Matt 26:71

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

Matt 26:71

Post by David Lim » October 16th, 2012, 10:32 pm

I have a question about the participle:
[Matt 26:71] εξελθοντα δε εις τον πυλωνα ειδεν αυτον αλλη και λεγει τοις εκει ουτος ην μετα ιησου του ναζωραιου
I would have expected either the participle to be a "genitive absolute", but it seems the author chose to put the accusative participle to correspond to the object of "ειδεν". Is this right? And is there any particular reason for this?
δαυιδ λιμ

timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 200
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » October 16th, 2012, 11:02 pm

It wouldn't be an absolute because the subject of the participle is the object of the main verb.

The sentence looks unremarkable to me. "Another servant girl saw him go out to the gate and said to those who were there..."

Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 704
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by Louis L Sorenson » October 16th, 2012, 11:54 pm

David, please use Greek texts with accents. There is simply no reason not to. The text can be copied from any of many public sites. Most of our members want and really need the text with all the diacriticals and subscripts to be able to follow the discussion with ease. Again, please post the text of the Greek which contains accents and diacriticals. It is a courtesy to all. I would make the same point to those who post Greek text in betacode, the format for Greek text we used in the e-mail list that we had before we became a php forum.

Here is the Nestle-Aland 27 text for Matthew 26:71:
ἐξελθόντα δὲ εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα εἶδεν αὐτὸν ἄλλη καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἐκεῖ· οὗτος ἦν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου.

It would be more natural in the English idiom to read
εἶδεν δὲ ἄλλη αὐτὸν ἐξελθόντα εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα καὶ λέγει [αὐτἢ] τοῖς [ἐκείνοις] ἐκεῖ· οὗτος ἦν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου.

If it were in the genitive absolute, the genitive absolute would normally start the sentence (but that is not a requirement):
[αὐτοῦ / Πέτρου] δὲ ἐξέλθοντος εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα ἄλλη εἶδεν αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἐκεῖ· οὗτος ἦν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζαραίου.

You can search for the term 'accusative absolute.' You can find discussions at : http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... f=2&t=8944. Smyth does not directly speak to the issue, but has a section on the accusative absolute -- but I don't think that is going on in Matt. 26.71. Here is Smyth §2076:
Accusative Absolute.—A participle stands in the accusative absolute, instead of the genitive, when it is impersonal, or has an infinitive as its subject (as under C). When impersonal, such participles have no apparent grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence.

A. Impersonal verbs: δέον, ἐξόν, μετόν, παρόν, προσῆκον, μέλον, μεταμέλον, παρέχον, παρασχόν, τυχόν, δοκοῦν, δόξαν, or δόξαντα (ταῦτα), γενόμενον ἐπ' ἐμοί as it was in my power.

οὐδεὶς τὸ μεῖζον κακὸν αἱρήσεται ἐξὸν τὸ ἔλα_ττον (αἱρεῖσθαι) no one will choose the greater evil when it is possible to choose the less P. Pr. 358d, ἧς (βουλῆς) νῦν ἀξιοῖ τυχεῖν οὐ μετὸν αὐτῷ to which he now claims admission though he has no right L. 31.32, δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι οἶσθα μέλον γέ σοι for of course you know because it concerns you P. A. 24d, μετεμέλοντο ὅτι μετὰ τὰ ἐν Πύλῳ, καλῶς παρασχόν, οὐ ξυνέβησαν they repented that after what had occurred at Pylos, although a favourable occasion had presented itself, they had not come to terms T. 5.14. Cp. cross2086 d, cross2087.

N.—Apart from δόξαν, τυχόν, the accusative absolute of the aorist participle of impersonal verbs is very rare.

B. Passive participles used impersonally: γεγραμμένον, δεδογμένον, εἰρημένον, προσταχθέν, προστεταγμένον. Cp. Eng. granted this is so, this done, which said.

εἰρημένον δ' αὐταῖς ἀπαντᾶν ἐνθάδε . . . εὕδουσι κοὐχ ἥκουσιν though it was told them to meet here, they sleep and have not come Ar. Lys. 13, προσταχθέν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου Μένωνα ἄγειν εἰς Ἑλλήσποντον a command having been given (it having been commanded) me by the people to convey Menon to the Hellespont D. 50.12.

-- 462 --

N.—The aorist participle passive is rarely used absolutely: ἀμεληθέν, ἀπορρηθέν, καταχειροτονηθέν, κυ_ρωθέν, ὁρισθέν, περανθέν, προσταχθέν, χρησθέν.

C. Adjectives with ὄν: ἄδηλον ὄν, δυνατὸν ὄν, ἀδύνατον ὄν, αἰσχρὸν ὄν, καλὸν ὄν, χρεών (χρεώ ὄν), etc.

σὲ οὐχὶ ἐσώσαμεν . . . οἷόν τε ὂν καὶ δυνατόν we did not rescue you although it was both feasible and possible P. Cr. 46a, ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον (ὄν) τὸ κλέπτειν, αἰτιᾷ τὸν κλέπτοντα on the ground that stealing is not necessary you accuse the thief X. C. 5.1.13.

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2539
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 17th, 2012, 3:03 am

Louis L Sorenson wrote:David, please use Greek texts with accents. There is simply no reason not to. The text can be copied from any of many public sites. Most of our members want and really need the text with all the diacriticals and subscripts to be able to follow the discussion with ease. Again, please post the text of the Greek which contains accents and diacriticals. It is a courtesy to all. I would make the same point to those who post Greek text in betacode, the format for Greek text we used in the e-mail list that we had before we became a php forum.
This bears repeating. So I quoted it. Not only the accentuation but also the punctuation.

