Acts 17:28 Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν.

[Stephen Hughes]

Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν.

Besides the emplyment of the fossilised ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ ... etc structural markers, is this τοῦ in the quotation of Aratus the only NT example of ὁ employed as a relative?

As the opening lines of one of the most widely read (and perhaps studied and recited), copied and translated verse works of antiquity, it is likely that it would have been recognised in situ by educated readers as a text employing the epic relative, rather than following the Attic / Koine habit of using αὐτός. Here are the opening few lines of the Phaenomena with the examples of the relative pronominally used ὁ emboldened and encolorated.

ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν
ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί,
πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα
καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες.
τοῦ γάρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν: ὁ δ᾽ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισιν 5
δεξιὰ σημαίνει, λαοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἐγείρει,
μιμνῄσκων βιότοιο,

[1] From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood.

On τοῦ surviving redaction during the transmission process or being misquoted and εἰμέν being standardised to ἐσμέν at some point of time, there are a number of possible hypotheses that might explain that, from popularist quotations, or various paths to conformity to the style of the NT's genre.

[cwconrad]

Τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν.

Besides the emplyment of the fossilised ὁ μέν ... ὁ δέ ... etc structural markers, is this τοῦ in the quotation of Aratus the only NT example of ὁ employed as a relative?

As the opening lines of one of the most widely read (and perhaps studied and recited), copied and translated verse works of antiquity, it is likely that it would have been recognised in situ by educated readers as a text employing the epic relative, rather than following the Attic / Koine habit of using αὐτός. Here are the opening few lines of the Phaenomena with the examples of the relative pronominally used ὁ emboldened and encolorated.

ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα, τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν
ἄρρητον: μεσταὶ δέ Διὸς πᾶσαι μὲν ἀγυιαί,
πᾶσαι δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἀγοραί, μεστὴ δὲ θάλασσα
καὶ λιμένες: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες.
τοῦ γάρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν: ὁ δ᾽ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισιν 5
δεξιὰ σημαίνει, λαοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργον ἐγείρει,
μιμνῄσκων βιότοιο,

[1] From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood.

On τοῦ surviving redaction during the transmission process or being misquoted and εἰμέν being standardised to ἐσμέν at some point of time, there are a number of possible hypotheses that might explain that, from popularist quotations, or various paths to conformity to the style of the NT's genre.

I think I'd call this a demonstrative rather than a relative usage of the pronoun. Moreover, ἐσμεν is the original 1 pl. of the verb (εἰμεν results from loss of the σ with compensatory lengthening). Aratus is, to be sure, Hellenistic, but he writes deliberately in the Homeric Kunstsprache of epic dialect. The particular reason why this poem, the Φαινόμενα, was so popular is evidently its usefulness to the vast number of Hellenistic people concerned with knowing the night sky well enough to use astrological lore. As for the demonstrative ὄ ἥ τό, that is, of course, the original function of this pronoun; it survives in Hellenistic Greek in several usages. See BDF §§249-251, Ὁ ἡ τό AS A PRONOUN.

[Stephen Hughes]

I think I'd call this a demonstrative rather than a relative usage of the pronoun.

Yes. I meant to say that one: the one that opaquely encapsulates the person or thing rather the one that parenthetically shows us what is inside or in the history of a person or thing.

Aratus is, to be sure, Hellenistic, but he writes deliberately in the Homeric Kunstsprache of epic dialect. The particular reason why this poem, the Φαινόμενα, was so popular is evidently its usefulness to the vast number of Hellenistic people concerned with knowing the night sky well enough to use astrological lore.

It's quite jolly and readable. I was just reading through a couple of hundred lines of it this afternoon looking for the alternating speech styles, when I came across the reference to Paul's speech.

As for the demonstrative ὄ ἥ τό, that is, of course, the original function of this pronoun; it survives in Hellenistic Greek in several usages. See BDF §§249-251, Ὁ ἡ τό AS A PRONOUN.

Luckily that is a book, which graces my bookshelves with its presence.

[Stephen Hughes]

You know, at times I find the the classical scholars’ (plural!!) reasoning hard to follow. It would appear that translation is dictating syntax analysis. Since some choose to translate προ του w/finite verb as if it were πρὸ τούτο, (a pattern found 2000+ TLG-E), we reverse the process in syntax analysis and don't even consider προ του w/finite verb as possibly a free standing adverbial constituent.

Another possibility is that πρὸ τοῦ is really προτοῦ, a non-classical subordinator that means "before." Its lexical word status is indicated by the placement of δέ and γάρ, after the article instead of the preposition.

Non-classical? One of the oddities observable over the centuries in ancient Greek is the survival of the demonstrative function of what has become the definite article.

II of Time, before, ... π. τοῦ (sts. written προτοῦ) A. Ag. 1204, Hdt. 1.122, 5.83, Ar. Th. 418, Pl. Smp. 173a

I hope I understand the rhetorical questiin correctly, as meaning since it continued to be used in the classical period, it is classical, even if its original can be traced back further.

My question, after reading those sections of BDF, Are constructions like the following read in terms of προτοῦ "before" (ie preserving the older demonstrative force) + infinitive? My thinking is that whether προτοῦ is being used as maybe a subordinate conjunction or πρὸ is the beginning of a adverbial prepositional phrase:

Μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε, πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.

Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν, καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου πρὸ τοῦ συλληφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ[/color].

Καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·

Λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, Πόθεν με γινώσκεις; Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι, ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν, εἶδόν σε.

Ἀπ’ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα, ὅταν γένηται, πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

Καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ , παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.

Νῦν οὖν ὑμεῖς ἐμφανίσατε τῷ χιλιάρχῳ σὺν τῷ συνεδρίῳ , ὅπως αὔριον αὐτὸν καταγάγῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὡς μέλλοντας διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ· ἡμεῖς δέ, πρὸ τοῦ ἐγγίσαι αὐτόν, ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν τοῦ ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν.

Πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.

Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα, συγκεκλεισμένοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.

[cwconrad]

You know, at times I find the the classical scholars’ (plural!!) reasoning hard to follow. It would appear that translation is dictating syntax analysis. Since some choose to translate προ του w/finite verb as if it were πρὸ τούτο, (a pattern found 2000+ TLG-E), we reverse the process in syntax analysis and don't even consider προ του w/finite verb as possibly a free standing adverbial constituent.

Another possibility is that πρὸ τοῦ is really προτοῦ, a non-classical subordinator that means "before." Its lexical word status is indicated by the placement of δέ and γάρ, after the article instead of the preposition.

Non-classical? One of the oddities observable over the centuries in ancient Greek is the survival of the demonstrative function of what has become the definite article.

II of Time, before, ... π. τοῦ (sts. written προτοῦ) A. Ag. 1204, Hdt. 1.122, 5.83, Ar. Th. 418, Pl. Smp. 173a

I hope I understand the rhetorical questiin correctly, as meaning since it continued to be used in the classical period, it is classical, even if its original can be traced back further.

What I thought SC was saying is that προτοῦ is non-classical in that it's used as a single-word adverb meaning "beforehand" rather than as the phrase compounded of the preposition πρὸ and the demonstrative τοῦ.

My question, after reading those sections of BDF, Are constructions like the following read in terms of προτοῦ "before" (ie preserving the older demonstrative force) + infinitive? My thinking is that whether προτοῦ is being used as maybe a subordinate conjunction or πρὸ is the beginning of a adverbial prepositional phrase:

Μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε, πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.

Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν, καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου πρὸ τοῦ συλληφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ[/color].

Καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·

Λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ, Πόθεν με γινώσκεις; Ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι, ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν, εἶδόν σε.

Ἀπ’ ἄρτι λέγω ὑμῖν πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι, ἵνα, ὅταν γένηται, πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.

Καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ , παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.

