That's neat: almost "What's within the realm of the possible" or "What's possible". I suppose the idiomatic(?) construction, if there is one, might be analyzed such that ὃ is n. acc. sg. object of an implicit infinitive -- or an explicit one, like φαγεῖν -- that still seems more likely than a nominative to me. I assume you have institutional access to TLG, rather than a purchased license. I very much appreciate your picking up on this. The fact is that Tim Friberg has given me a list of neuter nouns and pronouns that might be either nominative or accusative, depending on how one interprets the syntax. This was one that really bothered me, but I think ou may have discovered the key to it.Stephen Carlson wrote: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.”
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.
Re: Mt 12:4 Construction of the relative 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)
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
I have provided evidence from a super-set of impersonals and impersonal-like constructions, which is what ἔξεστιν is just a part of in the lanuage, in another thread with a nerdish name Evidence for impersonal(oid)s verb/adj +inf +datcwconrad wrote: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.
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
(Sorry, folks, but this is rather long.)
After several twists and turns and reconsiderations, I've reached a tentative conclusion on the question that I initially raised several days ago. I'm grateful Stephen Hughes, David Lim (yes, it does involve a relative indefinite pronoun), and Stephen Carlson for their contributions to this inquiry. The initial quesiton was whether ὃ in Mt 12:4
should be considered accusative as object of φαγεῖν or nominative as subject of ἔξεστιν. My tentative conclusion is that the phrase, ὃ (οὐκ) ἔξεστιν, accompanied by an infinitive (sometimes implicit) and by a dative or an accusative of the person(s) allowed to perform an action, sometimes by an accusative of the act(s) performed, has become a common idiomatic phrase for “what is/is-not permissible/possible”; the ὃ may originally have been an accusative object of the implicit or explicit infinitive, but it appears in several instances to function as a nominative relative pronoun with implicit antecedent: “that which (is) allowed/possible (to do).”
First, let me summarize what illumination on the impersonal verbs I've found in BDF:
1. Periphrasis for impersonals is very common: e.g. ἐξὸν (ἐστίν, ἦν, ἔσ(ε)ται, pres. ptc. adjectival (§§ 127, 353) — i.e. ἐξὸν ought never to be deemed an acc. abs. (§424)
2. The imperfect (without ἄν) in expressions of necessity, obligation, duty, possibility etc. denotes in classical something which is or was actually necessary, etc., but which does not or did not take place (§358)
3. The infinitive in impersonal expressions and with nouns and adjectives. A relationship between the infinitive and ἵνα similar to that which exists between them with verbs exists with a series of impersonal expressions (§393)
4. Impersonal and adjectival or substantival expressions like συμφέρει, ἔθος ἐστίν, ἀθέμιτον, αἰσχρόν, καλόν ἐστιν usually take the dat. (cf. §190). The infinitive, however, can have its own different subject in the acc. to distinguish it from the person(s) concerned (Jn 18:14 συμφέρει ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν). It is even more striking that καλόν ἐστιν ‘it is good’ can take an acc. of the person concerned with the infinitive (§409).
Here's the evidence in the GNT:
1. ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν (+ infinitive, dative or accusative or person allowed
Mt 12:2 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ.
Mt 12:4 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;
Mk 2:24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν;
Lk 6:2 τινὲς δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων εἶπαν· τί ποιεῖτε ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν;
2. ἔξεστιν introduced by acc. pronoun of the object
Mk 2:26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν;
3. Nominative subject of ἔξεστιν? – or should we understand ἃ and πάντα in these instances as an accusative object of the implicit or explicit infinitive? I incline to understanding these as accusative.
Acts 16:21 καὶ καταγγέλλουσιν ἔθη ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν παραδέχεσθαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖν Ῥωμαίοις οὖσιν.
1 Cor 6:12 Πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος.
1 Cor 10:23 Πάντα ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· πάντα ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ.
4. ἐξὸν is implicitly periphrastic for ἐξόν ἐστιν (it is not an accusative absolute)
Acts 2:29 Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, ἐξὸν εἰπεῖν μετὰ παρρησίας πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ τοῦ πατριάρχου Δαυὶδ ὅτι καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν καὶ ἐτάφη, καὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν ἄχρι τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.
2 Cor 12:4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι.
Stephen Carlson, via TLG search, found two more instances of the construction in Acts of Peter 40, Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 4.7.8, the former with the periphrastic construction, ὃ μὴ ἐξὸν ἦν, the latter the simpler ὃ ἔξεστιν.