There's been a couple of times where an unaccented word was parsed incorrectly, and having the marks will prevent that.

Furthermore, there's a certain irony here in that text being quoted without the accent marks and punctuation is Byzantine, since the Byzantine scribes regularly used accents and punctuation in their manuscripts. There's no reason to make the Greek text less user friendly than that of the Byzantine scribes.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2539
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 17th, 2012, 4:07 am

David Lim wrote:I have a question about the participle:
[Matt 26:71] εξελθοντα δε εις τον πυλωνα ειδεν αυτον αλλη και λεγει τοις εκει ουτος ην μετα ιησου του ναζωραιου
I would have expected either the participle to be a "genitive absolute", but it seems the author chose to put the accusative participle to correspond to the object of "ειδεν". Is this right? And is there any particular reason for this?
If the "subject" of a circumstantial participle has a grammatical role in the main sentence (here, as αὐτόν), then it will most often also agree in case. If the "subject" of a circumstantial participle does not have a grammatical role, then it will be in the genitive case and we have a genitive absolute. Classical Greek was fairly strict about this, but in Koine it became more acceptable to have a genitive absolute even when its "subject" plays a grammatical role in the main clause. So what's going in Matt 26:71 is the normal idiom.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 957
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by Barry Hofstetter » October 17th, 2012, 6:56 am

Except for the comments on posting the Greek text with diacriticals, this appears to me to be a "much ado about nothing thread." ἐξελθόντα is simply the participle modifying the accusative direct object αὐτόν. The author easily could have written τὸν ἐξελθόντα, using the substantive, but this is good Koine and not good Classical Greek... :roll:
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
ἐγὼ δὲ διδάσκω τε καὶ γράφω ἵνα τὰ ἀξιώτερα μανθάνω

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

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by David Lim » October 17th, 2012, 7:08 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I have a question about the participle:
[Matt 26:71] εξελθοντα δε εις τον πυλωνα ειδεν αυτον αλλη και λεγει τοις εκει ουτος ην μετα ιησου του ναζωραιου
I would have expected either the participle to be a "genitive absolute", but it seems the author chose to put the accusative participle to correspond to the object of "ειδεν". Is this right? And is there any particular reason for this?
If the "subject" of a circumstantial participle has a grammatical role in the main sentence (here, as αὐτόν), then it will most often also agree in case. If the "subject" of a circumstantial participle does not have a grammatical role, then it will be in the genitive case and we have a genitive absolute. Classical Greek was fairly strict about this, but in Koine it became more acceptable to have a genitive absolute even when its "subject" plays a grammatical role in the main clause. So what's going in Matt 26:71 is the normal idiom.
I see, thanks Louis and Stephen! Sorry I'm used to copying from the website I read, which doesn't have the Byzantine or NU text with accents. I'll copy from somewhere else next time.
δαυιδ λιμ

Roy Fredrick
Posts: 21
Joined: October 15th, 2012, 10:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by Roy Fredrick » October 17th, 2012, 10:49 am

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:It wouldn't be an absolute because the subject of the participle is the object of the main verb.

The sentence looks unremarkable to me. "Another servant girl saw him go out to the gate and said to those who were there..."
Mat 26:71 ἐξελθόντα δὲ εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα εἶδεν αὐτὸν ἄλλη καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἐκεῖ· οὗτος ἦν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου.
Mat 26:71 And when he went out into the PYLON, another saw him, and said to the ones there, HE was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
Codex Sinaiticus
PYLON gateway a frame or arch built around or over a gate.

εἰρημένον δ’ αὐταῖς ἀπαντᾶν ἐνθάδε... εὕυδουσι κοὐχ ἥκουσι.

Though it was told them to meet here, they sleep and have not come.
Smyth grammar 4.46.117
1Ch 25:5 All these were the sons of Heman the king's seer in the words of God, to lift up the horn.

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 957
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Matt 26:71

Post by Barry Hofstetter » October 20th, 2012, 8:19 am

Roy Fredrick wrote:
timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:It wouldn't be an absolute because the subject of the participle is the object of the main verb.

The sentence looks unremarkable to me. "Another servant girl saw him go out to the gate and said to those who were there..."
Mat 26:71 ἐξελθόντα δὲ εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα εἶδεν αὐτὸν ἄλλη καὶ λέγει τοῖς ἐκεῖ· οὗτος ἦν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου.
Mat 26:71 And when he went out into the PYLON, another saw him, and said to the ones there, HE was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
Codex Sinaiticus
PYLON gateway a frame or arch built around or over a gate.

εἰρημένον δ’ αὐταῖς ἀπαντᾶν ἐνθάδε... εὕυδουσι κοὐχ ἥκουσι.

Though it was told them to meet here, they sleep and have not come.
Smyth grammar 4.46.117
It's unclear precisely what point you are trying to make here. Also, what type of reference is that to Smyth? My hard copy finds this under the participial accusative absolute usage, p. 461 #2076? At any rate, if you are suggesting that the usage in Mat 26:71 is an acc. abs., it's not. Read what Smyth actually says about this, and then have another look at the syntax in Mat 26:71. It's not at all parallel. See my earlier post above for the actual syntax.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
ἐγὼ δὲ διδάσκω τε καὶ γράφω ἵνα τὰ ἀξιώτερα μανθάνω

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest