2 Thes. 3:11 Is this humour?μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργ

[Stephen Hughes]

In applying the Theory of Mind to our reading and understanding of dead languages, it is quite clear that for the most part we struggle to appreciate the mental state of the authours we read and what mental state they intend for us after reading what they wrote - how much easier is it to laugh or cry reading a book in English, rather than in Greek - a phenomenon that suggests to many that reading the Bible in their own language is more profitable than reading in Greek. Furthermore, because we do not live in the society they lived in, nor do we have to deal with them personally, we miss out on the acculturation that usually accompanies language acquisition. All we are left to do is to summise and hypothesise about what an authour's intentions, feeling and state of mind may have been, and the effect that they may have wanted to have.

Here is a phrase which displays some features, which could be interpreted as humour:

μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους.

The word ἐργάζεσθαι τι (used with a valance of 2 - second element in the accusative) means "to get something done", while περιεργάζεσθαι (used with a valance of 1) means "to be a busybody". There is a similarity in form and a contractio in meaning. One way of constructing humour is to play on our need to resolve the tension between contradictions. Is this a candidate for humour?

[Robert Crowe]

There is a remarkable contradiction here with the Hindu ideal, where doing nothing is promoted as a way of attaining nirvana. "When we are doing something, we are only ever doing one thing; but when we're doing nothing, we are doing absolutely nothing."

[cwconrad]

...
Here is a phrase which displays some features, which could be interpreted as humour:

μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους.

The word ἐργάζεσθαι τι (used with a valance of 2 - second element in the accusative) means "to get something done", while περιεργάζεσθαι (used with a valance of 1) means "to be a busybody". There is a similarity in form and a contractio in meaning. One way of constructing humour is to play on our need to resolve the tension between contradictions. Is this a candidate for humour?

I'd question whether μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους is an instance of ἐργάζεσθαί τι. The latter is "being busy at something." μηδὲν ἐργάζεσθαι is "not being busy at all." περιεργάζεσθαι, on the other hand, is "be a busybody."
There's pretty clearly some play on words here. In a slightly different context, I think of Cicero's claim that he's always felt he should be engaged in some megotium or else in some "honorable" form of otium (I think that's the opening of De Oratore) "Leisure" is too easily associated with "laziness" or moral weakness, "idleness" -- "the devil's workshop." The final stanza of Catullus' recreation of Sappho's grand litany of erotic envy sermonizes about the same "devil's workshop" otium, μηδὲν ἐργάζεσθαι:

otium, Catulle, tibi molestumest;
olio exsultas nimiumque gestis.
otium reges pries et beatas
perdidit urbes

That's impossible to do justice to; it's something like, "Your problem, Catullus, is having nothing to do; you're overindulging, bloated on idleness; having nothing to do has been the ruination of monarchs and civilizations."

[Barry Hofstetter]

I love the Catullus citation, although normally not a fan of the Cat. I think "humor" might be stretching it. It's definitely a pun, but one designed to make the point, the contrast between doing nothing productive and instead doing all the wrong sorts of things.

[Stephen Hughes]

I'd question whether μηδὲν ἐργαζομένους is an instance of ἐργάζεσθαί τι. The latter is "being busy at something." μηδὲν ἐργάζεσθαι is "not being busy at all."

Yes. Sorry about that.

This question about 2 Thessalonians grew out of a side issue, when wondering whether the phrase in Romans 5:3 ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, could be read as with a passive verb "Adversity is being fashioned into patience.", but resolved itself, because in the indicative, κατεργάζεσθαι is strongly bivalant, and weakly accompanied by a prepositional phrase expressing some more information about the (bivalent) verbal phrase - in effect, the prepositional phrase as ad-phrasal.

One of my working hypotheses about Greek is that it is necessary to have a strong second valent element (here in the accusative) before we can assume that the prepositional phrase affects the complete phrase rather than just the verb. Things that modify either a verb or a verb phrase might blurrily be called an ad-verbial, but when a verb strongly requires another element (a strongly bivalant verb) the modifying element modifies the verb phrase - an ad-verb-phrasal. For a strongly monovalent verb such as this ἐργάζεσθαι or ἐρχεσθαι modifying elements can be what the name suggests, "adverbal".

I did not continue with that line of questioning about Romans 5:3 being passive, because the syntax of the passive construction (according to LSJ) is A (nominative) κατεργάζεται ἀπὸ B (genitive), which would in this case be ὑπομονὴ κατεργάζεται ἀπὸ τῆς θλίψεως "endurance is wrought using adversity as a raw material" - whereas the meaning in Romans is that our hearts are the raw material. In Romans ἡ θλῖψις is the Instrument rather than the Source.

I was still thinking about the valency of κατεργάζεσθαι, when I wrote ἐργάζεσθαί τι* - that was a mistake. ἐργάζεσθαι is talking about the process that is being undergone, while κατεργάζεσθαι is talking about the result that is being achieved or worked towards. It is logical to have a result, or to state something that one is aiming to work towards if we are talking about working (κατεργάζεσθαι) towards something, but if it is just the process of work (ἐργάζεσθαι), then an accompanying element (such as τὸ ἀγαθόν) is describing the context or nature (what it is measured as doing - rather than achieving) of the work in progress, not the aim or result of the work (κατεργάζεσθαί τι).

Once again, yes Carl, that was a slip up on my part - my mind working too fast for my memory to sift and sort efficiently.

The word ἐργάζεσθαι τι (used with a valance of 2 - second element in the accusative) means "to get something done",

Actually describes κατεργάζεσθαι.

I should have written:

The word ἐργάζεσθαι (monovalent) means "to be doing something",

μηδὲν is adverbial.

[Stephen Hughes]

There is a remarkable contradiction here with the Hindu ideal, where doing nothing is promoted as a way of attaining nirvana. "When we are doing something, we are only ever doing one thing; but when we're doing nothing, we are doing absolutely nothing."

In a slightly different context, I think of Cicero's claim that he's always felt he should be engaged in some megotium or else in some "honorable" form of otium (I think that's the opening of De Oratore) "Leisure" is too easily associated with "laziness" or moral weakness, "idleness" -- "the devil's workshop." The final stanza of Catullus' recreation of Sappho's grand litany of erotic envy sermonizes about the same "devil's workshop" otium, μηδὲν ἐργάζεσθαι:

otium, Catulle, tibi molestumest;
olio exsultas nimiumque gestis.
otium reges pries et beatas
perdidit urbes

That's impossible to do justice to; it's something like, "Your problem, Catullus, is having nothing to do; you're overindulging, bloated on idleness; having nothing to do has been the ruination of monarchs and civilizations."

If Standard Average European (SAE) was a reference to a Kulturbund rather than a Sprachbund, we would be able see quite clearly at least from the above statements that Ancient India was not part of the region.

The area covered by the Roman Empire politically, and the area influenced by Roman culture continues to foster the values of Roman society and civilisation, and those value seem familiar to us. In other words, it seems that the authour if 2 Thessalonians was working with a recognised sentiment, rather than introducing a wholly novel concept.