Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 26th, 2012, 8:38 am

David Lim wrote: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.
I don't get this. Just like τὴν ἀρχήν, τῷ προσώπῳ is not a preposition phrase (not clause) either.
David Lim wrote: We should exclude all those where an article would be semantically incorrect or grammatically bound..
Aristonicus the grammarian: ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι ιδʹ ἕως „ἀνδράσι μίσγηται“ ὡς ἀνοίκειοι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ προσώπῳ. (the article is already there)
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)
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)
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)
Gregory of Nyssa: μηδὲ δεῖν φαίνεσθαι τῷ ἀκηράτῳ προσώπῳ τὸν ἐμμολυνθέντα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν αἰῶνα· (the article is already there)
Basil of Caesarea: ὃ πάντων αὐτῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν προτιμότατον, τῷ σῷ προσβλέψαι προσώπῳ καὶ τῆς σῆς ἀκοῦσαι φωνῆς. (the article is already there)
For all your cases of "the article is already there," are you aware that "τῷ Χ προσώπῷ" can be rewritten as "τῷ προσώπῷ τῷ Χ" to satisfy Mark's sense of euphony?

Stephen
0 x


Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by Mark Lightman » February 26th, 2012, 8:48 am

ἔγραψεν ὁ Στέφανος: Yet this would mean that all of these are writers of clunky Greek too:

[…]
Hi, Stephen,

The Greeks often used dysphony to mark an intonation unit for saliency. An argument can be made that that is what is happening in most of the examples you site.
0 x

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by David Lim » February 26th, 2012, 10:28 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote: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.
I don't get this. Just like τὴν ἀρχήν, τῷ προσώπῳ is not a preposition phrase (not clause) either.
I view "τω προσωπω" as a short form with implicit ellipsis of both the preposition and the genitive pronoun, thus "προσωπω" itself never functions as an adverb. "την αρχην" on the other hand has a grammatical and semantic function that cannot be understood as a result of ellipsis, hence I distinguish between the two. The preposition "εν" is often dropped in prepositional clauses (I prefer to consistently use the word "clause" for every grammatical unit regardless of how small), but adverbs that are formed from the accusative of nouns seem to be a completely different thing.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote: We should exclude all those where an article would be semantically incorrect or grammatically bound..
Aristonicus the grammarian: ἀθετοῦνται στίχοι ιδʹ ἕως „ἀνδράσι μίσγηται“ ὡς ἀνοίκειοι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ προσώπῳ. (the article is already there)
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)
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)
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)
Gregory of Nyssa: μηδὲ δεῖν φαίνεσθαι τῷ ἀκηράτῳ προσώπῳ τὸν ἐμμολυνθέντα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν αἰῶνα· (the article is already there)
Basil of Caesarea: ὃ πάντων αὐτῇ τῶν ἀγαθῶν προτιμότατον, τῷ σῷ προσβλέψαι προσώπῳ καὶ τῆς σῆς ἀκοῦσαι φωνῆς. (the article is already there)
For all your cases of "the article is already there," are you aware that "τῷ Χ προσώπῷ" can be rewritten as "τῷ προσώπῷ τῷ Χ" to satisfy Mark's sense of euphony?

Stephen
I am aware, but such a change would change the intended emphasis, so it is semantically significant and cannot be used for the reason of "sounding nicer". My observation is that every sentence has a certain range (or distribution) of possible meaning and the speaker or writer chooses one that contains his intended meaning. If he is aware of more than one possible choice, he will choose based on style. If he only knows one way of saying what he wants to say, he will have no choice but to use it. So if an emphasis is not desired, he will just use the "usual" construction. It is the same reason why he will not rearrange an entire sentence just to "make it sound nice" all the time, although we might sometimes especially if we are thinking how best to say something and not simply speak off the top of our heads.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 26th, 2012, 2:15 pm

Mark Lightman wrote:The Greeks often used dysphony to mark an intonation unit for saliency. An argument can be made that that is what is happening in most of the examples you site.
I agree that salience is closer to the explanation, but I think that this notion of dysphony is not really testable (falsiable) or, as a result, helpful.

Stephen
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 26th, 2012, 2:32 pm

David Lim wrote:I view "τω προσωπω" as a short form with implicit ellipsis of both the preposition and the genitive pronoun, thus "προσωπω" itself never functions as an adverb. "την αρχην" on the other hand has a grammatical and semantic function that cannot be understood as a result of ellipsis, hence I distinguish between the two. The preposition "εν" is often dropped in prepositional clauses (I prefer to consistently use the word "clause" for every grammatical unit regardless of how small), but adverbs that are formed from the accusative of nouns seem to be a completely different thing.
Well, I don't view τῷ προσώπῳ as an ellipsis of a preposition (does this even exist???) but an ordinary dative of respect that is part of a long and strong tradition going back to a time even before the prepositional phrases were invented in Greek.

For me, "clause" implies a verb. If you want a generic term a grammatical unit of various sizes, you can use the term "phase."
David Lim wrote:I am aware, but such a change would change the intended emphasis, so it is semantically significant and cannot be used for the reason of "sounding nicer".
It's probably another terminological quibble, but I understand "emphasis" as belonging more to pragmatics than to semantics. The propositional content is the same.

Stephen
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by Mark Lightman » February 26th, 2012, 3:56 pm

Stephen wrote: I think that this notion of dysphony is not really testable (falsiable) or, as a result, helpful.
I agree with you. I have three problems with NT Greek Dysphonics:

1. It is all subjective, non-testable and never leads to consensus. NT Greek Dysphonicians never agree on anything and have their own version of the aspect wars. (An imperfect here would be dysphonic. No, it wouldn’t. Yes, it would. No, it wouldn’t.)

2. NT Greek Dysphonics does not lead to fluency in Ancient Greek and uses up time better spent on the things that will.

3. NT Greek Dysphonics will not help you understand the meaning of a Greek text except on the extreme margins where the discussion becomes not about the Greek text but about the dysphonic metalanguage used to describe the Greek text.

Still, many people feel that NT Greek Dysphonics, although neither helpful nor scientific, is a discipline worthy of study in its own right, like Form Criticism or Phrenology.

But this discussion is really out of place on this subforum.
.
0 x

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by Scott Lawson » February 26th, 2012, 7:50 pm

Mark Lightman wrote:Stephen wrote: I think that this notion of dysphony is not really testable (falsiable) or, as a result, helpful.
Other things that may not be helpful but that I have learned as I researched προςώπον are that Paul’s arguments at Galatians 1:13 -2:21 is structured in a chiastic pattern (Cf. BDF §477) which would strongly indicate that he was choosing his words with even more than the ordinary care to achieve rhythmical balance. I also learned that προςώπον is one of several substantives mentioned in both Robertson and BDF and used in what BDF calls “Hebraistic circumlocutions of prepositional concepts” (Cf. BDF §217, Rob.648) which very nearly fit David’s expanded construction of his view of a supposed implicit ellipsis of τῶ προσωπῶ and for this reason further grounds to think it unlikely.

Scott
0 x
Scott Lawson

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by David Lim » February 26th, 2012, 9:30 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I view "τω προσωπω" as a short form with implicit ellipsis of both the preposition and the genitive pronoun, thus "προσωπω" itself never functions as an adverb. "την αρχην" on the other hand has a grammatical and semantic function that cannot be understood as a result of ellipsis, hence I distinguish between the two. The preposition "εν" is often dropped in prepositional clauses (I prefer to consistently use the word "clause" for every grammatical unit regardless of how small), but adverbs that are formed from the accusative of nouns seem to be a completely different thing.
Well, I don't view τῷ προσώπῳ as an ellipsis of a preposition (does this even exist???) but an ordinary dative of respect that is part of a long and strong tradition going back to a time even before the prepositional phrases were invented in Greek.
I think it does exist. I somehow think that the perceived meaning of phrases is separate from its historical origin, and may or may not coincide. Consider Rom 10:10 where "καρδια πιστευεται" and "στοματι ομολογειται" are parallel with "ομολογησης εν τω στοματι σου" and "πιστευσης εν τη καρδια σου" and would naturally be understood to be referring to exactly the same thing, with an ellipsis in the shorter forms. The historical origin explains why it is that preposition that is can be omitted for the dative, but if few Greek speakers know about the history, would it not be more naturally considered as an ellipsis?
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I am aware, but such a change would change the intended emphasis, so it is semantically significant and cannot be used for the reason of "sounding nicer".
It's probably another terminological quibble, but I understand "emphasis" as belonging more to pragmatics than to semantics. The propositional content is the same.
I see; sorry, I had included all meaning when I said semantics.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2869
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Gal 1:22 τῷ προσώπῳ

Post by Stephen Carlson » February 26th, 2012, 9:47 pm

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Well, I don't view τῷ προσώπῳ as an ellipsis of a preposition (does this even exist???) but an ordinary dative of respect that is part of a long and strong tradition going back to a time even before the prepositional phrases were invented in Greek.
I think it does exist. I somehow think that the perceived meaning of phrases is separate from its historical origin, and may or may not coincide. Consider Rom 10:10 where "καρδια πιστευεται" and "στοματι ομολογειται" are parallel with "ομολογησης εν τω στοματι σου" and "πιστευσης εν τη καρδια σου" and would naturally be understood to be referring to exactly the same thing, with an ellipsis in the shorter forms. The historical origin explains why it is that preposition that is can be omitted for the dative, but if few Greek speakers know about the history, would it not be more naturally considered as an ellipsis?
I don't see any reason why it would be considered an ellipsis (aside from the fact that English prefers prepositional phrases for these adverbial uses). It's just a dative. It always was a dative and there's no evidence that this understanding had changed by the first century.

Stephen
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”