I will just add that I also checked the LXX for usage of the impersonal verb ἔξεστι(ν). I didn't find any usage corresponding to ὃ (οὐκ) ἔξεστιν. What I did find ist:
1. Regular usage of ἔξεστι, ἐξέσται, ἐξεῖναι: Ezra 4:14, Esth 16:7 [8·12g], 1 Macc 14:44, 3 Macc 1:11, 4 Macc 1:12;
2. Periphrastic usage of ἐξὸν (with implicit or explicit ἔστιν): Esth 4:2, 4 Macc 5:18, 4 Macc 17:7.
After several twists and turns and reconsiderations, I've reached a tentative conclusion on the question that I initially raised several days ago. I'm grateful Stephen Hughes, David Lim (yes, it does involve a relative indefinite pronoun), and Stephen Carlson for their contributions to this inquiry. The initial quesiton was whether ὃ in Mt 12:4
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;
should be considered accusative as object of φαγεῖν or nominative as subject of ἔξεστιν. My tentative conclusion is that the phrase, ὃ (οὐκ) ἔξεστιν, accompanied by an infinitive (sometimes implicit) and by a dative or an accusative of the person(s) allowed to perform an action, sometimes by an accusative of the act(s) performed, has become a common idiomatic phrase for “what is/is-not permissible/possible”; the ὃ may originally have been an accusative object of the implicit or explicit infinitive, but it appears in several instances to function as a nominative relative pronoun with implicit antecedent: “that which (is) allowed/possible (to do).”
First, let me summarize what illumination on the impersonal verbs I've found in BDF:
1. Periphrasis for impersonals is very common: e.g. ἐξὸν (ἐστίν, ἦν, ἔσ(ε)ται, pres. ptc. adjectival (§§ 127, 353) — i.e. ἐξὸν ought never to be deemed an acc. abs. (§424)
2. The imperfect (without ἄν) in expressions of necessity, obligation, duty, possibility etc. denotes in classical something which is or was actually necessary, etc., but which does not or did not take place (§358)
3. The infinitive in impersonal expressions and with nouns and adjectives. A relationship between the infinitive and ἵνα similar to that which exists between them with verbs exists with a series of impersonal expressions (§393)
4. Impersonal and adjectival or substantival expressions like συμφέρει, ἔθος ἐστίν, ἀθέμιτον, αἰσχρόν, καλόν ἐστιν usually take the dat. (cf. §190). The infinitive, however, can have its own different subject in the acc. to distinguish it from the person(s) concerned (Jn 18:14 συμφέρει ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν). It is even more striking that καλόν ἐστιν ‘it is good’ can take an acc. of the person concerned with the infinitive (§409).
Here's the evidence in the GNT:
1. ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν (+ infinitive, dative or accusative or person allowed
Mt 12:2 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ.
Mt 12:4 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;
Mk 2:24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν;
Lk 6:2 τινὲς δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων εἶπαν· τί ποιεῖτε ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν;
2. ἔξεστιν introduced by acc. pronoun of the object
Mk 2:26 πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν;
3. Nominative subject of ἔξεστιν? – or should we understand ἃ and πάντα in these instances as an accusative object of the implicit or explicit infinitive? I incline to understanding these as accusative.
Acts 16:21 καὶ καταγγέλλουσιν ἔθη ἃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἡμῖν παραδέχεσθαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖν Ῥωμαίοις οὖσιν.
1 Cor 6:12 Πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος.
1 Cor 10:23 Πάντα ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· πάντα ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ.
4. ἐξὸν is implicitly periphrastic for ἐξόν ἐστιν (it is not an accusative absolute)
Acts 2:29 Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, ἐξὸν εἰπεῖν μετὰ παρρησίας πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ τοῦ πατριάρχου Δαυὶδ ὅτι καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν καὶ ἐτάφη, καὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν ἄχρι τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.
2 Cor 12:4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι.
Stephen Carlson, via TLG search, found two more instances of the construction in Acts of Peter 40, Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon 4.7.8, the former with the periphrastic construction, ὃ μὴ ἐξὸν ἦν, the latter the simpler ὃ ἔξεστιν.
I will just add that I also checked the LXX for usage of the impersonal verb ἔξεστι(ν). I didn't find any usage corresponding to ὃ (οὐκ) ἔξεστιν. What I did find ist:
1. Regular usage of ἔξεστι, ἐξέσται, ἐξεῖναι: Ezra 4:14, Esth 16:7 [8·12g], 1 Macc 14:44, 3 Macc 1:11, 4 Macc 1:12;
2. Periphrastic usage of ἐξὸν (with implicit or explicit ἔστιν): Esth 4:2, 4 Macc 5:18, 4 Macc 17:7.
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)