Νῦν οὖν ὑμεῖς ἐμφανίσατε τῷ χιλιάρχῳ σὺν τῷ συνεδρίῳ , ὅπως αὔριον αὐτὸν καταγάγῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ὡς μέλλοντας διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ· ἡμεῖς δέ, πρὸ τοῦ ἐγγίσαι αὐτόν, ἕτοιμοί ἐσμεν τοῦ ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν.

Πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.

Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα, συγκεκλεισμένοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.

I think these are all instances of the articular infinitive in the genitive case because they follow the preposition πρὸ. In these instances we don't have the demonstrative ὁ ἡ τό at all but rather the genitive of the article with an infinitive phrase.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Nothing really to add to the discussion (except that I agree that it's a demonstrative usage, the equivalent of τούτου), but how cool is it to know that when one reads this text, one is reading something that Paul read, and knew well enough to cite in a sermon? I agree with SH, it's rather pleasant Greek particularly if one has some Homer as background for the the "poetic" forms.

[Stephen Hughes]

I think these are all instances of the articular infinitive in the genitive case because they follow the preposition πρὸ. In these instances we don't have the demonstrative ὁ ἡ τό at all but rather the genitive of the article with an infinitive phrase.

Caragounis (Development, page 229) sees προτοῦ as more or less an eqivalent to πρίν + infinitive. There alsoseems to be the suggestion that προτοῦ was what was being used in the popular speech. In that case, if the προτοῦ that survives into Modern Greek, is an outgrowth of developments in the Koine, then we may be looking at a pair of homographs that ended up being mistaken for each other.

[Stephen Hughes]

τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν
ἄρρητον:

Are there other places in the New Testament where it looks like an articular adjective is separated by a finite verb?

[cwconrad]

τὸν οὐδέποτ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐῶμεν
ἄρρητον:

Are there other places in the New Testament where it looks like an articular adjective is separated by a finite verb?

The question seems oddly phrased. This text is found in the NT, but it is not describable in terms of standard NT Koine usage. The passage is cited from a poem composed in epic dialect; the construction may "look like" an articular adjective separated by a finite verb, but it isn't that: τὸν is a demonstrative pronoun and ἄρρητον is a predicate adjective governed by εῶμεν: "him/that one we do not ever allow (to be) unmentioned."

[Stephen Hughes]

it's a demonstrative usage, the equivalent of τούτου

One thing I do miss about the (from the NT period's point of view) anachronistic spelling-correspondence-to-sound pronuncuation systems is the pout-and-point lip movements in that demonstrative pronoun. Saying "ta" + the pouting "u" to point in a far direction followed by the root again declined according to the dictates of syntax. I mean, I used to enjoy being able to guesture as I read. Even though the bilabial fricative does use the lips, it doesn't have the same scope for pouting as the vowel can achieve. Personally I don't find pouting to point a well-mannered behaviour, but perhaps at the time when the demonstratives like τοῦτο were coming into fashion, people did go around indicating things wth their lips.

The other demonstrative that is also fun to play with in "literal" (etymological) translation is αὐτός. With an etymology of αὖ + a pronominal ending - "an againer", "a repeated one", or "one mentioned again". By way of comparison, in English we have, "the afore mentioned" in some registers. In the history of Greek, at sometime when αὐτός was coming into vogue, the thinking must have been, "the again mentioned one", used distinctly from the article used for "the one I assume you already know", and whatever other uses of the article we now see. It is like saying "ditto for the lexical information, I only need to give you the syntactically required declensional information.

An etymological translation - one that captures, what the understanding of what it might have meant to somebody hearing the new idiom for the first time - might be like this:

Ὁ δὲ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς σημεῖον, λέγων, Ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν· κρατήσατε αὐτόν.
The one who plays the role of betraying the again being mentioned (of masculine gender and singular number), let the again being mentioned (of masculine gender and plural number)(know) the sign he would use to indicate, when he says, The again being mentioned (of masculine gender and singular number) is the one whom I might kiss.

That is anachronistic of course because the use of participles have also undergone changes, and especially at Thucydudes' hand.

BTW It is not easy to find the density of demonstrative usage, which we see in the gospels, in Classical texts.