Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 9:17 am
1) I don't know what emphatic means in the context of your paper. Mike asked you, but you didn't really answer.
What I meant: whenever this construct appears in the NT, the rule applies, and the structure is always simple apposition (Two nouns in Regimen). Ie. The anarthrous proper name is in apposition to the adjacent articular noun. This structure, stated in the rule, appears 158 times in the NT. Of these only one instance is currently translated contrary to this Luke 3:23, which I am asserting is very possibly a mis-translation. If that is true, then 100% of the time, the rule applies in the NT. Starting on page 10 to page 16, all 158 examples are listed with translations.
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 9:17 am
2) I'm pretty sure the reason each of the names in the genealogy are articular is because they are indeclinable Hebrew names, and the writer wants us to know that they are all nonetheless understood in Greek as genitives. It has nothing to do with how appositives or "genitives of relation" or Apollonius' canon work in other contexts. You've always got to be careful arguing from statistics in language
Firstly, I bring up Appollonius because it appears that due to the rule, it seems translators default their translations to a genitive of relationship versus simple apposition. My point being, that the exception to the rule is proper names and therefore Appollonius cannon does not apply to this structure.
I agree with your analysis that these are indeclinable Hebrew names. However, this point actually further proves my point. They were all indeclinable Hebrew names. Therefore if the writer wanted us to understand them as genitives, why doesn’t Ἰωσὴφ have a genitive article before it, since it’s also indeclinable?
Luke 3:23 ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ τοῦ Ματθὰτ τοῦ Λευεὶ τοῦ Μελχεὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ
As I pointed out elsewhere with indeclinable names they had the article in similar situations, ie.
2 Peter 2:15, ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βεώρ “The way of Balam the son of Beor.”
Βαλαὰμ would have been already in the genitive case based on ὁδῷ so why have the article there? Also John 1:45 “Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ” and Mark 6:3 “υἱὸς τῆς Μαρίας.” In both instances the article is completely unnecessary because the reader already would know the name is a singular genitive male/female. So why add it? And at the same time, not add it to Ἰωσὴφ. I believe this is all to be additional convincing evidence to show that Luke 3:23 could certainly be mistranslated.
I agree, you have to be very careful on statistical analysis. However you must judge the grammar and technique on the whole of the work and look at other evidence that is out of the norm of classical Koine, such as the example of 2 Peter 2:15, John 1:45 and Mark 6:3. When I studied the entire New Testament and all the earliest church fathers, if “Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ” is a “son of” genitive of relationship, then it is the only one in all of the New Testament and all the early church fathers that uses a single article τοῦ to connect two proper names that are genitives in this manner.
In Clement of Rome’s 1 Corinthians 12:2, he wrote “Ἰησοῦ τοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ,” translated “Joshua, the son of Nun.” Why did he write τοῦ τοῦ instead of just τοῦ once? I have never seen this before and I have researched this extensively. In secular Koine writings in all instances I have seen they would have simply written “Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ.”
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 9:17 am
there is just as often as not some local contextual or syntactical variable which negates the claim.
As I stated I went through the entire NT, and the only verse that is translated contrary to this rule is Luke 3:23. That means there are 157 provable examples, and only one debatable one. Unless you are debating the translations of the examples from page 10 to page 16. I realize that it is possible that Luke 3:23 could be an actual and valid exception. My point is to show it is certainly possible that it is a mistranslation from what I found. After doing the thorough research and comparing the NT to other Koine writings, I personally believe the translation of Luke 3:23 is incorrect.
As I stated, I discovered a total of 2,915 examples of this construct of simple apposition.
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 9:17 am
3) The reason nobody has noticed this or commented on it is that the consensus understanding (and by consensus I mean universal) is based on the way the Greek normally works in such contexts. I doubt seriously it has anything to do with theological bias. While arguments from silence are often fallacious, here we have to ask that if your understanding were syntactically permissible why someone in ancient times, native speaker of the language, wouldn't have noticed it and commented on it? They wouldn't have talked about modern grammatical categories, but they might have said something along the lines of "Hey, what Luke really means here is this dude 'Joseph Eli' not Joseph the son of Eli."
You are correct; I am not asserting there was theological bias. My conclusion was never theological. I only point out the other genealogy since the two are debated, and since this rule gives a logical conclusion to the debate, it offers some supporting evidence to prove my data.
Essentially I think you are saying that if a Koine genealogy was written as Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου, it would have to be translated Ptolemy son of Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy son of Lagus. However, I doubt anyone would translate it that way, because Ptolemy Philadelphus is a known historical figure, therefore translators that knew history would translate it as Ptolemy Philadelphus, the son of Ptolemy, who was the son of Lagus. If they knew nothing about history, then I would agree, they would translate it as the “Ptolemy son of Philadelphus.” On your fourth point below, I will comment on the evidence from the chains I studied.
I also agree, obviously a Greek is not going to see a phrase and think in their mind, hey that is “simple apposition”, or that is a “genitive of relationship.” These are obviously just categories we use to easily identify the grammar we are referring to. However, I can illustrate how they would have seen it I believe, with an example in English. Say that everyone in a city knew who Bobby Ray was, he was a local celebrity. Then someone wrote a book and made one reference to Bobby Ray. As someone who knows English, has spoken English your whole life, and are a native speaker; 200 years later, not knowing who Bobby Ray is, would you know if Ray was his last name, middle name or second first name? Most would think it was a second first name, but it certainly could be his last name. If it was his second first name, it would have been a good idea, based on technique not grammar, to add his last name, so you can differentiate that. However, they probably wouldn’t have because at the time everyone knew who Bobby Ray was.
Similarly this is true in Greek with two proper names that are genitives, where one is anarthrous and the other is articular. Because Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου is valid to be translated as “Ptolemy son of Philadelphus” or “Ptolemy Philadelphus.” Understanding can only be based on your knowledge of the parties involved. Even if you’re a native Greek your understanding is completely based on your knowledge of the parties involved. Are you disagreeing that Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου could be translated either way?
What I am saying is that everyone knew that Joseph was Jesus’ father/step-father. My point being if Mary’s father was also named Joseph, which would not be unusual because it was a common name (Jesus even had a brother named Joseph), then if Luke was referring to Mary’s father who was named Joseph, and if he also went by the name Eli, then this genealogy would make perfect sense to everyone who was familiar with Jesus’ family at the time. However, 200 years later if they didn’t know who Mary’s father was, then they would just presume this was speaking of Jesus’ father Joseph and never have thought twice about it. Other than the reference I had in the paper, have you ever seen any reference in any literature to the name of Mary’s father?
I agree, there is current universal consensus now, however, we don’t know how universal the consensus was in all history. 130 years is a long time lapse, especially when you are speaking of a genealogy, which I would presume most probably ignored, as most do today.
It seems you are saying that a native speaker will never misunderstand what is written in their native language. Think of English, how often people misunderstand what they read. I would presume there were also misunderstandings of what Greeks read in their time, just like in any other language.
Also as per universal consensus, this is why I brought up the examples of simple apposition between different cases. Wallace stated "Simple apposition requires that both nouns be in the same case (whether nom., gen., dat., acc., voc.), while the genitive of apposition requires only the second noun to be in the genitive case." So basically he is saying this is not possible, it’s a universal consensus. But as I show, not only is that rule incorrect, just about every time it does occur, mistranslations occur. My point being, just because there is universal consensus doesn’t mean it is correct. I would assume we only have a very small fraction of writings available to us today compared to all material written at the time. So it is possible this structure was way more common than the limited number of works make it appear. I give this just as an example of universal consensus not always being the correct way to understand it.
Obviously grammar and technique changes over time, and even in short periods of time it can be influenced by teachers, region, etc…
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 9:17 am
4) Why skip a generation? The genealogy starts with the most recent and works backward culminating in τοῦ θεοῦ (structurally drawing the parallel between Christ and Adam and their source in God). If you were to render υἱός as descendent, where precisely in the structure does "Joseph the Eli guy" fit? I don't think either that you can use Matthew's genealogy as a parallel. He starts with a summary showing that Jesus descends from two of the most important figures in redemptive history, and then launches into the genealogy proper. Luke launches right into his genealogy, and there is not convincing evidence otherwise that he's doing something different. The reason some things look, quack and act like ducks is because they are ducks.
If Joseph Eli was the name of Mary’s father, then understanding this genealogy as I have outlined, would make perfect sense to the readers of the time. I mentioned Matthew’s genealogy because he was using υἱὸς in reference to descendants. The point being, Luke may have similarly been using υἱὸς as descendant.
My translation was “He was, as was held, the grandson [or descendant] of Joseph Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi...” If you are asking how my translation works word for word with the Greek, then use the below as an example:
Ὢν [He was] υἱός [the descendant], ὡς [as] ἐνομίζετο [was held], Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ [of Joseph Eli], τοῦ Μαθθὰτ [of Matthat], τοῦ Λευὶ [of Levi]…
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑September 29th, 2018, 9:17 am
5) You spend a lot of time talking about your rule, but I'm a bit surprised you didn't compare other genealogies to see if there is anything parallel to what you want. I don't think there is, but some discussion of it would be helpful, and if you did find something incontestable, it would strengthen your argument. The different genealogies are a problem in modern inerrantist theological frameworks but the answer isn't going to be found in some hidden grammatical point, but in wider hermeneutical and theological discussion.
Starting with an anarthrous genitive, there were only 8 genitive strings previous to Pausanias and Pausanias contains 12. The type of genealogic construction found in Luke is not very common in the literature I sorted through. All of these are in the paper. As for the examples that prove what I am saying, here are some examples from my paper:
“Πελίου τοῦ Αἰγινήτου τοῦ Δηρείτου τοῦ Ἁρπάλου τοῦ Ἀμύκλα τοῦ Λακεδαίμονος,” as I showed in the paper, “Pelias the Aeginetan,” would be simple apposition and would prove the rule in a genealogic construction.
Also I mentioned, in Strabo Geography 7.7.8 Πύρρῳ τῷ Νεοπτολέμου τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως, which W. Falconer translated “Pyrrhus, the son of Neoptolemus the son of Achilles.” On the other hand, H. L. Jones translated the same text as, “Pyrrhus Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles.”
Pyrrhus Neoptolemus is a historical figure, and therefore in my opinion would be the proper translation. My point being, just because this genealogic type construction appears, doesn’t mean the first two names on the list must be a son of construction.
Herodotus Histories 2.71.4 Σέλευκος ὁ Σελεύκου τοῦ Καλλινίκου καὶ Πώγωνος ἐπικληθέντος, which as has been translated “Seleucus, son of Seleucus who had the double surnames of Callinicus and Pogon.”
There is already so much information in the paper I didn’t want to overload it, but here are some examples not in the paper that I think also give evidence. I didn’t put them in as I thought the evidence I showed was enough to already warrant the translation as a possibility. The point being just because several names are connected by multiple articles doesn’t mean they all have to be son of constructions.
Apollodorus Library Epit.1.2 Σκείρωνα τὸν Κορίνθιον τοῦ Πέλοπος
Sciron the Corinthian, son of Pelops
Herodotus Histories 2.98.2 Ἀρχάνδρου τοῦ Φθίου τοῦ Ἀχαιοῦ
Arkhandrus son of Phthius the Achaean
Appian. The Syrian Wars 45 Ἀντίοχος ὁ Ἀντιόχου τοῦ μεγάλου
Antiochus, the son of Antiochus the Great
Diogenes Laertius 1.9 Εὐθύφρων δ’ ὁ Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Ποντικοῦ
Euthyphro, the son of Heraclides the Pontic
Plutarch Themist 32.1 Ἀρχίππης τῆς Λυσάνδρου τοῦ Ἀλωπεκῆθεν
Archippe, the daughter of Lysander, of the deme Alopece
Aeschines Speeches 3.85 Μνησάρχου τοῦ Χαλκιδέως τοῦ Καλλίου καὶ Ταυροσθένους πατρός
Mnesarchus the Chalcian (of Chalcis), father of Callias and Taurosthenes
Polybius Histories 6.11a.7 Λεύκιος ὁ Δημαράτου τοῦ Κορινθίου υἱὸς
Lucius, the son of Demaratus the Corinthian
Xenophon Anabasis 7.8.8 Ἑλλάδι τῇ Γογγύλου τοῦ Ἐρετριέως γυναικὶ
Hellas, the wife of Gongylus the Eretrian
Pausanias Description of Greece
6.17.3
Πτολεμαῖον δὲ τὸν Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου
Ptolemy, the son of Ptolemy Lagus
plutarch_theseus 8.3
Δηϊονεῖ δὲ τῷ Εὐρύτου τοῦ Οἰχαλιέως
Deioneus, son of Eurytus the Oechalian
If we look at all Koine and Attic writings before Pausanias, we find that when two genitive, masculine proper names, when the first is anarthrous and the second articular, in other literature, 31 are simple apposition (double name, in regimen) and 98 are “son of” Genitive of Relationship. That means that 24% of the time, these are simple apposition (double name, in regimen). This assumes that the translations made by other translators was correct. Since there are some names we have no background on, it’s possible there are some translated as genitive of relationships that could be simple apposition.
Examples Simple Apposition (Two proper names in regimen) 31 Occurrences
Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.39 Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάνορος (Seleucus Nicanor)
Diogenes Laertius 5.3 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου (Ptolemy Philadelphus)
Polybius Histories 2.41.10 Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ Γονατᾶ (Antigonus Gonatas)
Polybius Histories 5.40.5 Σελεύκου τοῦ Καλλινίκου (Seleucus Callinicus)
Polybius Histories 5.67.6 Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ Μονοφθάλμου (Antigonus One-Eyed)
Strabo Geography 9.5.14 Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Φυλλίου (Apollo Phyllian)
Strabo Geography 11.2.18, 12.3.34, 12.8.16 Μιθριδάτου τοῦ Εὐπάτορος (Mithridates Eupator)
Strabo Geography 12.8.20 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Φιλαλήθους (Alexander Philalethes)
Strabo Geography 13.4.1 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Κεραυνοῦ (Ptolemy Ceraunus)
Strabo Geography 14.1.34 Ἀπολλωνίου τοῦ Μυός (Apollonius Mys)
Strabo Geography 14.3.3 Σερουιλίου τοῦ Ἰσαυρικοῦ (Servilius Isauricus)
Strabo Geography 14.3.3 Πομπηίου τοῦ Μάγνου (Pompey Magnus)
Strabo Geography 14.5.2 Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάτορος (Seleucus Nicator)
Josephus Antiquities 12.118 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου (Ptolemy Philadelphus)
Josephus Antiquities 13.269 τοῦ Δημητρίου παιδὸς Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Γρυποῦ ἐπικληθέντος (Antiochus Grypus)
Josephus Antiquities 13.271 Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπικληθέντος (Antiochus Soter)
Josephus Antiquities 13.273 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ζαβιναίου (Alexander Zebina)
Josephus Antiquities 13.278, 13.328 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λαθούρου (Ptolemy Lathyrus)
Josephus Antiquities 13.418 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Μενναίου (Ptolemy Menneus)
Josephus Antiquities 10.276, 12.393, 13.243, 13.292 Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Ἐπιφανοῦς (Antiochus Epiphanes)
Josephus Antiquities 20.234 βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Εὐπάτορος (Antiochus Eupator)
Plutarch Nicias 5.2 Διονυσίου τοῦ Χαλκοῦ προσαγορευθέντος (Dionysus Chalcus)
Appian Civil Wars 1.5.40 Πομπηίου τοῦ Μάγνου (Pompey Magnus)
Appian Civil Wars 5.1.10 Σελεύκου τοῦ Νικάτορος (Seleucus Nicator)
Appian Spain 65 Κοΐντου Πομπηίου τοῦ Αὔλου (Quintus Pompeius Aulus)
Examples Genitive of Relationship, “Son of” (98 Occurrences)
Isocrates Speeches 4.68, 12.193 Εὐμόλπου τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος (Eumolpus, the son of Poseidon)
Isocrates Speeches 11.37 Περσέως τοῦ Διὸς (Perseus, the son of Zeus)
Xenophon Memorabilia 4.8.4 Ἑρμογένους τοῦ Ἱππονίκου (Hermogenes, the son of Hipponicus)
Xenophon Hellenica 1.2.8 Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Ἀριστογένους (Heracleides, the son of Aristogenes)
Xenophon Hellenica 1.7.15 Σωκράτους τοῦ Σωφρονίσκου (Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus)
Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.39 Νικηράτου τοῦ Νικίου (Niceratus, the son of Nicias)
Plato Republic 1.327a Γλαύκωνος τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος (Glaucon, the son of Ariston)
Plato Republic 1.327a Ἠρὸς τοῦ Ἀρμενίου (Er, the son of Armenius)
Plato Symposium 1.172b Φοίνικος τοῦ Φιλίππου (Phoenix, the son of Philip)
Plato Phaedrus 244a Φαίδρου τοῦ Πυθοκλέους (Phaedrus, the son of Pythocles)
Plato Phaedrus 244a Στησιχόρου τοῦ Εὐφήμου (Stesichorus, the son of Euphemus)
Plato Phaedrus 263d Λυσίου τοῦ Κεφάλου (Lysias, the son of Cephalus)
Plato Letters 314e Ἡγησίππου τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος (Hegesippus, the son of Ariston)
Plato Letters 357c Ἱππαρίνου τοῦ Διονυσίου (Hipparinus, the son of Dionysius)
Plato Ion 532e Πολυγνώτου τοῦ Ἀγλαοφῶντος (Polygnotus, the son of Aglaophon)
Plato Ion 533a Δαιδάλου τοῦ Μητίονος (Daedalus, the son of Metion)
Plato Ion 533b Ἐπειοῦ τοῦ Πανοπέως (Epeius, the son of Panopeus)
Diogenes Laertius 5.1 Νικομάχου τοῦ Μαχάονος τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ (Nicomachus, the son of Machaon)
Diogenes Laertius 5.2 Σοφοκλέους τοῦ Ἀμφικλείδου (Sophocles, the son of Amphiclides)
Diogenes Laertius 9.8 Ἀρχαγόρου τοῦ Θεοδότου (Archagoras, the son of Theodotus)
Diogenes Laertius 9.11 Βρύσωνος τοῦ Στίλπωνος (Bryson, the son of Stilpo)
Diogenes Laertius 6.2 Πασιφῶντος τοῦ Λουκιανοῦ (Pasiphon, the son of Lucian)
Polybius Histories 4.35.10 υἱὸν δ’ Ἀγησιπόλιδος τοῦ Κλεομβρότου (son of Agesipolis, the son of Cleombrotus)
Polybius Histories 4.35.13 υἱὸς Ἀγησιλάου τοῦ Εὐδαμίδου (son of Archidamus, the son of Eudamidas)
Polybius Histories 4.52.4 Κώθωνος τοῦ Καλλιγείτονος (Cothon, the son of Callisthenes)
Polybius Histories 5.67.10 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου (Ptolemy, the son of Lagus)
Polybius Histories 21.26.7 Σιβύρτου τοῦ Πετραίου (Sibyrtus, the son of Petraeus)
Polybius Histories 22.15.1 Κύδα τοῦ Ἀντάλκους (Cydas, the son of Antalces)
Polybius Histories 30.31.6 Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Σελεύκου (Antiochus, the son of Seleucus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.3.3 Πιέρου τοῦ Μάγνητος (Pierus, the son of Magnes)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.4.1 Πανὸς τοῦ Διὸς (Pan, the son of Zeus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.5.3 Ἀσκαλάφου τοῦ Ἀχέροντος (Ascalaphus, the son of Acheron)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.8.4 Ἱπποστράτου τοῦ Ἀμαρυγκέως (Hippostratus, the son of Amarynceus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 1.9.5 Κυνόρτα τοῦ Ἀμύκλα (Cynortas, the son of Amyclas)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 2.6.2 Δηιφόβου τοῦ Ἱππολύτου (Deiphobus, the son of Hippolytus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 2.8.2 Τισαμενοῦ τοῦ Ὀρέστου (Tisamenus, the son of Orestes)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.1.2 Ἀτυμνίου τοῦ Διὸς (Atymnius, the son of Zeus)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.5.5 Νυκτέως τοῦ Χθονίου (Nycteus, the son of Chthonius)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.5.8 Αἵμονος τοῦ Κρέοντος (Haemon, the son of Creons)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.7.2 Θερσάνδρου τοῦ Πολυνείκους (Thersander, the son of Polynices)
Apollodorus of Athens Library 3.7.3 Λαοδάμαντος τοῦ Ἐτεοκλέους (Laodamas, the son of Eteocles)
Diodorus Library 9.36.3 Ὀρέστου τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος (Orestes, the son of Agamemnon)
Diodorus Library 11.48.6 Θρασυδαίου τοῦ Θήρωνος (Thrasydaeus, the son of Theron)
Diodorus Library 15.54.6 Ἀρχιδάμου τοῦ Ἀγησιλάου (Archidamus, the son of Agesilaus)
Diodorus Library 16.36.5 Ἱππαρίνου τοῦ Διονυσίου (Hipparinus, the son of Dionysius)
Diodorus Library 17.5.5 Ἀρσάνου τοῦ Ὀστάνου (Arsanes, the son of Ostanes)
Diodorus Library 17.17.4 Φιλώτου τοῦ Παρμενίωνος (Philotas, the son of Parmenion)
Strabo Geography 7.6.2 Φιλίππου τοῦ Ἀμύντου (Philip, the son of Amyntas)
Strabo Geography 7.7.6 Γόργου τοῦ Κυψέλου (Gorgus, the son of Cypselus)
Strabo Geography 7.7.12 Φιλίππου τοῦ Ἀμύντου (Philip, the son of Amyntas)
Strabo Geography 8.3.5 Τληπολέμου τοῦ Ἡρακλέους (Tlepolemus, the son of Hercules)
Strabo Geography 8.5.5 Ἄγιδος τοῦ Εὐρυσθένους (Agis, the son of Eurysthenes)
Strabo Geography 8.6.22 Τέννου τοῦ Κύκνου (Tennus, the son of Cycnus)
Strabo Geography 8.7.1 Ἴωνος τοῦ Ξούθου (Ion, the son of Xuthus)
Strabo Geography 8.7.1 Τισαμενοῦ τοῦ Ὀρέστου (Tisamenus, the son of Orestes)
Strabo Geography 9.5.23 Θετταλοῦ τοῦ Αἵμονος (Thettalus, the son of Haemo)
Strabo Geography 9.5.23 Ἕλληνος τοῦ Δευκαλίωνος (Hellen, the son of Deucalion)
Strabo Geography 9.5.23 Νέσσωνος τοῦ Θετταλοῦ (Nesson, the son of Thettalus)
Strabo Geography 10.1.3 Ἔλλοπος τοῦ Ἴωνος (Ellops, the son of Ion)
Strabo Geography 10.2.14, 20 Κεφάλου τοῦ Δηιονέως (Cephalus, the son of Deioneus)
Strabo Geography 10.3.2 Αἰτωλοῦ τοῦ Ἐνδυμίωνος (Aetolus, the son of Endymion)
Strabo Geography 10.3.2 Ὀξύλου τοῦ Αἵμονος (Oxylus, the son of Haemon)
Strabo Geography 12.3.28 Ἀντιπάτρου τοῦ Σίσιδος (Antipater, the son of Sisis)
Strabo Geography 12.8.18 Κελαινοῦ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος (Celaenus, the son of Poseidon)
Strabo Geography 13.1.11 Μέμνονος τοῦ Τιθωνοῦ (Memnon, the son of Tithonus)
Strabo Geography 14.1.27 Ἀμφιλόχου τοῦ Ἀμφιαράου (Amphilochus, the son of Amphiaraus)
Strabo Geography 14.3.10 Λύκου τοῦ Πανδίονος (Lycus, the son of Pandion)
Strabo Geography 14.5.16 Μόψου τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος (Mopsus, the son of Apollo)
Josephus Wars 1.476 Δαρείου τοῦ Ὑστάσπεως (Darius, the son of Hystaspes)
Josephus Against Apion 1.210 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου (Ptolemy, the son of Lagus)
Josephus Against Apion 1.244 Ἀμενώφεως τοῦ Παάπιος (Amenophis, the son of Papis)
Josephus Antiquities 1.113 Χάμου τοῦ Νώχου (Ham, the son of Noah)
Josephus Antiquities 11.79 Ἰούδα τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβου (Judas, the son of Aminadab)
Josephus Antiquities 11.270 Ἀμάνου τοῦ Ἀμαδάθου (Haman, the son of Ammedatha)
Josephus Antiquities 11.304 Παυσανίου τοῦ Κεράστου (Pausanias, the son of Cerastes)
Josephus Antiquities 12.3 Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Λάγου (Ptolemy, the son of Lagus)
Josephus Antiquities 12.265 Ματταθίας υἱὸς Ἰωάννου τοῦ Συμεῶνος τοῦ Ἀσαμωναίου (...John, the son of Simeon...)
Josephus Antiquities 12.419 Ἰάσονος τοῦ Ἐλεαζάρου (Jason, the son of Eleazar)
Josephus Antiquities 14.149 Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδου (Dionysius, the son of Esculapius)
Josephus Antiquities 14.256 Μέμνονος τοῦ Ἀριστείδου (Memnon, the son of Orestidas)
Josephus Antiquities 15.23 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλου βασιλέως (Alexander, the son of Aristobulus the king)
Josephus Antiquities 18.134 Ἰωσήπου τοῦ Ἰωσήπου (Joseph, the son of Joseph)
Plutarch Alcibiades 19.2 Θεσσαλοῦ τοῦ Κίμωνος (Thessalus, the son of Cimon)
Plutarch Alcibiades 33.1 Κριτίου τοῦ Καλλαίσχρου (Critias, the son of Callaeschrus)
Plutarch Cimon 16.4 Ἀρχιδάμου τοῦ Ζευξιδάμου (Archidamus, the son of Zeuxidamus)
Plutarch Lysander 14.5 Θηραμένους τοῦ Ἅγνωνος (Theramenes, the son of Hagnon)
Plutarch Nicias 1.3 Ἑρμοκράτους τοῦ Ἕρμωνος (Hermocrates, the son of Hermon)
Plutarch Pericles 8.3 Θουκυδίδου τοῦ Μελησίου (Thucydides, the son of Melesias)
Plutarch Solon 26.2 Δημοφῶντος τοῦ Θησέως (Demophon, the son of Theseus)
Plutarch Theseus 8.3 Μελανίππου τοῦ Θησέως (Melanippus, the son of Theseus)
Appian Civil Wars 2.10.68 Ἴλου τοῦ Αἰνείου τὸ τῶν Ἰουλίων γένος (Ilus, the son of Aeneas of the Julian Race)
Appian Civil Wars 4.10.80 Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Φιλίππου (Alexander, the son of Philip)
Appian Kings 1 Αἰνείου τοῦ Ἀγχίσου τοῦ Κάπυος (Aeneas, the son of Anchises, the son of Capys)
Appian Kings 2 Ταρκυνίου Λευκίου τοῦ Ταρκυνίου (Tarquinius Lucius, the son of Tarquinius)
Appian The Mithridatic Wars 112 Δαρείου τοῦ Ὑστάσπου Περσῶν βασιλέως (Darius, the son of Hystaspes, king of the Persians)
Appian The Mithridatic Wars 115 Δαρείου τοῦ Ὑστάσπου (Darius, the son of Hystaspes)