Stephen Carlson wrote:cwconrad wrote:Might it not be as simple a matter as the fact that it's his own face to which he's referring? Cf. Smyth §1121 "The article often takes the place of an unemphatic possessive pronoun when there is no doubt as to the possessor. Κῦρος καταπηδήσα_ς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἅρματος τὸν θώρα_κα ἐνέδυ_ Cyrus leaped down from his chariot and put on his breastplate X. A. 1.8.3. "
Good suggestion. I'm still don't feel that I'm completely comfortable with the use of the article in essentially adverbial constructions (John 8:25 τὴν ἀρχήν is a recent example on this forum).
Stephen
I view these two cases as completely different, because "τω προσωπω" in Gal 1:22 is to me merely a shorter alternative of "εν τω προσωπω μου", so it is really a prepositional clause functioning normally, unlike "την αρχην" in John 8:25 which is an adverb and not a prepositional clause. I also think it is rather common for "εν" to be omitted compared to other prepositions.
Stephen Carlson wrote:Mark Lightman wrote:Stephen wrote: but I'm wondering about the article before προσώπῳ. What is its function?
Its function is to help produce a more rhythmic and balanced sentence. The multi-syllabic ἀγνοούμενος and προσώπῳ would sound a little clunky in succession.
I appreciate the attempt, but this explanation does not seem to work for 2 Cor 3:18 ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ
προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, . . . unless Paul is excused as a writer of "clunky" Greek.
Yet this would mean that all of these are writers of clunky Greek too:
[...]
We should exclude all those where an article would be semantically incorrect or grammatically bound..
Sappho: μειδιαίσαισ’ ἀθανάτωι
προσώπωι (the article must come before "αθανατω" and alters the meaning)
Anacreon: χαῖρε φίλον φῶς χαρίεντι μειδιῶν
προσώπωι· (the article must come before "χαριεντι" and alters the meaning)
Xenophon: ἐκ πολλῶν δὲ καὶ δυσθύμων τε καὶ ἐξεστηκότων
προσώπων ἥθροισται. (it is indefinite)
Hippocrates: τά τε ἐν τῷ ξύμπαντι
προσώπῳ, (the article is already there)
Aristonicus the grammarian: ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι ιδʹ ἕως „ἀνδράσι μίσγηται“ ὡς ἀνοίκειοι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ
προσώπῳ. (the article is already there)
Plutarch: οὐχ ὥσπερ Ἀντίπατρος ἰδιώτου
προσώπῳ καὶ φαυλότητι χλαμυδίου (it is indefinite)
Galen: ὀρῶν γάρ τοί τινων τὴν περιγραφὴν ἢ τὸ σχῆμα παραπλήσιον εἶναι λέοντος
προσώπῳ, (it is indefinite)
Apollonius Dyscolus the grammarian: ἐγγραφομένων γὰρ τῶν ἀντωνυμιῶν διὰ τὰς ἐπισυμβεβηκυίας πράξεις τῷ τε ἀποφαινομένῳ
προσώπῳ ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ καὶ τῷ πρὸς ὃν ἡ ἀπότασις τοῦ λόγου, (the article is already there)
Justin Martyr: ἁβρᾷ ἐσθῆτι καὶ ἐρωτοπεποιημένῳ καὶ ἀνθοῦντι ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων
προσώπῳ, (it is indefinite)
Hephaestion the grammarian: μελλίχροος δ’ ἐπ’ ἰμερτῷ κέχυται
προσώπῳ. (it is in a prepositional clause)
Vettius Valens: ἔοικε γὰρ τὸ μεσουράνημα ἀναλογεῖν τῷ βασιλικῷ
προσώπῳ. (the article is already there)
Cassius Dio: οὔτ’ ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ καθεστῶτι
προσώπῳ ἐποίουν. (the article is already there)
Clement of Alexandria: Σχῆμα μὲν οὖν σχήματι θεωρεῖται, καὶ πρόσωπον
προσώπῳ, καὶ ἐπιγινώσκεται τὰ γνωρίσματα τοῖς σχήμασι καὶ ταῖς οὐσίαις. (doesn't "προσωπον προσωπω" mean "face to face"? though I thought it is usually "προσωπον προς προσωπον"..)
