Stephen Hughes wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:I don't think I said "emphatic," and I'm not sure what you mean by that, but reasons (1) and (2) I gave above in the OP, viz. contrastive with νῦν and position, indicate to me that it is not enclitic.
Emphatic (here by contrast) seemed to be the only on of
the reasons for it being orthotonic from among those given by Smyth, (specifically his point 187 a). Emphatic was putting what you said and what your reference said.
Smyth's terminology of "emphatic" is a little outdated in that there are different kinds of emphases, depending what is being asserted. An especially emphatic position is at the beginning of the colon, and we don't have there here.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I don't really understand what you are getting at by "position". Smyth suggests that enclitcs in inital position are othotonic, but here ποτέ is an enclitic position. Are you breaking this up in another way - using the thing that we were discussing that even one word can be a unit - so that the last word in a phrase follows the rules for the first because there is only one word?
Clitics tend to gather behind the most prominent element in the colon, which is (usually) the first, hence, the so-called 'second position" of Wackernagel's Law. But here ποτε is third/last. A better placement for a clitic as a clitic would be like this: Ὁ διώκων ποτὲ ἡμᾶς.
Stephen Hughes wrote:I noticed that - as far as I could find in the index - this was not a verse that you covered in
your dissertation. Do you feel now that this emendation to the orthography (if that is how we term accentuation too) is an improvement of the way that we understand Greek (by touching up or normalising what the Apostle had written) or a restoration to the way that was probably what was intended by the Apostle? Which way are you feeling you are moving things with this emmendation?
It's not an emendation in the sense that I'm not proposing a change to the text. Rather, it is a question of editorial judgment, like orthography, punctuation, etc., where we don't rely on the manuscript practice (which is generally inconsistent, if at all, in the earliest period). You can call it normalization if you want (or normalisation). I think that the "accidentals" (punctuation, orthography, paragraphing, accentuation, etc.) ought to approximate what we discern to be the meaning "intended by the Apostle," to put it your way.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:Stephen Hughes wrote:Did you find any other instances where νῦν (now, at this time) is counterposed with the emphatic (non-enclitic) ποτέ (or other places that it was emphatic (non-enclitic) for other reasons in the contemporary literature)?
No, but I haven't really looked.
My reason for asking about contemporary literature was because I was wondering whether the Byzantine (scholasticly - using that in the bad sense) may have brought these accents into line with classical parallels and I was wondering whether there are useages from the Koine period. If there are contemporary useages, I could more easily accept that ποτέ was known as emphatic and so it would be possible that the those listening to the epistle might have heard it. (Not that my accepting or not accepting anything has any meaning beyond for myself).
Well, modern editorial practice on punctuation really doesn't follow the manuscript practice, which in the first couple centuries is very little. So I don't contemporary literature in the manuscripts will be all that illuminating for modern editorial practice. Smyth is, however, and I think that the use in Gal 1:23 probably suggests that an orthotonic ποτέ is appropriate.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:Stephen Hughes wrote:FYI (and I suppose you already know): It is also orthotonic in both RP 2005 (oxytone with the comma) and the 1905 EP edition (barytone with no comma).
Actually, I didn't know, and I appreciate your pointing them out to me. I agree with either (not being so wedded to the comma).
Ἐκπλήκτως, TR which is purportedly from that same tradition has both the ποτε's in that verse as ποτε.
I haven't really studied the accidentals of the earliest editions, so I'm not in a position to say much of worth. Perhaps they should be studied.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia