Murray Hogg wrote:
I'd just like to check that I'm getting the sense of "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous) correct in the following short snippet from Zosimus, Historia Nova
εἰκότως τοίνυν ὁ καῖσαρ ἀχθόμενος ἐφ’ οἷς τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδώκασι τοῖς βαρβάροις τοὺς ὁμοφύλους
As it stands, I would give a wooden rendering as:
Rightly, therefore, Caesar was angered with those whom, being attacked, to them, to the barbarians, the comrades.
My major problem, not so clear in the wooden English, is how to render "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous).
The stumbling block seems to be τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς. We're looking at a perfect participle of ἥκω, "to have come", and when used with εἰς, it can mean "relate to" or "concern." So it would appear to mean "at least what pertained to them." I don't know where you're getting "attacked" from.
I do find the syntax of this rather tough, and I hope Carl jumps in here to straighten me out. I think that the object of ἐκδεδώκασι ("they had given up") is τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς and the other accusative τοὺς ὁμοφύλους is in apposition, specifying what it is. So it goes something like this: "Justly, then, was Caesar vexed at those who had given up to the barbarians at least what pertained to them, (that is) their fellow tribesmen."
Murray Hogg wrote:Clearly (?) it does not relate to barbarois or the latter would also be in the accusative (correct?).
Well, I don't think it relates to the βαρβάροις, but the case of the antecedent is irrelevant.
Murray Hogg wrote:So I wonder if there is some relationship to "τοὺς ὁμοφύλους" (tous homophulous) even though I'm certain that the case of homopholos is not governed by eis - that is, the sense is NOT "to the comrades."
My guess is that τοὺς ὁμοφύλους is in apposition to τό γε ἧκον εἰς αὐτοὺς
Murray Hogg wrote:So, the question, who precisely are the "they" spoken of here, and what function is "εἰς αὐτοὺς" (eis autous) actually serving in this sentence?
The "they" is built into the relative οἷς. To identify who they are, you'd have to look at the context, which seems to refer to some of Caesar's troops who deserted during a battle. You can read the context here in an English translation on the web at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zosimus03_book3.htm
by Green and Chaplin. Here is how they rendered the the paragraph (with the sentence in question bolded
Green and Chaplin wrote:We ought not however to pass over in silence an action of Caesar after the victory. He possessed a regiment of six hundred horse, which were well disciplined, and in whose valour and experience he so confided, that he ventured great partof his hopes upon their performances. Indeed when the battle commenced, the whole army attacked the enemy with all the resolution they could show; but some time afterwards, though the Roman army had considerably the advantage, these were the only troops that fled, and left their station so dishonourably, that when Caesar rode up to them with a small party, and called them back to a share of the victory, he could not by any means prevail on them to turn. On which account he was justly indignant with them, for having as much as related to them betrayed their countrymen to the Barbarians. Yet he did not inflict on them the usual and legal punishment. But he dressed them in.women's clothes, and led them through the camp towards another province, thinking that such a punishment would be worse than death to soldiers that were men. Indeed this happened very fortunately both for him and them; for in the second war against the Germans they recollected the ignominy which had previously been imposed upon them,and were almost the only troops who conducted themselves bravely in that engagement.
Murray Hogg wrote:One final question: how does tous homophulous end up being rendered "their comrades" (i.e. of those who had done the leaving/handing over)? I'm not seeing any reason for a possessive here, but it seems to be demanded in order to make sense of the sentence in its broader context.
The Greek article is not infrequently translated by an English possessive, and English seems to require the possessive more often with certain identifiable referents.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)