[B-Greek] Adverbs

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Mar 28 10:53:06 EDT 2011


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: "=)" <p1234567891 at gmail.com>
Cc: "B-Greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 28. marts 2011 16:38
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Adverbs
<skipped>

>
>> And I cannot figure out what "prwtos" means when it is declined as an
>> adjective but used as an adverb...
>>
>> [John 1:41] "euriskei outos prwtos ton adelfon ton idion simwna ..."
>> ?= "{ this [one] ( first ) } finds { ( [his] ) ( own ) brother } { Simon }
>> ..."
>> (it does not mean "this first [one]", does it?)
>> (but what then is the difference between "euriskei outos prwtos" and "prwton
>> euriskei outos"?)
>
> No, it doesn't mean "this first one." It means "he finds, before doing 
> anything else"
> This is an idiomatic way that ordinal adjectives work in Greek -- one must get
> used to it; they agree with the subject but function like adverbs. For 
> example,
> hOUTOS ESCATOS HLQEN = "He got there last" or "He was the last one
> to arrive." When you've read enough Greek, you won't ask questions like this;
> you will see this sort of thing over and over.

It may also be noted that PRWTOS may be a scribal error for PRWTON which is 
found in the NA text. The neuter adjective is often used to function like an 
adverb.

>
>> [Luke 2:2] "auth h apografh prwth egeneto hgemoneuontos ths surias kurhniou"
>> ?= "{ this enrollment ( first ) } came to be ( when { { Cyrenius } governed
>> { Syria } } )"
>> (if it means "this first enrollment", as ASV interprets it, why is John 1:41
>> interpreted differently?)
>>
>> Is the difference between "prwton" as an adverb and "prwtos" declined as an
>> adjective not semantic but purely grammatical?
>
> This PRWTH has commonly been understood as an adverbial usage construed
> with EGENETO, "This registration first took place when Qurinius was
> governing Syria ... " That would be another instance of the adverbial usage
> of an ordinal adjective.
>
> HOWEVER, this particular verse was the subect of a now celebrated blog
> entry by list-member Stephen Carlson, an eminent lawyer who is now teaching
> beginning Greek at Duke. Stephen has understood this verse in a different
> way and probably should, when he can find the time, either give the URL of
> his blog entry from two or three years back or briefly outline his 
> understanding
> of this text. It is a very problematic text, and the URL of his blog entry 
> would
> probably be very helpful. I don't have it ready to hand.

This, of course, is a famous text that has been discussed before. In this case I 
think the text as cited above from the Byzantine tradition is probably correct: 
hAUTH hH APOGRAFH rather than the strange and rather ungrammatical hAUTH 
APOGRAFH of the NA text. Wieland Willker has discussed this point in his textual 
commentary and suggests that NA probably made the wrong choice here.

Since I disagree with part of Stephen Carlson's analysis and certainly to his 
translation, I thought it might be of interest to point to the other option that 
he rejects, found at 
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2004/12/luke-census-and-quirinius-matter-of.html.

Carlson had a blog here: 
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/12/luke-22-and-the-census.html
but I don't know if this is the one Carl was thinking of, since it goes back to 
2004. There were a couple of follow-up blogs in December 2004.

The fronted demonstrative in hAUTH hH APOGRAFH indicates a contrastive emphasis 
on this registration compared to the famous one under Quirinius. THIS 
registration happened (EGENETO) prior to (the one you know about) when Quirinius 
was governing Syria.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list