OK, so you take ὅ as the direct object of φαγεῖν, with an assumed δῶρον for the antecedent? (I don't understand your first clause or how the initial ο could be an article.)Stephen Hughes wrote: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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
To make sense of the ὅ, I would expect that a Greek speaker conversant with Jewish temple practices, but not with Hebrew or Aramaic - or working on the assumption that it was good idiomaticf Greek - to introduce an understood θῦμα or δῶρον to sum up the whole meaning of "τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως" as the antecedent of the relative ὅ.Stephen Carlson wrote:OK, so you take ὅ as the direct object of φαγεῖν, with an assumed δῶρον for the antecedent?
As for my own view about how the form came to be there, rather than how it came to be understood...
Up near the top of the thread, I mentioned that I thought that דִי (diy - which is not number or gender differentiated) might be "ὁ" referring to David, and so translated "the one". The αὐτῷ and the αὐτοῦ are both taken as refering back to David - while in form they could refer to a neuter singular ὅ just as well - so why not the ο too (taken as the definite article ὁ) to give the demonstrative pronouns an immediate context.
SGH's spelt-out construction of grammatical sense for taking Matthew 12:4 with ὁ not ὅ wrote:Δαυὶδ ... ὁ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ (ἐξὸν ἦν) τοῖς μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ (φαγεῖν) ... (ἀλλὰ) (ἐξὸν ἦν) τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις (φαγεῖν)
"David, the one who it was not customary for him to eat, nor (was it customary) for thois with him (to eat), but rather it was customary for the OT priests alone (to eat)"
It could be like that from a Semitic translation, but it would not have been understood as that by a Greek speaker unfamiliar with a laguage that liked to put a demonstrative at the end just to make things clear.Stephen Carlson wrote:I don't understand your first clause or how the initial ο could be an article.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
Just to update my current state of thinking/confusion about this text:
(2) I don't believe that the ὃ refers back to an implicit δῶρον; in fact, I don't understand how that notion originated;
(3) I really prefer the explanation that ὃ represents something like the Latin relative quod in an acc. sg. n. accusative of specification, in the sense, "with-regard-to-which/the-fact being-that it wasn't lawful for him nor for those with him to eat (it)." I suppose that this is equivalent to saying that the ὃ functions here as might a ὅτι. I like this explanation better, but I'm not quite confident that it's what the author intended.
(4) The relationship of Mt's formulation of this tradition to those of Mk and Lk continues to trouble me; I find it difficult to believe that Mt's version is earliest and was emended by the authors of Mk and Lk, but if the author of Mt knew the text of Mk, it's hard to conceive why he would have altered the οὓς of Mk's version to ὃ.
It remains a puzzlement to me.
(1) I think it's conceivable that ὃ is acc. sg. n. functioning as the object of φαγεῖν, in the sense "the thing that it was not permissible for him nor for those with him to eat." -- I think, in fact, that this is the more likely explanation of the author's intent, but I am not at all convinced that this usage falls within the range of the other usages of the "indefinite relative pronoun" elsewhere -- I can't see how the ἄρτους could be referred to with the generic neuter relative ὃ;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;
(2) I don't believe that the ὃ refers back to an implicit δῶρον; in fact, I don't understand how that notion originated;
(3) I really prefer the explanation that ὃ represents something like the Latin relative quod in an acc. sg. n. accusative of specification, in the sense, "with-regard-to-which/the-fact being-that it wasn't lawful for him nor for those with him to eat (it)." I suppose that this is equivalent to saying that the ὃ functions here as might a ὅτι. I like this explanation better, but I'm not quite confident that it's what the author intended.
(4) The relationship of Mt's formulation of this tradition to those of Mk and Lk continues to trouble me; I find it difficult to believe that Mt's version is earliest and was emended by the authors of Mk and Lk, but if the author of Mt knew the text of Mk, it's hard to conceive why he would have altered the οὓς of Mk's version to ὃ.
It remains a puzzlement to me.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
That would have to have been in my thinking when it originated. δῶρον being an offering that you didn't intend to burn (cf. θῦμα).cwconrad wrote:(2) I don't believe that the ὃ refers back to an implicit δῶρον; in fact, I don't understand how that notion originated;
I was only hypothesising (would you say "hypothezizing"?) not asserting.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
Would the construction be better if the φαγεῖν were omitted?cwconrad wrote:Just to update my current state of thinking/confusion about this text: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;
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
Not very significantly, if at all. As I see it, ὃ would then have to be nominative and subject of οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν -- but -- subject of an impersonal verb? It's difficult enough taking it as accusative object of φαγεῖν with the neuter relative pronoun referring back to τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως.Stephen Carlson wrote:Would the construction be better if the φαγεῖν were omitted?cwconrad wrote:Just to update my current state of thinking/confusion about this text: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;
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
Matt 12:4 wrote: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;
OK, so Luke 6:2 Τί ποιεῖτε ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν; won't be an enlightening parallel then.cwconrad wrote:Not very significantly, if at all. As I see it, ὃ would then have to be nominative and subject of οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν -- but -- subject of an impersonal verb? It's difficult enough taking it as accusative object of φαγεῖν with the neuter relative pronoun referring back to τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως.Stephen Carlson wrote:Would the construction be better if the φαγεῖν were omitted?cwconrad wrote:Just to update my current state of thinking/confusion about this text:
I notice that Matt 12:2 has Ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ, where the neuter singular relative is better. I wonder if the construction of v.4 is trying to parallel it. Maybe the verse would be better without τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
Here's another example of the construction without the infinitive:
Acts of Peter 40 wrote: Ὁ δὲ Μάρκελλος, μηδὲ γνώμην τινὸς λαβών, ὃ μὴ ἐξὸν ἦν, ἰδὼν ὅτι ὁ μακάριος Πέτρος ἀπέπνευσεν, ἰδίαις χερσὶν καθελὼν αὐτὸν τοῦ σταυροῦ ἔλουσεν ἐν γάλακτι καὶ οἴνῳ· καὶ κόψας χίας μνᾶς ἑπτὰ καὶ σμύρνης καὶ ἀλόης καὶ φύλλου ἄλλας πεντήκοντα, ἐσμύρνισεν αὐτοῦ τὸ λείψανον, καὶ γεμίσας μάκτραν λιθίνην τιμήματος πολλοῦ Ἀττικοῦ μέλιτος, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ κατέθετο αὐτό.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
Hmm ... It looks like we may have an idiomatic(?) usage here of the phrase ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστι/ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν for "in violation of protocol" or "unlawfully". In earlier Greek we commonly see the accusative absolute of ἔξεστι as ἐξὸν with dative and infinitive: "it being permissible to A to do B". It looks like the impersonal usage may have become somewhat modified in later usage such that the ὃ is a quasi-subject of ἔξεστιν. I'm speculating here; a lot more evidence would be needed. I wonder whether a search of TLG would yield more instances.Stephen Carlson wrote:Here's another example of the construction without the infinitive:Acts of Peter 40 wrote: Ὁ δὲ Μάρκελλος, μηδὲ γνώμην τινὸς λαβών, ὃ μὴ ἐξὸν ἦν, ἰδὼν ὅτι ὁ μακάριος Πέτρος ἀπέπνευσεν, ἰδίαις χερσὶν καθελὼν αὐτὸν τοῦ σταυροῦ ἔλουσεν ἐν γάλακτι καὶ οἴνῳ· καὶ κόψας χίας μνᾶς ἑπτὰ καὶ σμύρνης καὶ ἀλόης καὶ φύλλου ἄλλας πεντήκοντα, ἐσμύρνισεν αὐτοῦ τὸ λείψανον, καὶ γεμίσας μάκτραν λιθίνην τιμήματος πολλοῦ Ἀττικοῦ μέλιτος, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ κατέθετο αὐτό.
But the use of μὴ with the indicative imperfect looks odd in the Acts of Peter text.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative ὃ
A TLG search got me the Acts of Peter example. It's not a common construction and there are lots that look legitimate. Here's another possible example from the second-century Achilles Tatius:
Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 4.7.8 wrote:ὃ δὲ ἔξεστιν αἰτῶ παρ’ αὐτῆς· εἰς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡκέτω τοὺς ἐμοὺς καὶ λόγων μεταδότω· ἀκοῦσαι θέλω φωνῆς, χειρὸς θιγεῖν, ψαῦσαι σώματος· αὗται γὰρ ἐρώντων παραμυθίαι. ἔξεστι δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ φιλῆσαι· τοῦτο γὰρ οὐ κεκώλυκεν ἡ γαστήρ.”
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia