Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Jean Putmans
Posts: 12
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands

Re: Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Post by Jean Putmans » November 22nd, 2019, 2:07 am

Dear Peng Huiguo,

according to Kittel (german Edition) Theologisches Wörterbuch, Volume 8 Lemma τελωνης, p. 101 the house of a Taxcollector was not clean (to Pharisees and probably to all Jews, incl. the γραμματεις), so it would be very uncommon for them to enter the house. The communication could have been through the door- or window openings (here I am supposing, Jesus - the most important guest - was inside the house).

I don't think the byzantine reading is wrong. When people like Wulfila, Basil, Chrysostom and Cyril use this reading, who am I to think they were wrong: They lived in a hellenistic world, speaking and reading Greek everyday, so they must have known, whether what they were writing was ok or not.
The lack of information on the cataphoric use of a personal pronoun in Greek grammars (DBF/DBR, Cambridge, Zerwick 2011) made me wonder about this byzantine reading.

Regards
Jean
0 x


Jean Putmans
Netherlands

Peng Huiguo
Posts: 46
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Post by Peng Huiguo » November 22nd, 2019, 4:10 am

Jean, I understand. Barry argued for a cataphoric possessive αὐτῶν while I argued for an anaphoric partitive. Note the KJV translators opted for an anaphoric possessive (with perplexing effect)!

The situation with the scribes and pharisees at the banquet is uncertain. We don't know the banquet program and when these guys came in (they could skip the meal and join an after-meal discussion for eg.), nor do we know the layout of the house, or the relationship of Levi to the scribes... Even the tax-collectors' supposed uncleanness is debatable (see Hyam Maccoby, How unclean were tax-collectors?). A straight read-thru of RP's vv. 29-30 paints a picture of a big banquet with folks from many walks, among whom were scribes and pharisees (not necessarily colleagues), who began to talk to Jesus and his disciples. Clear as day, no issues really.
0 x

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1627
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Post by Barry Hofstetter » November 22nd, 2019, 2:08 pm

Peng Huiguo wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 4:10 am
Jean, I understand. Barry argued for a cataphoric possessive αὐτῶν while I argued for an anaphoric partitive. Note the KJV translators opted for an anaphoric possessive (with perplexing effect)!
Not sure exactly how an "anaophoric partitive" should be read. Partitives are used in very specific constructions, and none of those are used here. You apparently deleted the post where you explained this? From Smyth:

1306. The genitive may denote a whole, a part of which is denoted by the noun it limits. The genitive of the divided whole may be used with any word that expresses or implies a part.

1307. Position.—The genitive of the whole stands before or after the word denoting the part: τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πελτασταί targeteers of the Thracians T. 7. 27, οἱ ἄποροι τῶν πολῑτῶν the needy among the citizens D. 18. 104; rarely between the limited noun and its article: οἱ τῶν ἀδίκων ἀφικνούμενοι those of the unrighteous who come here P. G. 525 c. Cp. 1161 N. 1.

1308. When all are included there is no partition: so in οὗτοι πάντες all of these, all these, τέτταρες ἡμεῖς ἦμεν there were four of us, τὸ πᾶν πλῆθος τῶν ὁπλῑτῶν the entire body of the hoplites T. 8. 93, ὅσοι ἐστὲ τῶν ὁμοίων as many of you as belong to the ‘peers’ X. A. 4. 6. 14.

1309. The idea of division is often not explicitly stated. See third example in 1310.

1310. (I) The genitive of the divided whole is used with substantives.

μέρος τι τῶν βαρβάρων some part of the barbarians T. 1. 1, οἱ Δωριῆς ἡμῶν those of us who are Dorians 4. 61. The governing word may be omitted: ʼΑρχίᾱς τῶν Ἡρᾱκλειδῶν Archias (one) of the Heraclidae T. 6. 3. To an indefinite substantive without the article may be added a genitive denoting the special sort: Φεραύλᾱς Πέρσης τῶν δημοτῶν Pheraulas, a Persian, one of the common people X. C. 2. 3. 7.
Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (pp. 315–316). New York; Cincinnati; Chicago; Boston; Atlanta: American Book Company.

And Wallace:
4. Partitive Genitive (“Wholative”) [which is a part of]
a. Definition
The substantive in the genitive denotes the whole of which the head noun is a part. This usage is relatively common in the NT.
b. Key to Identification
Instead of the word of substitute which is a part of.
c. Amplification and Semantics
1) This is a phenomenological use of the genitive that requires the head noun to have a lexical nuance indicating portion. For example, “some of the Pharisees,” “one of you,” “a tenth of the city,” “the branch of the tree,” “a piece of pie.”
2) This use of the genitive is similar to one kind of possessive genitive (e.g., the possessive gen. with anatomy) with one significant difference. “The tail of the dog” is possessive, while “the bumper of the car” is partitive. As can be seen, the difference between these two has to do with animateness. One crude way to test whether a genitive is partitive or possessive is to ask whether the genitive substantive would object to the head noun’s departure. A dog would (possession); a car would not (partitive).
3) The partitive genitive is semantically the opposite of the genitive of apposition. While the partitive designates the whole of which the head noun is a part, the genitive of apposition designates a particular within the class described by the head noun. The important thing to keep in mind here is that, though semantically opposite, sometimes they are structurally identical. (See under “Genitive of Apposition” for discussion and diagram.)
4) Occasionally, the noun to which the genitive is related is absent, understood from the context. (One will also see this frequently with ἐκ + the gen. [e.g., Matt 27:48; John 11:49; 16:17], which often has a partitive force to it.) Therefore, sometimes it is necessary to supply the “part” in order to determine whether or not the genitive is partitive.
5) An almost invariable formula that the partitive genitive follows includes such head substantives as: τις, ἕκαστος,39 and especially εἷς. That is to say, in such constructions, the genitive will routinely be partitive.
Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (pp. 84–85). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

Very difficult to see how αὐτῶν would fit as a partitive.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

Peng Huiguo
Posts: 46
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Post by Peng Huiguo » November 22nd, 2019, 4:47 pm

> You apparently deleted the post where you explained this?

Ya, I tried copying by hand Wallace here and gave up. Thanks for pasting part of it here.

> Partitives are used in very specific constructions, and none of those are used here.

How specific? The first eg. in that Smyth snippet

τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πελτασταί

How is that different from γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν?

Of course it depends on whether you see γραμματεῖς as a "part" in the first place, and what αὐτῶν denotes. This may be difficult if you've been conditioned by the NA28 reading, and has little to do with grammar.

I think what Jean was asking could be stated another way: How would Basil et al have read these verses? Did that αὐτῶν appear anaphoric or cataphoric to them? We may never know for sure, but one old group of folks went for anaphoric: the KJV translators.

Imagine vocally reading these verses to an audience unfamiliar with christian lore. As the words tumble on, and the listeners process them linearly, how would they construe that αὐτῶν? Note in this situation the influence of the αὐτῶν in v. 29.
0 x

Jean Putmans
Posts: 12
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands

Re: Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Post by Jean Putmans » November 23rd, 2019, 3:43 am

Dear Peng Huigo

"Imagine vocally reading these verses to an audience unfamiliar with christian lore. As the words tumble on, and the listeners process them linearly, how would they construe that αὐτῶν? Note in this situation the influence of the αὐτῶν in v. 29."

We should never forget: That was then - in Lukes time - an audience in a Hellenistic World; to me - dutch, so a germanic Language, speaking - Greek word order is sometimes very strange and surprising, whilst to the Greek it is a common word order. We are used to interpret a sentence during reading/listening, and sometimes at the finishing of the sentence we see, that we have to reinterpret the whole sentence. Such a case might be this verse, couldn't it?

On the other hand, if there is no evidence of the cataphoric use of a personal pronoun in other ancient Greek texts, cataphoric αυτων has a very low probability, but of course, not impossible!

Regards

Jean
0 x
Jean Putmans
Netherlands

Peng Huiguo
Posts: 46
Joined: April 28th, 2019, 2:02 am

Re: Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Post by Peng Huiguo » November 23rd, 2019, 5:38 am

Greek word order is sometimes very strange and surprising
Parts of the epistles and extra-biblical texts can be quite convoluted, but the gospels are fairly straightforward.
0 x

Tony Pope
Posts: 122
Joined: July 14th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Re: Cataphoric use of Personal Pronouns

Post by Tony Pope » November 25th, 2019, 9:25 am

Peng Huiguo wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 4:47 pm

> Partitives are used in very specific constructions, and none of those are used here.

How specific? The first eg. in that Smyth snippet

τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πελτασταί

How is that different from γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν?

Of course it depends on whether you see γραμματεῖς as a "part" in the first place, and what αὐτῶν denotes. This may be difficult if you've been conditioned by the NA28 reading, and has little to do with grammar.
I'm coming late to this discussion. For me, your first example in Smyth (§1307) is not helpful because neither of the words is a pronoun. However, I found the second example in his §1310 illuminating (Thuc. 4.61.2). I looked it up in Perseus:

παρεστάναι δὲ μηδενὶ ὡς οἱ μὲν Δωριῆς ἡμῶν πολέμιοι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις, τὸ δὲ Χαλκιδικὸν τῇ Ἰάδι ξυγγενείᾳ ἀσφαλές
[Let no one say to himself, ‘The Dorians among us may be enemies to the Athenians, but the Chalcidians, being Ionians, are safe because they are their kinsmen.’] (Jowett's tr.)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.01.0199

In the side panel, the Notes by Graves give another example, which seems incorrectly numbered in Perseus but tracked down at Thuc. 4.126.3):

μαθεῖν χρή, ἐξ ὧν τε προηγώνισθε τοῖς Μακεδόσιν αὐτῶν [But you ought to know, from your late conflicts with the Macedonian portion of them] (Jowett's tr., with a footnote referring back to 4.124)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... macedonian

So, to return to Luke 5.30 in the RP edition, I suggest the reference of αὐτῶν is back to verse 17. Pharisees and teachers of the Law had been present in the previous episode (Luke 5.17 καὶ ἦσαν καθήμενοι Φαρισαῖοι καὶ νομοδιδάσκαλοι οἳ ἦσαν ἐληλυθότες ἐκ πάσης κώμης τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἰερουσαλήμ), and it seems reasonable to suppose Luke intends this episode (5.27-39) to be following chronologically soon after the previous one (note Matthew and Mark juxtapose them also). So the scribes and Pharisees had not gone home directly after the healing of the paralysed man. I don't see ἀυτῶν referring directly back to ἄλλων in verse 29, given that those others are said to be at table with the other guests but the scribes reproach Jesus' disciples for feasting with tax collectors.

There are other uses of the genitive 3rd ps pronoun in the NT whose antecedent is not immediately clear, such as Mt12.9 19.2 Lk2.22 23.51 Jn8.44 Hb8.8 1P3.14. See the lexicons for others. BAGD has a section "w. ref. to a noun to be supplied fr. the context", not including Lk 5.30 probably because it is not in the Nestle text. I believe there is no need to invoke a cataphoric use.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”