Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

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 Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Jonathan Robie wrote:So articular καθόλου is possible, but I'm having a hard time understanding Acts 4:18 construed this way. Can you help me understand what it would mean?

To me, τὸ has to govern the object of παρήγγειλαν. You can't command someone to "on the whole", but you can command them not to speak or teach.
This thread is a little difficult to follow. There are several points being made in parallel. The original question about the syntactic role of the article has gone on to challenging the meaning of a word given in standard works. I generally dislike proofs as things that clever and persuasive people use to distort truth and pervert justice, but never-the-less, in this case things have gotten out of hand. Reason being that I assumed (wrongly) that BDAG had the meaning "not at all" - i.e. that they had differentiated between the Classical and later meaning. I'm sorry, I was mistaken and that led to my other statements. Generally I try to can (as in trash) discussions when they seem to be going into arguments and discussions, but things here having been begun, may as well be finished.

The basic thing I am saying is that καθόλου does hold its etymological meaning ("on the whole") at the New Testament time, but has taken on a negative meaning without the need for the μή. In other words the positive meaning ("on the whole, generally") that Abbot-Smith (that has - the meaning in Classical times - and now I see BDAG too) is not the meaning it has in later times. μὴ καθόλου as a phrase that negates a positive (earlier) meaning of καθόλου - as for example in Aristotle - is not what we find in Acts 4:18. The μὴ's in the syntax of the verse go with the two infinitives φθέγγεσθαι and διδάσκειν as their position (before the infinitives, rather than before καθόλου) shows.

Assuming that this verb of speaking is followed by an accusative and infinitive(s), and the accusative is the substantivised καθόλου, (not the substantivised μὴ καθόλου), and the positive doesn't make sense (as Jonathan says). There are two possibilities for the meaning καθόλου - the first (from Classical Greek) meaning "in general", "entirely" and the other (from Modern Greek) meaning "not at all", "zero", "mini-mini-minimum" and one of them had to be fitted into the Greek context of Acts 4:18 which would be most logical?
positive meaning for καθόλου wrote:παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς τὸ καθόλου (the entirely) μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν
negative meaning for καθόλου wrote:παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς τὸ καθόλου (the very, very minimum thing) μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν
Of course taking syntax as Barry suggests and GBI trees agree, is a way to retain καθόλου in a positive sense, as it is used in the earlier period, while taking it as an articular adverbial requires a negative sense. The (chance) ability to shift the syntactic interpretation of this verse into patterns that could suit either a positive or negative meaning is a fluke. From the point of view of it being positive, there is a problem because verbs of speaking don't take an articular infinitive, and from the point of view of it being negative, there is a problem because it is at odds with the standard reference works.

The question then is whether the verb of speaking in a narrative account has an articular infinitive, or to put it another way, we could ask whether an infinitive after the verb of speaking is the type of infinitive that you use to say that something gets done by doing something else, or whether it is part of the formal structure of verb of speaking. Within the limited corpus of the New Testament, 1 Timothy 6:17 is the most obvious example to look at:
Τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε, μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι, ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ ζῶντι, τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν·
Presumably he would be expected to say "μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖτε, μηδὲ ἐλπίσατε ... ".

On the assumption that καθόλου has a negative meaning, in the conversation behind Acts 4:18, presumably they said, τὸ καθόλου ("even" from emphatic position) (the very, very minimum thing) μὴ φθέγγεσθε (don't utter) μηδὲ διδάσκετε (and don't teach)...
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Hughes wrote:On the assumption that καθόλου has a negative meaning, in the conversation behind Acts 4:18, presumably they said, τὸ καθόλου ("even" from emphatic position) (the very, very minimum thing) μὴ φθέγγεσθε (don't utter) μηδὲ διδάσκετε (and don't teach)...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by positive / negative meaning with καθόλου, I find it easiest to work from (1) specific examples of usage that demonstrate a proposed meaning, and (2) dictionary definitions. Can you show me some examples where τὸ καθόλου means something like "even the very minimum thing", especially in Hellenistic Greek or Attic Greek?

I see at least two possible interpretations. One treats this as an example of τὸ μή + Infinitive, which means the same thing as ἵνα μή. See BDF § 399(3), which Stephen Carlson pointed me to when we discussed this about a year ago - I'm going by BDR § 399(3), since I don't have BDF and the sections are probably quite similar.

Randall Tan has proposed another interpretation in which the τό introduces a noun clause that represents indirect speech, as in 1 Th 4:1.

Note that τὸ is not found in all manuscripts, and not found in the Nestle 1904, so we have to be able to interpret this verse with or without τὸ. Also note that καθόλου occurs in 7 verses in the Septuagint, with and without the article, including some cases where it is articular and adverbial. A careful look at these uses may suggest other possible interpretations.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

τό does not substantize καθόλου -- it substantizes the infinitive. μή is clearly taken with the infinitive.

From BDAG:

παραγγέλλειν w. an inf. and μή comes to mean forbid to do someth.: π. τινί w. aor. inf. Lk 5:14; 8:56...

Luke does seem to have a preference for articular infinitives where another author might simply use the infinitive. It goes to show how flexible a native speaker can be with the language.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Jonathan Robie wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean by positive / negative meaning with καθόλου, I find it easiest to work from (1) specific examples of usage that demonstrate a proposed meaning, and (2) dictionary definitions. Can you show me some examples where τὸ καθόλου means something like "even the very minimum thing", especially in Hellenistic Greek or Attic Greek?
From the Seventy that you pointed me to look in, you could take Ezekial 13:3.
Ezekial 13:3 wrote:τάδε λέγει κύριος οὐαὶ τοῖς προφητεύουσιν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν
The substantivised adverb (with a negative meaning) is the object of the participle. You could put μηδέν "nothing" in the place of τὸ καθόλου "the not at all", "the (almost) nothing" as the object.

What I'm doing by saying "the very minimum thing", rather than just saying "nothing" for τὸ καθόλου is because "nothing" doesn't always really mean "nothing" in the strictest sense of the word. Like; "What's left in the fridge?" "Nothing.", when there may be garlic cloves of something of that calibre there.

For the positive and negative sense thing, consider the word "catholic" (καθολικός), word derived from the adverb (fossilised adverbial prepositional phrase) that we are considering here. The word καθολικός, as we are familiar with it, preserves / displays the "positive" meaning of καθόλου. That, is the classical Greek meaning of the word. In Hellenistic Greek and on into Modern Greek, the meaning changes from "generally" (the etymological sense of the word) and comes to mean "not at all", "entirely NOT", like in Act 4:18. "Entirely" is a positive meaning and "entirely not" is a negative meaning.

Here is LSJ, in which καθόλου has a positive sense "entirely", "generally". Here is a link to an online translator, where καθόλου means, "not at all". If you want to wade through the Modern Greek dictionary, καθόλου has a number of senses, and the phrase you need to look at is
α. (ως ουσ.) το καθόλου, το τίποτε
a. (as a subs.) το καθόλου, the nothing
In the literary usage mentioned at the end, καθόλου is mentioned as being used as an adjective with the meaning γενικός "general" (as καθόλου as an adverb in the classical period would be γενικώς "generally". To fully understand that dictionary entry, you will need to look in the same dictionary under τίποτε / τίποτα, and look at the substantivised meanings and usage for that word.

You can get Attic examples from LSJ - they will be in the positive sense. I think this is possibly another "classical false friend". From what I can see, scholars seem to date the change of meaning in the Medieval period (from the decline of the classical world, vaguely late antiquity), but it seems to have happened earlier than has been previously conceeded.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Hughes wrote:From the Seventy that you pointed me to look in, you could take Ezekial 13:3.
Ezekial 13:3 wrote:τάδε λέγει κύριος οὐαὶ τοῖς προφητεύουσιν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν
The substantivised adverb (with a negative meaning) is the object of the participle. You could put μηδέν "nothing" in the place of τὸ καθόλου "the not at all", "the (almost) nothing" as the object.
Really?
??? wrote:τάδε λέγει κύριος οὐαὶ τοῖς προφητεύουσιν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ μηδέν μὴ βλέπουσιν
I don't think so. In Ezekiel 13:3 τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν, I think the negative sense comes from the word μὴ.
Stephen Hughes wrote:You can get Attic examples from LSJ - they will be in the positive sense. I think this is possibly another "classical false friend". From what I can see, scholars seem to date the change of meaning in the Medieval period (from the decline of the classical world, vaguely late antiquity), but it seems to have happened earlier than has been previously conceded.
I'm not convinced that you've shown this. I think "correcting" the lexicons probably takes more careful, systematic lexicography than what we usually do here in B-Greek or what I've seen in this thread so far. I'd start by at least looking at all of the examples from the Septuagint that have articular καθόλου combined with some form of negation, and look for other similar uses in Hellenistic Greek. I would also look carefully at all the examples cited by BDAG, you'd have to look them up.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

I think that a cruder, more blunt test could serve as a ready reckoner. To get bogged down in details very early may not even be moving in the right direction. Simply asking whether καθόλου is being used in a grammatically positive or negative syntactic context may be enough.

If we look at the LSJ entry, while taking into consideration its weakness in the regard that it stands in lineage of lexicons that give a greater than proportionate weighting to examples from Homer, it is immediately evident that in the pre-Koine period, καθόλου appears in positive (non-negated) syntactic contexts. All six of the LXX examples given on Kata Biblon are in syntactically negative contexts, as is the NT one that this discussion is directed towards. LSJ observes that in section 3. with the phrase "at all". You may note that there is an adjectival use of καθόλου in Polybius' histories mentioned too. The adjectival use of καθόλου is given in the Modern Greek too.
β. (λόγ., ως επίθ.) γενικός, συνολικός: H ~ συμπεριφορά του ήταν άψογη.
b. (lit. as adj.) general, total: His general behaviour was impeccable.
If someone from the Pre-Koine period heard the word καθόλου, it would have generally positive connotation by association, but in our period, its connotation by association would be negative. How does connotation become meaning? When does it do that? When it has to stand alone. The step before might be that it was only appropriate to use it in situations where it has a negative sense. I think that being substantivised is an indication that the word can carry a meaning. Whether 2 centuries or more of negative contexts was enough to impute negative meaning, I don't know.

Being plausable is not the same as being proved. That says something about the way I view interaction on a forum. This is a small observation that I have noticed. I expect that if others find something similar, or have previously had trouble working from the text to comprehension without fudging by translation, then we could discuss it more. "Entirely" is not a gloss that works in Acts 4:18. "Entirely not" seems to. ;)

Checking now, I see that some big name translations have followed the "at all" of LSJ, rather than the "entirely" of BDAG. That is an indication and a record that people need to look beyond the bounds of BDAG to find a workable translation solution.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

The title of this thread should have been
  • Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου function of the article?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Checking now, I see that some big name translations have followed the "at all" of LSJ, rather than the "entirely" of BDAG. That is an indication and a record that people need to look beyond the bounds of BDAG to find a workable translation solution.
BDAG uses "at all" as a gloss for Acts 4:18, providing the gloss "not to speak at all" for τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι. It also provides the gloss "not at all" for μὴ καθόλου. Isn't that the same thing you are suggesting? I'm not sure whether τὸ καθόλου modifies just μὴ φθέγγεσθαι or μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν, and some translations follow each understanding.

Incidentally, since you raised questions about how the meaning progressed over time - questions I can't answer - I thought I'd toss in one data point, the definition from Sophocles, Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100):
Sophocoles wrote:καθόλου = καθʼ ὅλου, in general. Ἡ καθόλου ἐκκλησία, = ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Soz. 1341 A. Cyrill. A. X, 100 C. - 2. At all, in the least degree. Sept Ex. 22, 11. Euagr. Scit. 1257 B Eἰ δυνατὸν, τὸ καθόλου εἰς πόλιν μὴ ἀπαντήσῃς.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Back to the original question:
Stephen Hughes wrote:
Acts 4:18 wrote:Καὶ καλέσαντες αὐτούς, παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ.
What is the function of the article in the phrase τὸ καθόλου? Why does the adverb need to be substantivised in this syntax? My suspicion is that παραγγελεῖν needs an object.
Here's what I think I've learned:

1. The article isn't necessary to have an intelligible sentence. Nestle 1904 reads καὶ καλέσαντες αὐτοὺς παρήγγειλαν καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, without the article. According to Alan's site, GA-01 and GA-03 do not have the article, GA-02 and GA-05 do.
2. One interpretation of the article is that it is part of the τὸ μή + Infinitive construction, which means the same thing as ἵνα μή. See BDF § 399(3). Under this interpretation, it could govern just the first infinitive or perhaps both: παρήγγειλαν ( τὸ ( μὴ φθέγγεσθαι) (μηδὲ διδάσκειν ) ) versus παρήγγειλαν ( τὸ ( μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν ) ), and the scope of καθόλου could also be debated: παρήγγειλαν ( τὸ (καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι) (μηδὲ διδάσκειν ) ) versus παρήγγειλαν ( τὸ (καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν ) ).
3. Another interpretation of the article is that it introduces indirect speech - someone said καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι μηδὲ διδάσκειν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, and that's being quoted here.
4. Another interpretation is that καθόλου is articular. In the Septuagint, several examples like Exodus 13:3, τάδε λέγει κύριος οὐαὶ τοῖς προφητεύουσιν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν demonstrate articular καθόλου.
5. When not negated, καθόλου seems to mean "in general" or "entirely". When negated, it seems to mean "not at all".

Question: if we removed the article from Exodus 13:3, how would it change the meaning? What is the difference between:
  • καὶ τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσι
  • καὶ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσι
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Acts 4:18 τὸ καθόλου fnction of the article?

Post by cwconrad »

Jonathan Robie wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:That's the advantage of the way the article works in Greek. Practically anything may be substantized... :)
αὐτὸ τὸ τό.

(I hope that's good Greek ...)
The expression that once had me puzzled for quite some time many moons ago was Aristotle's
"τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι:, the idiomatic substance of which is not easily conveyed in English -- something, "being exactly what it really is"; as I understand the syntax, τί ἦν is a relative indirect question and the ἦν (you know: τὸ ἦν!) is an instance of the "philosophical imperfect" (cf. http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... =2&t=11173).

Of course Kant's German phrase "das Ding an sich" comes close to the same sense.

As for "αὐτὸ τὸ τό", it has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? It reminds me of the sound-sequence "ὀτοτοῖ" occasionally seen in Greek choral odes, perhaps more expressive of despair than the simple αῖαι΄ or a Yiddish "oyveh":
ὀτοτοῖ (not ὀττοτοῖ, as freq. in codd.), an exclamation of pain and grief,
Aah! woe! A. Pers.918 (anap.), E.Or.1389, al.; doubled, Id.Andr.1197, etc.; also lengthd., ὀτοτοτοῖ A.Pers.268, al.; ὀτοτοτοτοῖ Id.Ag.1072; ὀτοτοτοτοῖ τοτοῖ cj. in S.El.1245; ὀττοτοτοτοτοῖ E. Tr. 1294; ὀττοτοττοτοῖ Id.Ion789.—Trag., only in lyr.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”