῖτε.
1 John 1:1 Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν …
In these three instances there is no antecedent but what is contained within the relative pronoun ὃ; in fact, in each of these texts the ὃ points forward. In Mt 12:4 the ὃ, even understood as an accusative object of φαγεῖν, still clearly looks back to the ἄρτους of the preceding clause. It still seems to me that the οὓς of the Marcan and Lucan texts is clearer. For that matter, the periphrastic verbal formation οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν seems odd (to me, at least); why not ἐξῆν?

Moreover, although we ordinarily steer clear of redactional questions (Which version, if any is older;? Which version indicates reformulation in the interest of clarity?), I have difficulty conceiving Mt's phrasing of this clause as the earliest of the three versions, but I have equal difficulty seeing why he would have changed the οὓς to ὃ.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

There's an article online by James L. Boyer from Grace Theological Journal who calls this a "neuter of general notion" and compares it to Gal 2:20; Eph 5:4, 5; Col 3:14; 2 Thess 3:17; and 1 Tim 2:10. I haven't checked all of them, but Col 3:14 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος could be a reasonable parallel.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by David Lim »

cwconrad wrote:
David Lim wrote:Carl, there's always the possibility that "ο" is a scribal mistake, but I don't think it's ungrammatical or stemming from some Hebrew. The repetition of the pronoun is not often especially in short phrases, so why would you expect "αυτους"? Also, how exactly is the instance of "ητις" in 1 John 1:3 different from the "ο" in Matt 12:4? Unless you mean that "ος" cannot function the way "οστις" does, I can't quite see your point. But if they are the same grammatically, then the "ο" and "αυτοις" in John 17:2 are equally jarring.
I don't think there's a scribal mistake, and I'm certainly not committed to the Semitism, but it does seem to me that Mt 12:4 -- again I quote:
... πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;
is not quite like the verses you've cited:
Mark 10:9 ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.,
Mark 13:37 ὃ δὲ ὑμῖν λέγω πᾶσιν λέγω, γρηγορεῖτε.
1 John 1:1 Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν …
In these three instances there is no antecedent but what is contained within the relative pronoun ὃ; in fact, in each of these texts the ὃ points forward. In Mt 12:4 the ὃ, even understood as an accusative object of φαγεῖν, still clearly looks back to the ἄρτους of the preceding clause. It still seems to me that the οὓς of the Marcan and Lucan texts is clearer.
Yes I understand, which is why I also mentioned 2 Thes 3:17 earlier, where the (indefinite) relative pronoun "ο" does have an antecedent. I see that Stephen Carlson has also helpfully provided another example of Col 3:14, but that one has the Byzantine textual variant of "ητις εστιν ...", which incidentally marginally supports my point that "ος" and "οστις" as indefinite relative pronouns are quite interchangeable. But 2 Thes 3:17 is free from textual variants, which is why I mentioned only it instead.
cwconrad wrote:For that matter, the periphrastic verbal formation οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν seems odd (to me, at least); why not ἐξῆν?
I don't know. It felt odd to me too.
cwconrad wrote:Moreover, although we ordinarily steer clear of redactional questions (Which version, if any is older;? Which version indicates reformulation in the interest of clarity?), I have difficulty conceiving Mt's phrasing of this clause as the earliest of the three versions, but I have equal difficulty seeing why he would have changed the οὓς to ὃ.
I myself don't consider Matthew's phrasing as the earliest, but still I think it is grammatically normal.
Stephen Carlson wrote:There's an article online by James L. Boyer from Grace Theological Journal who calls this a "neuter of general notion" and compares it to Gal 2:20; Eph 5:4, 5; Col 3:14; 2 Thess 3:17; and 1 Tim 2:10. I haven't checked all of them, but Col 3:14 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος could be a reasonable parallel.
Thanks for the article! I see that his explanation is roughly the same as mine. I also though of the possibility that "ο εστιν" could be an idiomatic (fixed) expression, but came to the conclusion that it is not really so. I had gone through many instances of the relative pronoun and I think it is best understood as agreeing with the 'natural' gender, where words and phrases are 'naturally' neuter, which easily explains the large number of instances of "ο εστιν". In fact, John 1 has in quick succession "ο λεγεται ερμηνευομενον" and "ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον" and "ο ερμηνευεται", all three apparently interchangeable and yet using the 'natural' neuter "ο".
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:There's an article online by James L. Boyer from Grace Theological Journal who calls this a "neuter of general notion" and compares it to Gal 2:20; Eph 5:4, 5; Col 3:14; 2 Thess 3:17; and 1 Tim 2:10. I haven't checked all of them, but Col 3:14 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅ ἐστιν σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος could be a reasonable parallel.
Thanks for the article! I see that his explanation is roughly the same as mine.
Yeah, but the article really doesn't address the syntactic question, where we have a linking verb ἦν and apparently three things to link up--ὅ, ἐξόν, and φαγεῖν--instead of the usual two. You can replace the ὅ with τοῦτο (cf. Eph 2:8) to avoid the issue of an indefinite relative but the syntactic issue remains.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Carlson wrote: we have a linking verb ἦν and apparently three things to link up--ὅ, ἐξόν, and φαγεῖν--instead of the usual two
1) ἔξεστιν is only used as an impersonal even in the participle. Impersonals do not have subjects.
2) The verb to be (in all persons and numbers) goes with nominatives
The only possibility left is that ὅ (or οὕς or τοῦτο) is with φαγεῖν.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote: we have a linking verb ἦν and apparently three things to link up--ὅ, ἐξόν, and φαγεῖν--instead of the usual two
1) ἔξεστιν is only used as an impersonal even in the participle. Impersonals do not have subjects.
OK, so if we take έξὸν ἦν as some kind of periphrastic for έξῆν, the the issue devolves to construing the two constituents ὅ and φαγεῖν with an impersonal that normally takes just the one. This valency issue (i.e. how many arguments for the verbal construction) is still there.
Stephen Hughes wrote:2) The verb to be (in all persons and numbers) goes with nominatives
Yes indeed, for finite forms. I suppose it is a bit uncertain whether ὅ is nominative linked up by ἦν (ἐξόν), as I assumed above, or the accusative object of φαγεῖν (as the οὕς of the Markan and Lukan parallels clearly is).
Stephen Hughes wrote:The only possibility left is that ὅ (or οὕς or τοῦτο) is with φαγεῖν.
What do you mean by saying that "ὅ ... is with φαγεῖν"? As the object ("which thing that is not permitted to eat")? As modifying φαγεῖν sort of like "which eating is not permitted to them" but in an impersonal construction with the infinitive instead of this English gerund? I think Carl's proposal is to take ὅ out of the construction as an accusative of specification or something.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen Carlson wrote:if we take έξὸν ἦν as some kind of periphrastic for έξῆν, the the issue devolves to construing the two constituents ὅ and φαγεῖν with an impersonal that normally takes just the one.
Two? What are you doing with the αὐτῷ in this? So far as I know, the construction is (οὐκ) ἔξεστιν +dat, +inf. There are no accusatives involved in that part of the construction.

To take ὅ as a nominative, and ἐξόν adjectivally is to use it like it would be used in a construction based on νόμιμος (νόμιμόν [ἐστί] τινι ποιεῖν τι) in
Xenophon, [i]Cyropaedia[/i], 8.8.8 wrote:νόμιμον γὰρ δὴ ἦν αὐτοῖς μήτε πτύειν μήτε ἀπομύττεσθαι
it used to be their custom neither to spit nor to blow the nose
(Translation from Perseus - Walter Miller, 1914)
Even here νόμιμον is similarly used impersonally like the participle ἐξόν - "It being permitted / customary / lawful", and can't really take up the (assumed to be nominative) ὅ.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I personally prefer ο as ὁ ... αὐτῷ, but to look at how a person fluent in Greek might have understood it, perhaps τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως "The shew bread" as thought of as δῶρον "offering", and the ὅ was agreeing with that as the object of φάγειν.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”