Snark answer: because they don't have any doctrine which they would defend with that.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm Snark comment: Why is it that nobody outside of a narrow range of NT people ever talk about Granville Sharp?
2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
-
- Posts: 611
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
It's the feminine part of your response that surprised me. I can't think of a reason why masculine abstracts would be exempt.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pmOf course you haven't heard of it, because I made it up. If you look at Smyth, he states that abstract nouns generally do have the article. But using παράκλησις as an example:Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2020, 7:01 pmNever heard of this rule.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 3rd, 2020, 7:35 am In your first example, I think because it's not unusual for feminine abstract nouns to omit the article, and particularly in the oblique cases.
ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ...(Lk 2:25)
Why no article? Would τὴν παράκλησιν mean anything different?
Now my rule (which you so summarily dismissed, humph) is based on impression formed over years of reading the language, and not on any scientific analysis, but it works for me... .
Even still, abstracts sometimes do have the article, so it's not really a rule or explanation but an observation to be explained.
I'm wondering (and did wonder in this thread) the same.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm As for the second, I wonder if it isn't simply an Apollonius' Canon thing.
Snark answer: parochialism goes both ways.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm Snark comment: Why is it that nobody outside of a narrow range of NT people ever talk about Granville Sharp?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
Good observation. I've noticed it with feminine abstracts, never really paid attention to masculine.Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 12:08 am
It's the feminine part of your response that surprised me. I can't think of a reason why masculine abstracts would be exempt.
That's a better way of expressing it.Even still, abstracts sometimes do have the article, so it's not really a rule or explanation but an observation to be explained.
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm As for the second, I wonder if it isn't simply an Apollonius' Canon thing.
"I wonder if" is code for "It most likely is."Stephen wrote:I'm wondering (and did wonder in this thread) the same.
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm Snark comment: Why is it that nobody outside of a narrow range of NT people ever talk about Granville Sharp?
Or maybe it's because people who read tons of Greek outside of the NT don't really need a special rule to explain it. I understood it intuitively long before I was exposed to Sharp.Stephen wrote:Snark answer: parochialism goes both ways.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 71
- Joined: May 16th, 2016, 9:27 am
- Contact:
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
As far as I can tell, the reason Granville-Sharp gets talked about in "NT" Greek discussions so much is because NT scholars like to try to make Greek grammatical patterns do a great deal of theologizing. As there are several passages which are significant to arguments about christology that fall under this syntactic pattern, it gets a lot of press (Wallace discusses it for 20 pages in his grammar!).Or maybe it's because people who read tons of Greek outside of the NT don't really need a special rule to explain it. I understood it intuitively long before I was exposed to Sharp.
Since most classicists do not seem to believe what they are studying has the same sort of import as NT scholars, these sorts of "high-powered" interpretive discussions which try to make the language yield far more specific details than there is any reason to believe it is actually intending to are more common among NT grammarians than classicists (as far as I can see; my experience with classics studies is as in interested dabbler).
The fact that most NT scholars don't read tons of Greek certainly contributes to the problem of trying to make Greek do more work than it can.
Nathaniel J. Erickson
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
NT PhD candidate, ABD
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
ntgreeketal.com
ὅπου πλείων κόπος, πολὺ κέρδος
ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟΛΥΚΑΡΠΟΝ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
I was pondering this a little yesterday and wondering whether that might have been the case.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 9:51 amBarry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm Snark comment: Why is it that nobody outside of a narrow range of NT people ever talk about Granville Sharp?Or maybe it's because people who read tons of Greek outside of the NT don't really need a special rule to explain it. I understood it intuitively long before I was exposed to Sharp.Stephen wrote:Snark answer: parochialism goes both ways.
So the interesting question then to me is this: how is understanding of a TSKS construction taught in the classics ?
Thx
D
-
- Posts: 951
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
- Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
- Contact:
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
I know that there is a section in Smyth relating to it, but I just searched The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (2019) and found NOTHING relating to it. That's fascinating!Daniel Semler wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 11:18 am So the interesting question then to me is this: how is understanding of a TSKS construction taught in the classics ?
Smyth says:
It must be read, though, with the caveat of the next section:1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2.2.8, τὰ̄ς μεγίστᾱς καὶ ἐλαχίστᾱς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1.10, ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος the calumniation and envy of the multitude P. A. 28a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: περὶ τὰ̄ς ἑαυτῶν ψῡχὰ̄ς καὶ σώματα concerning their own lives and persons X. A. 3.2.20.
It is interesting the Cambridge grammar does not mention it at all (as far as I have been able to search).1144. A repeated article lays stress on each word: ὁ Θρᾷξ καὶ ὁ βάρβαρος the Thracian and the barbarian D. 23.132 (here the subject remains the same), οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ λοχᾱγοί the generals and the captains X. A. 7.1.13.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
-
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
I read the entire section on the article in CGCG. Smyth has a lovely section on the omission of the article. CGCG does not. Don't toss your Smyth yet!Jason Hare wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 12:50 pmI know that there is a section in Smyth relating to it, but I just searched The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (2019) and found NOTHING relating to it. That's fascinating!Daniel Semler wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 11:18 am So the interesting question then to me is this: how is understanding of a TSKS construction taught in the classics ?
Smyth says:
It must be read, though, with the caveat of the next section:1143. A single article, used with the first of two or more nouns connected by and, produces the effect of a single notion: οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχᾱγοί the generals and captains (the commanding officers) X. A. 2.2.8, τὰ̄ς μεγίστᾱς καὶ ἐλαχίστᾱς ναῦς the largest and the smallest ships (the whole fleet) T. 1.10, ἡ τῶν πολλῶν διαβολή τε καὶ φθόνος the calumniation and envy of the multitude P. A. 28a. Rarely when the substantives are of different genders: περὶ τὰ̄ς ἑαυτῶν ψῡχὰ̄ς καὶ σώματα concerning their own lives and persons X. A. 3.2.20.
It is interesting the Cambridge grammar does not mention it at all (as far as I have been able to search).1144. A repeated article lays stress on each word: ὁ Θρᾷξ καὶ ὁ βάρβαρος the Thracian and the barbarian D. 23.132 (here the subject remains the same), οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ οἱ λοχᾱγοί the generals and the captains X. A. 7.1.13.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
Well, it is certainly suggestive enough to generate a plausible hypothesis. As for its likelihood, that will take more rigorous research.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 9:51 am"I wonder if" is code for "It most likely is."Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 12:08 amI'm wondering (and did wonder in this thread) the same.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm As for the second, I wonder if it isn't simply an Apollonius' Canon thing.
I'm not using the term to refer to a rule, but merely to label the construction. Personally, I think Smyth gets the "rule" right, but he doesn't have a name for the construction. Stephanie Bakker's work on the noun phrase in Herodotus also refers to the construction but doesn't have a label and so has to resort to a cumbersome description. As far I can tell, the classicists don't have a name to label the construction and they probably won't use the NT label since they don't read NT exegetical works.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 9:51 amBarry Hofstetter wrote: ↑April 4th, 2020, 12:02 pm Snark comment: Why is it that nobody outside of a narrow range of NT people ever talk about Granville Sharp?Or maybe it's because people who read tons of Greek outside of the NT don't really need a special rule to explain it. I understood it intuitively long before I was exposed to Sharp.Stephen wrote:Snark answer: parochialism goes both ways.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
As Sharp describes it isn't his definition narrower than Smyth's ?Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 5th, 2020, 7:02 pm I'm not using the term to refer to a rule, but merely to label the construction. Personally, I think Smyth gets the "rule" right, but he doesn't have a name for the construction. Stephanie Bakker's work on the noun phrase in Herodotus also refers to the construction but doesn't have a label and so has to resort to a cumbersome description. As far I can tell, the classicists don't have a name to label the construction and they probably won't use the NT label since they don't read NT exegetical works.
Thx
D
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: 2 Cor 1:3 articulation within a Granville-Sharp construction
That's a reason why I like Smyth's better.Daniel Semler wrote: ↑April 6th, 2020, 9:05 am As Sharp describes it isn't his definition narrower than Smyth's ?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia