Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 4:10 pm
Can you give examples where someone is asked "what is your name" using καλεῖται or ὀνομάζῃ in the Hellenistic corpus? It's quite possible that this is true, but I would like to see examples before being sure.
I don't think examples are going to provide the conclusivity that seem to expect. There is an example that seemingly mirrors one of the Modern Greek structure like, πῶς ὀνομάζεται ὁ ἀδελφός σου; "What's your brother's name?"
John, of Damascus, Vita Barlaam et Joasaph, 31 wrote:Θεὸν δὲ τίς ἀγοράζει; Θεὸν τίς πωλεῖ; θεὸς δὲ ἀκίνητος πῶς ὀνομάζεται θεός; ἢ οὐχ ὁρᾷς ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἑστὼς οὐδέποτε καθέζεται, ὁ δὲ καθεζόμενος οὐδέποτε ἀνίσταται;
But here it seems to be a rhetorical question, using the potential meaning of the passive voice, "How is it possible for a "god" (popularly etymologised as from θέω - "I run quickly") which can not even move itself to lay claim to the name
god?"
There is of course always guesswork. Guesswork can be guided by understanding. I will discuss a few aspects of guess-guiding understanding here.
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 4:10 pmI worry that we might wind up teaching people the Greek equivalent of asking people "what are you called" in English.
No matter how much you try, you are going to fail. That is the fact of life for non-native foreign language teachers (even native speakers usually dumbing the language down into some form a pidgin version of what they usually speak to make it
simpler for students). Your example from the New Testament is a case in point about that inevitability.
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 6:55 am
It follows this pattern:
Mark 5:9 wrote:Τί ὄνομά σοι; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν·
I think you could also say this:
1. Τί ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομά σου;
2. Ἰωνάθαν ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομά μου.
I read the dialogue with the demoniac as, "By what right or authority do you possess him?", "What authority do you have?", not "Hello, how are you, this is the first time we've met, so let's get on a first name basis here." The demoniac replies, "Regiment, bute force of numbers gives me the right.", not , "Oh, I'm sorry, did I forget to mention my name among my screaming and self-mutilation, it's Legion. By the way, that's spelt L-E-G-I-O-N, not E-O-N."
This line of questioning is similar to the "room" discussion a year or two ago. The assumption that there must be a word for so simple a concept as "room", a generic term for a space in a building with four walls and a door that is so fundamental to understanding structures in our culture. Names without meaning are a cultural phenomenon, name as individual and personal identifiers are too. Rooms arenot about their shape, but their function, with various suffixes such as -ειον or -(τ)ηριον. I've worked a passage into this thread at the bottom there, which explains that process of naming spaces.
Names are not simply about the string of syllables tnat identify someone as an individual, but have a range of functions. In general Western culture, names with significance are relegated to being
nick-names, or jovial appelations like, " Here comes the world's greatest cook". The examples of people, whose names are given using καλεῖται (in relative and subordinate clauses), seem to be hyphenated significantly.
By (hyphenated or used) significantly I mean like where, Ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς has the meaning spelt out, rather than a transliterated form of בְּבֵ֣ית תְּפִלָּתִ֔י (Isaiah 56:7) for which no meaning might have been thought necessay - a toponym at some point. I think that there may be either a soteriologically significantly hyphenation of Βηθλέεμ in ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ (Lc. 2:4) as בֵּֽית ־ לֶ֣חֶם. (Micah 5:1 or 2) "house of bread (the staple of existence)", or it may be in some other way significant. Also the Jesus in καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς (Lc.2:21), seems to be hyphenated Je-sus "Jehovah is our salvation", following from Τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν (Mt. 1:21). That is different from οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ (Jn. 6:42) where merely the disignation of an individual is intended, when constructed with the verb
to be. My point is that there seems to be a difference between saying οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰωνάθαν "That is Jonathan" (that particular bloke) and καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰωνάθαν (יְה֣וֹנָתָ֔ן) as "His name carries the recognisable significance of 'Jehovah graciously gave us (a son)'". That is not to say that - like pet-names in English - a simple construction can not have a large significance. There are a plethora of examples of how various descriptions and self descriptions became appelations - especially in liturgical usage.
Another related point is the following strategy for finding nuance in certain classes of word. There are two types of words, for which we as English speaking learners need some impetus or help to get beyond simple one-to-one eqivalences between Greek and English. The first is the word lists in chapters 1-5 of our beginners' textbook, where we learnt words as one-word equivalences - the BDAG entry for εὐρίσκω is an example of this, where every section somehow trace a meaning bavk to "find". The second group are cognate words - the word ἔργον is probably the most unfortunate of these forced equivalence based on ignoring about 4,000 years of history.
Unfortunately "call" - καλέω and "name" - ὄνομα fall into both of those two categories. One way that I have found useul in that situation is to restrict the use of "call" or "name" (in this case), and try understanding without them.
In passages like these:
Diodorus Siculus, 14.16.5 (part) wrote:ἐξεπολιόρκησαν δὲ καὶ τὴν Οὐόλσκων πόλιν, ἣ τότε μὲν Ἄνξωρ ἐκαλεῖτο, νῦν δ᾽ ὀνομάζεται Ταρρακίνη.
Avoiding "call" and "name", we might understand it as, "at the time of its surrender after seige, the city was know by its older foreign name of establishment Anzur, but these days it is known by everybody as Tarracine."
Appian, Wars in Spain, 1.2 wrote:καὶ Ταρτησσός μοι δοκεῖ τότε εἶναι πόλις ἐπὶ θαλάσσης, ἣ νῦν Καρπησσὸς ὀνομάζεται.
Here we might take ὀνομάζεται as "which is now know by the name", or avoiding "name", perhaps "popularly referred to as".
As an extension and to make another point, by taking the distinction in meaning between the words that I have suggested in this thread, and applying it to
Plutarch, On exile, 5 wrote:ἀλλὰ γίγνεται μᾶλλον δ᾽ ὀνομάζεται καὶ καλεῖται τούτων ἕκαστον ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸν οἰκοῦντα καὶ χρώμενον.
Then we might get, "Each of those (places in our home city) becomes, and more than just become, always come to both known as, and to get the (official) designation of (for example), a house for the place of dwelling and either a farm or metalworker's workshop for what use people make of the space".