Hermogenes: ὁ δὲ Πλάτων καὶ ἀφειδέστερον ἐν τῷ Συμποσίῳ καταχρησάμενος τῷ τοῦ Ἀγάθωνος
προσώπῳ ὡς ποιητοῦ τῇ παραπλοκῇ ταύτῃ ἐχρήσατο· (the article is already there)
Origen: ἀλλ’ ὅτι οὐχ ἁρμοζόντως τῷ ἰουδαϊκῷ
προσώπῳ, (the article is already there)
Porphyry: λύεται οὖν τὸ ζήτημα
προσώπῳ. (I don't get what this phrase means..)
Gregory of Nyssa: μηδὲ δεῖν φαίνεσθαι τῷ ἀκηράτῳ
προσώπῳ τὸν ἐμμολυνθέντα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν αἰῶνα· (the article is already there)
Eusebius: καταβὰς αὐτοῖς διελέξατο εὖ μάλα φαιδρῷ καὶ πραοτάτῳ
προσώπῳ, (it is indefinite)
Epiphanius: ἵνα ἐν καθαρῷ συνειδότι, ἀνεπαισχύντῳ
προσώπῳ, πεφωτισμένῃ καρδίᾳ τῶν θείων τούτων μεταλαμβάνοντες ἁγιασμάτων καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ζωοποιούμενοι, (it is indefinite)
Gregory of Nazianzus: τὸ δ’ οὐ φύγον ἔχθος ἄπιστον Δυσμενέος λοχόωντος ἐν εὐμενέοντι
προσώπῳ. (I don't get it.)
Basil of Caesarea: ὃ πάντων αὐτῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν προτιμότατον, τῷ σῷ προσβλέψαι
προσώπῳ καὶ τῆς σῆς ἀκοῦσαι φωνῆς. (the article is already there)
Here are the remaining ones:
Theocritus: τοῖον ἐπισκύνιον βλοσυρῷ ἐπέκειτο
προσώπῳ.
LXX Deut 28.50: ἔθνος ἀναιδὲς
προσώπῳ,
LXX 4 Kgdms 5.1: Καὶ Ναιμαν ὁ ἄρχων τῆς δυνάμεως Συρίας ἦν ἀνὴρ μέγας ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ καὶ τεθαυμασμένος
προσώπῳ,
Dionysius Halicarnassius: καὶ παντὶ συνεξομοιωθῆναι
προσώπῳ δυνατώτατος.
Dorotheus: ἵνα γνῶμεν τοὺς βοηθοῦντας ἑκατέρῳ
προσώπῳ·
Hippolytus: Καὶ ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῶν πληρουμένων τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν ἀναστήσεται βασιλεὺς ἀναιδὴς
προσώπῳ καὶ συνιῶν προβλήματα,
Triphiodorus: ὡς δ’ ὁπότε πλήθουσα πυρὸς γλαυκοῖο σελήνη οὐρανὸν αἰγλήεντα κατεχρύσωσε
προσώπῳ·
I think that when it is not semantically or grammatically bound, the article is subject to each individual's preference. But I think I will agree that in Gal 1:22 perhaps it is more probably due to its (semantic) "non-abstractness" as Scott suggested.
Scott Lawson wrote:David Lim wrote:Anyway 2 Cor 12:2-3 has a good example where the presence or absence of the article does not have any semantic significance.
BDF §255 “The article can be omitted in prepositional phrases. (formulae from the earlier anarthrous stage of the language.” If correct, then the reason for its absence may be accounted for at 2 Cor. 12:2,3 semantically significant or not.
2 Cor 12:2...οῖδα ἄνθρωπν ἐν Χριστῶ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσςάρων, εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οῖδα, εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οῖδα...
I was actually comparing between "εν σωματι" and "εκτος του σωματος". In any case what you are saying does imply that frequently the omission of the article in prepositional clauses has no semantic significance because it can be omitted. But I now think this is not related to the case of Gal 1:22.
Scott Lawson wrote:BDF §258 “The article is often lacking with the abstracts…The more abstract the sense in which the noun is used, the less likely it is to take any other than the generic article;…”
This does account for the seven occurrences in Stephen's list, so I think it is a good explanation.