Is κτήτωρ generally limited to the ownership of real property, or also used for owning other things?Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεής τις ὑπῆρχεν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὅσοι γὰρ κτήτορες χωρίων ἢ οἰκιῶν ὑπῆρχον, πωλοῦντες ἔφερον τὰς τιμὰς τῶν πιπρασκομένων,
Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
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.
-
Stephen Hughes
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
Jonathan Robie
- Posts: 4246
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
In this verse, it plainly refers to those who own land or houses, it says that explicitly. It's related to the verb κτάομαι, which is sometimes used to describe people who own slaves, but that doesn't mean that κτήτωρ would necessarily permit that.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
Stephen Hughes
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
In some cases the οἰκία would have been large, too large for a single pair of hands. The slaves or hired men would have their means of support or livelihood from the οἰκία.Jonathan Robie wrote:It's related to the verb κτάομαι, which is sometimes used to describe people who own slaves, but that doesn't mean that κτήτωρ would necessarily permit that.
For my thinking land and houses is just that as plainly and explicitly stated, but how about carts, furniture, implements, water-rights and livestock? Presumably those things went along with the land and houses as a combo. I'm wondering if κτήτωρ which we translate as "owner" (the one with legal title to sth.) might have a special meaning at law? Here are the papyri behind BDAG's entry.Jonathan Robie wrote:In this verse, it plainly refers to those who own land or houses, it says that explicitly.
The first papyrus cited by BDAG
The second one cited by BDAG is based on an editor's conjectureP.Oxy.2.237 (186 CE), taken from the [url=http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;2;237?rows=3&start=2&fl=id%2Ctitle&fq=series_led_path%3Ap.oxy%3B2%3B*%3B*&sort=series+asc%2Cvolume+asc%2Citem+asc&p=3&t=113]DDbDP[/url] under a CC BY 3.0 licence wrote:κελεύω (an official term) οὖν πάντας τοὺς κτήτορας ἐντὸς μηνῶν ἓξ ἀπογράψασθαι (a legal term) τὴν ἰδίαν (a legal distinction "private" vs. "public") κτῆσιν εἰς τὴν τῶν ἐνκτήσεων βιβλιοθήκην (a legal term) καὶ τοὺς δανειστὰς ἃς ἐὰν ἔχωσι ὑποθήκας καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ὅσα ἐὰν ἔχωσι δίκαια, τὴν δὲ ἀπογραφὴν ποιείσθωσαν δηλοῦντες πόθεν ἕκαστος τῶν ὑπαρχόντων καταβ̣έ̣β̣ηκεν εἰς αὑτοὺς ἡ κτῆσεις (= κτῆσις).
I command therefore that within six months, all the owners to make a list of their individually owned property in the register of properties (i.e. tenures of land), and that their creditors (should make a list) of whatever they have as a mortgage, and that other people (should make a list) of whatever they have a right to. Now, the list that everyone severally should clearly state where each of the possessions that they have, originated from. [SGH translation]
I can get the sense, but not the details of that, especially not the measures. If somebody could correct or fill in the gaps, that would be great.P.Oxy.4.718 (179-181 CE), taken from the [url=http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;4;718?rows=3&start=14&fl=id%2Ctitle&fq=series_led_path%3Ap.oxy%3B4%3B*%3B*&sort=series+asc%2Cvolume+asc%2Citem+asc&p=15&t=91]DDbDP[/url] under a CC BY 3.0 licence wrote:χρόνῳ δὲ παμπόλλῳ ὕστε-
[ρον μετὰ τ]εσσαράκοντα ἔτη οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως τοῦ πράτου Διονυσίου ἀποθανόν-
[τος ὁ τῆς ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣α κωμογραμματεὺς περὶ ὅν ἐστιν καὶ ἡ Σ̣έν̣ν̣ις ὡς ἐξ ἐπερω-
[τήσεως κτήτ(?)]ο̣ρος παρʼ οὗ δεήσει τὴν ἀπαίτησιν ποιήσα[σ]θαι δημοσίων
15[ἀρουρῶν τεσ]σάρων βασιλικῆς ἐν πυροῦ ἀρτάβαις δεκαπέντε προσεφώνησεν
[τὰς τέσσαρας ταύ]τας ἀρούρας τῆς βασιλικῆς συναναμίγους εἶναι τῇ ὑπαρ-
[χούσῃ μοι γῇ τῶ]ν πεντήκοντα τριῶν ἃς ἐπριάμην παρὰ τοῦ Διονυσίου καὶ
"Now, some great time later after forty years I don't know how with the seller Dionysius being dead and all, the clerk of the unwalled village, about whom also the (village of) Sennis that from inquiry of the land-owner from whom he will require the demand of return to be made of 4 setat (1.1 ha) in 15 artabas of wheat he reported those four setat to be included among the land that is now mine for fifty-three years, which I bought from Dionysius and ..."
The third papyrus cited by BDAG:
In the context of a lease of land, the κτήτωρ is the "land owner", while the μισθωτής is the "tenant" (different from μισθωτός "hireling").P.Tebt. 2 378 (18. Oct. 265 CE), taken from the [url=http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.tebt;2;378?rows=3&start=295&fl=id%2Ctitle&fq=series_led_path%3Ap.tebt%3B*%3B*%3B*&sort=series+asc%2Cvolume+asc%2Citem+asc&p=296&t=922]DDbDP[/url] under a CC BY 3.0 licence wrote:ἀλλὰ
ἐ̣[πάν]α̣γ̣κον ἐπ[ιτ]ε̣[λέσ]ω τὰ κατʼ [ἔτ]ος ἔργα πάντα
πε̣ρ̣[ιχωμα]τισμοὺ[ς ποτ]ισμοὺς ὑ[ποσ]χισμοὺς διβολη-
20τοὺς [δι]ωρύγων τε κ[αὶ ὑδ]ραγωγῶν [ἀ]ναβολὰς ἐμβλημά̣-
των οἰκοδομὰς βο[ταν]ισμοὺς σι[φ]ωνολογίας καὶ τὰ
ἄλλα ὅσα καθήκει ἐ[κ το]ῦ ἰδίου τοῖς δέουσι καιροῖς βλάβος
μηδὲν ποιῶν, τ[ῶν δ]ημοσίων πάντων ὄντων πρὸς
ὑμ[ᾶς τοὺ]ς κτήτορας.
I will of necessity perform all the annual operations, the making of dykes, irrigating, ploughing, hoeing, banking up of canals and conduits, building of insets, weeding, gathering stalks, and all else that is fitting, at my own expense in the proper seasons, without causing any injury, all the state dues being paid by you the landlords.
My question now is whether κτήτωρ refers to investment properties, not to the "family home"? Is there another word to refer to an "owner occupier"?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
Jonathan Robie
- Posts: 4246
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
I'm not sure that the texts you quote are about the same questions that you are asking of the word. If true, this is the kind of thing that would require very careful work to establish, but it seems unlikely to me.Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm wondering if κτήτωρ which we translate as "owner" (the one with legal title to sth.) might have a special meaning at law?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
Stephen Hughes
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
Those quotes are enough for me. I am happy to accept as a working definition that κτήτωρ means property owner. If I come across it again in a different context, I can revise my understanding.Jonathan Robie wrote:I'm not sure that the texts you quote are about the same questions that you are asking of the word. If true, this is the kind of thing that would require very careful work to establish, but it seems unlikely to me.Stephen Hughes wrote:I'm wondering if κτήτωρ which we translate as "owner" (the one with legal title to sth.) might have a special meaning at law?
I'm not a scholar, I'm not interested in convincing others and I have no reputation to protect. How careful does that require work to be. My understanding of the language grows and evolves as I experience and encounter it.
The three texts refer to taxation, state vs. private ownership, and leasing. Those are legal sort of things. They are not about what a κτήτωρ does on a daily basis, or how they enjoy it. Those three contexts are indication enough to satisfy me.
Perhaps, Jonathan, you need more proofs or evidence. The best person to do that is yourself. When you've arrived at an understanding which is not just copying a grammar or dictionary, then we can compare our experiences of the text in a meaningful and constructive way.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
Jonathan Robie
- Posts: 4246
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
I suspect you and I have done less work than the people who have written these reference works, and have received less scrutiny from the wider community. It's absolutely clear that κτήτωρ can refer to a property owner, but I don't think it's at all safe to say that it cannot be used for owning other things based on the information we've seen so far.Stephen Hughes wrote:Those quotes are enough for me. I am happy to accept as a working definition that κτήτωρ means property owner. If I come across it again in a different context, I can revise my understanding.
I'm not a scholar, I'm not interested in convincing others and I have no reputation to protect. How careful does that require work to be. My understanding of the language grows and evolves as I experience and encounter it.
The three texts refer to taxation, state vs. private ownership, and leasing. Those are legal sort of things. They are not about what a κτήτωρ does on a daily basis, or how they enjoy it. Those three contexts are indication enough to satisfy me.
Perhaps, Jonathan, you need more proofs or evidence. The best person to do that is yourself. When you've arrived at an understanding which is not just copying a grammar or dictionary, then we can compare our experiences of the text in a meaningful and constructive way.
I think it's helpful to ask this question: would the same methodology work if applied to an English word? Let's rephrase your original question:
Obviously, 'owner' is related to the word 'own', which is quite general. I don't know if 'real property' includes things like slaves in your question, but both the English 'own' and the Greek κτάομαι are used to refer to owning slaves. I don't know if 'real property' includes dogs or not. According to WordNet, I can say "who is the owner of that friendly smile?"Is 'owner' generally limited to the ownership of real property, or also used for owning other things?
I think it's very safe to say that κτήτωρ can refer to owning land and houses. I don't think it's safe to say "as distinguished from things that are not real property" simply because neither of us has found examples that do that yet, especially when neither of us has really put in the work to search for them. And proving a negative is pretty much impossible in general. Looking it up in a lexicon feels like a more reliable methodology for those of us who don't have the time to do lexicography ourselves.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
Stephen Hughes
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
There are points where reference works including lexicons are not adequate. I think that, in terms of lexicons, this is one of those words.Jonathan Robie wrote:I suspect you and I have done less work than the people who have written these reference works, and have received less scrutiny from the wider community.
...
Looking it up in a lexicon feels like a more reliable methodology for those of us who don't have the time to do lexicography ourselves.
There are a number of things that I look at in a lexicon entry such as BDAG, to judge the quality of the entry. In this case it is relying on a single word gloss, in another case (such as καθόλου that we were discussing last week) a "fudged" translation (without explanation) in the body of the lexicon entry has to make up for a gloss that doesn't match what we find in the text. A further thing that indicates the quality of the entry (in BDAG at least) is the number of scholarly articles that are noted.
One thing that I think would be very beneficial, would be to have threads to expand BDAG, quoting out the texts referenced, and giving a book review or summary of the articles that are cited. In giving references, it is not like someone giving the letters after their name to lend credence to their words, they are invitations to explore more, to see a word used in multiple similar situations. Let me quote Jonathan then continue:
There are on average about 5 times more meanings for a word given in the more extensive lexicons than in the limited ones. The examples given in a entry such as the one for κτήτωρ in BDAG is case in point. Those 3 (2 if one doesn't include an editor's speculation as a real example) are examples of where κτήτωρ means "(land) owner". To use the lexicon entry's data intelligently, we need to realise the inherent bias in creating a lexicon limited to not only the words for the corpus it was intended for, but also the range of meanings that wold be needed for dealing with that corpus.Jonathan Robie wrote:I don't think it's safe to say "as distinguished from things that are not real property" simply because neither of us has found examples that do that yet, especially when neither of us has really put in the work to search for them. And proving a negative is pretty much impossible in general.
We hear a lot about the great benefit that the discovery of the papyri had on our understanding of the New Testament word stock, but trying to read those same papyri, (e.g. the three extracts quoted in this thread), we quickly realise that there is so much more to the world of Greek than we know. The words found in the papyri, the inscriptions and in other works of literature are words that co-existed with the 6,000 odd words that we are familiar with. People who could read the New Testament, could also read those other texts, in which there are more words and a greater number of meanings for the words that we are familiar with.
Faced with that uncertainty and the enormity of the task of really knowing Greek, this is the strategy that I employ to give validity to the known and the possibility to admitting the unknown.Stephen Hughes wrote:Those quotes are enough for me. I am happy to accept as a working definition that κτήτωρ means property owner. If I come across it again in a different context, I can revise my understanding.
To bean effective lexicon user, we have to be a effective amateur lexicographer. Examples are given in the bigger works, to encourage grappling with the texts that the compilers of the lexicons grappled with to find meanings. At the very least we need a way (or a number of ways) to recognise when we have recognised a meaning. one of those is avoidance - what would this not be used with. The rules of collocational avoidance remain flexible, and allow for things like satire and humour. There is always a degree of subjectivity in language.
Understanding can be achieved to some extent through analytical study and comparison, to some extent through composition practice, to some extent through reading, but ultimately it is through identification with the writers or their readers - not just in intention, but also in so many ways.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
Jonathan Robie
- Posts: 4246
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
I think we agree that a property owner can be called a κτήτωρ and that the examples in BDAG show it in this context. Etymologically, it means 'owner'. I don't think you have shown any evidence about what other kinds of ownership it can or cannot entail. I would consider that an open question.Stephen Hughes wrote:Those quotes are enough for me. I am happy to accept as a working definition that κτήτωρ means property owner. If I come across it again in a different context, I can revise my understanding.
What exactly is "collocational avoidance" and how would you demonstrate it? I tried Googling "collocation avoidance" and "collocational avoidance", and didn't find anything. I understand collocation in phrases like "strong tea", but I don't think that collocation suggests that "strong beer" or "strong woman" or "strong wording" are not valid phrases.Stephen Hughes wrote:To be an effective lexicon user, we have to be a effective amateur lexicographer. Examples are given in the bigger works, to encourage grappling with the texts that the compilers of the lexicons grappled with to find meanings. At the very least we need a way (or a number of ways) to recognise when we have recognised a meaning. one of those is avoidance - what would this not be used with. The rules of collocational avoidance remain flexible, and allow for things like satire and humour. There is always a degree of subjectivity in language.
In general, I think it's easiest to reason about the meaning of sentences that exist.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
Stephen Hughes
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
Then perhaps we have different epistemological preconceptions about how meaning is known.Jonathan Robie wrote:I think we agree that a property owner can be called a κτήτωρ and that the examples in BDAG show it in this context. Etymologically, it means 'owner'. I don't think you have shown any evidence about what other kinds of ownership it can or cannot entail. I would consider that an open question.Stephen Hughes wrote:Those quotes are enough for me. I am happy to accept as a working definition that κτήτωρ means property owner. If I come across it again in a different context, I can revise my understanding.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
-
Stephen Hughes
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am
Re: Ac.4:34 κτήτωρ
It is not a technical term. Perhaps you could try searching for "meaning rules negative", or "avoid certain collocations". In this discussion too now, I don't understand your need to have negative things demonstrated. Don't you have a model for knowing things? Part of the skill of vocabulary acquisition is slotting things into preformed categories such synonyms, antonyms or related sets. We impose structure on meaning and order the world. Order of introduction can have a great influence on the starting points that we have in structuring meaning. Part of structure is negatives or avoidance. For this word, at this stage of my acquisition of it, I define it in the way I've stated and say that it is not something else. If the word turns up used for the ownership of something else I will accept that as another meaning.Jonathan Robie wrote:What exactly is "collocational avoidance" and how would you demonstrate it? I tried Googling "collocation avoidance" and "collocational avoidance", and didn't find anything. I understand collocation in phrases like "strong tea", but I don't think that collocation suggests that "strong beer" or "strong woman" or "strong wording" are not valid phrases.Stephen Hughes wrote:To be an effective lexicon user, we have to be a effective amateur lexicographer. Examples are given in the bigger works, to encourage grappling with the texts that the compilers of the lexicons grappled with to find meanings. At the very least we need a way (or a number of ways) to recognise when we have recognised a meaning. one of those is avoidance - what would this not be used with. The rules of collocational avoidance remain flexible, and allow for things like satire and humour. There is always a degree of subjectivity in language.
In general, I think it's easiest to reason about the meaning of sentences that exist.
On the other hand, because the dictionary gives a number of examples of the participle expressing ownership of a number things, I work with that as being a general way to express ownership. Adding to the picture here are words like oikodespotēs.
Last edited by Stephen Hughes on January 22nd, 2016, 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)