Page 1 of 3

Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 11th, 2016, 8:24 pm
by Stephen Hughes
Acts 4:18 wrote:Καὶ καλέσαντες αὐτούς, παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ.
What is the function of the article in the phrase τὸ καθόλου? Why does the adverb need to be substantivised in this syntax? My suspicion is that παραγγελεῖν needs an object.

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 6:51 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Isn't it the articular infinitive as the object of the verb with καθόλου functioning as the adverb within the articular phrase?

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 8:53 am
by Jonathan Robie
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Isn't it the articular infinitive as the object of the verb with καθόλου functioning as the adverb within the articular phrase?
That's the way I read it - and I think the article governs both infinitives: παρήγγειλαν ( τὸ ( μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν ) ).

Denny Burk, for some reason, does not list either infinitive as an articular infinitive, I suspect that may be an unintentional omission but I could be wrong. I found this verse when I wrote a query trying to reconstruct his list from syntax trees, it's marked as an articular infinitive in the GBI trees.

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 9:23 am
by Stephen Hughes
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Isn't it the articular infinitive as the object of the verb with καθόλου functioning as the adverb within the articular phrase?
Yes. That is probably the strictly correct reading, but let me share my thinking with you anyway.

It is one of those words where LSJ is entirely inadequate. In the classical period, it had the meaning of "on the whole, in general" which you can find in the LSJ entry, and the articular phrase (which they mention as being Aristotelian) has a similar positive sense, in keeping with its etymology - καθ᾽ ὅλου.

In the Koine and Modern Greek, however it has a negative sense, as we see it in this New Testament hapax legomenon. Additionally, the Medieval adverb διόλου (developing from the Classical meaning "completely") developed a negative sense, and now both of them exist in Modern Greek in a negative sense, though διόλου does not seem to be used in the same way in an articular phrase like τὸ καθόλου (or τὸ τίποτα - another word with the same meaning and more common in colloquial Modern Greek).

With possible relevance to the syntax of Acts 4:18, the articular adverb (in the negative sense) also exists as τὸ καθόλου, which is substantivised in the sense of (even)"the minimum", (even)"the very littlest thing", "nothing", or the like.

If that article were taken as making an articular καθόλου, then it would be the accusative (object) of the accusative and infinitive with a verb of speaking.

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 9:29 am
by Jonathan Robie
Abbott-Smith is good here:
καθόλου: on the whole, in general: μή καθόλου, not at all, Ac 4:18.†

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 9:44 am
by Jonathan Robie
So articular καθόλου is possible, but I'm having a hard time understanding Acts 4:18 construed this way. Can you help me understand what it would mean?

To me, τὸ has to govern the object of παρήγγειλαν. You can't command someone to "on the whole", but you can command them not to speak or teach.
Right. Contextus Rex...

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 11:36 am
by Barry Hofstetter
Oops, Jonathon, it looks like I accidentally edited your article instead of quoting it, and eliminated your references to Ezek 13:3 and the passage from Aristotle. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, et nescius sum!

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 11:52 am
by Jonathan Robie
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Oops, Jonathon, it looks like I accidentally edited your article instead of quoting it, and eliminated your references to Ezek 13:3 and the passage from Aristotle. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, et nescius sum!
OK. Just for the record, let me correct who said what:
Jonathan Robie wrote:So articular καθόλου is possible, but I'm having a hard time understanding Acts 4:18 construed this way. Can you help me understand what it would mean?

To me, τὸ has to govern the object of παρήγγειλαν. You can't command someone to "on the whole", but you can command them not to speak or teach.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Right. Contextus Rex...
And it's easy to find examples of articular καθόλου. Ezekiel 3 and Aristotle's Rhetoric are two examples, Aristotle has at least 7 instances in The Rhetoric.

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 4:03 pm
by Barry Hofstetter
Jonathan Robie wrote:
And it's easy to find examples of articular καθόλου. Ezekiel 3 and Aristotle's Rhetoric are two examples, Aristotle has at least 7 instances in The Rhetoric.
That's the advantage of the way the article works in Greek. Practically anything may be substantized... :)

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Posted: January 12th, 2016, 4:44 pm
by Jonathan Robie
Barry Hofstetter wrote:That's the advantage of the way the article works in Greek. Practically anything may be substantized... :)
αὐτὸ τὸ τό.

(I hope that's good Greek ...)