Luke 12:36 - Minuscule 157

[S Walch]

The first sample from Athanasius is easy to comprehend. The article points back to and highlights a previous use of the adverb. This is probably not what you are looking for however.

ATHANASIUS Theol. Orationes tres contra Arianos Volume 26 page 33 line 30

Thanks for sharing that one, Stirling

Knowing your current studies in Athanasius, I did check him first. The four examples TLG gave all looked like Athanasius was using ποτέ just as meaning "once" rather than "when." Interestingly, all of them are from the third discourse against the Arians.

John Chrysostom seems to have something akin to how I would interpret the usage here in Luke 12:36 in Min. 157:

Εἰ γὰρ ὑμεῖς, φησὶν, οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἐπιστάμενος τὸ δοῦναι, καὶ τὸ πότε δοῦναι, καὶ τὸ τί δοῦναι.

For if you, he affirms, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more our God, who knows how to give, and the 'when' to give, and the 'what' to give.

- John Chrysostom, Expositions on the Psalms: Psalm 4, Vol. 55 page 50 lines 3-6. Bold = quote from Luke 11:13. Link to JPM PG Volume and page/column.

Here in English we'd probably just say "when" and "what", but we could easily change these to "the exact time to give" and "the exact thing to give":

how much more our God, who knows how to give, and the exact time to give, and the exact thing to give.

[S Walch]

Another from John Chrysostom:

τὸ τούτου φρικωδέστερον ἔμαθον, ὅτι σὰρξ ἄνω κάθηται, καὶ προσκυνεῖται ὑπὸ ἀγγέλων· ἔμαθον, ὅτι ἥξει πάλιν κρῖναι πάντα τὸν κόσμον· ἔμαθον, ὅτι μέλλουσι καθεδεῖσθαι καὶ αὐτοὶ τότε κριταὶ τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ· ἔμαθον, ὅτι Ἰουδαῖοι ἐκβάλλονται, οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἀντεισέρχονται. Τὸ ταῦτα εἰδέναι ὅτι ἔσται, μέγα· τὸ δὲ μαθεῖν, ὅτι βασιλεύσει τις ἢ τὸ πότε, οὐδὲν μέγα.

and what is still more stupendous, that Flesh is seated in heaven, and adored by Angels, and that He will come again; they learned what is to take place in the judgment; learned that they shall then sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel; learned that the Jews would be cast out, and in their stead the Gentiles should come in. For, tell me, which is greater? to learn that a person will reign, or to learn the time when?

John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 2, Vol. 60 page 26 lines 30-37. Link to JPM Volume and page/column.

P. Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. XI. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, p. 11.

[S Walch]

And another from John Chrysostom, though likely spurious:

Πῶς γὰρ ἐγίνωσκε τὸ πότε ἀπέθανεν ὁ Λάζαρος, εἰ μὴ παρὼν ἦν κατὰ τὴν ἀόρατον δύναμιν τῆς θεότητος;

For how did he know the exact time Lazarus had died, unless it was according to the unseen power of his divine nature being at hand?

John Chrysostom, Discourses on Lazarus, Homily 2, Vol. 62 page 777, lines 13-15. Link to JPM Volume and page/column.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Here are some samples w/o translation from Gregory Nyssa Against Eunomius[1].

καιρὸς δ' ἂν εἴη πάλιν ἐπαναγαγεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν ακολου θίαν τὸν λόγον. οὐ βούλεται ὁ Εὐνόμιος ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς φωνῆς καὶ τοῦ αγεννήτου τὴν σημασίαν παρίστασθαι, ἵνα τὸ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ κατασκευάσῃ. καὶ γὰρ καὶ πολὺ τοῦτο παρὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐρώτημα ὅτι,1.1.619 ὁ ὢν πῶς γεννᾶται; αἴτιον δὲ τούτου οἶμαι τὸ μὴ ἐθέλειν τῆς ανθρωπίνης χρήσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν θείων διανοημάτων αφίστασθαι.

αλλὰ καὶ ἐγεννήθη καὶ ἦν, τῷ μὲν τῆς αἰτίας λόγῳ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γέννησιν ὁμολογῶν, τῷ δὲ αϊδίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τὸ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι οὐ προσιέμενος. 1.1.642 Ἀλλ' αντιβαίνει τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὁ τὰ περισσὰ σοφι ζόμενος καὶ διασχίζει τῆς

τί οὖν ἡμεῖς; εἰ μέν τινα χρονικὴν ἔμφασιν ὑπερετίθει τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως ὁ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ μόνῳ τῷ τῆς αἰτίας λόγῳ προθεωρῶν, εἰκότως ἂν ὁ τῆς αϊδιότητος ἡμῖν περὶ 1.1.687 τοῦ υἱοῦ λόγος ἐκινδυνεύετο. νυνὶ δὲ τὸ ποτὲ μὴ ἔσεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς προαιωνίου φύσεως ἴσως καὶ ὁμοίως ἐπί τε τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ζωῆς καὶ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς [αλλὰ καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ὁμολογίας] οὐ δέχεται· ἔνθα γὰρ 1.1.688 χρόνος οὐκ ἔστι, καὶ τὸ ποτὲ συνανῄρηται. εἰ δὲ αεὶ ἐν τῷ εἶναι καταλαμβάνεται ὁ υἱὸς τῇ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐννοίᾳ συναναφαινόμενος, τίς ὁ φόβος προσμαρτυρεῖν τῷ μονογενεῖ τὸ αΐδιον, τῷ μήτε αρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς ἔχοντι τέλος; ὡς γὰρ ἐκ φωτὸς φῶς καὶ ζωὴ ἐκ ζωῆς καὶ ἐξ αγαθοῦ αγαθὸς σοφός τε καὶ δίκαιος καὶ δυνατὸς καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὡσαύτως ἐκ τοιούτου τοιοῦτος, οὕτω καὶ ἐξ αϊδίου πάντως αΐδιος.

εἰ οὖν χρόνος οὐκ ἦν, καθὼς ὁ αντιλέγων συντίθεται, συνανῄρηται πάντως καὶ ἡ χρονικὴ σημασία· ταύτης δὲ μὴ οὔσης τὸ αΐδιον τῆς ἐννοίας κατὰ πᾶσαν ανάγκην αντεισελεύσεται. τῇ γὰρ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι φωνῇ καὶ τὸ ποτὲ πάντως συνυπα κούεται. εἰ γὰρ χωρὶς τοῦ ποτὲ τὸ μὴ εἶναι λέγοι, οὐδὲ νῦν εἶναι δώσει· εἰ δὲ τὸ νῦν διδοὺς πρὸς τὸ αΐδιον μά χεται, πάντως οὐ τὸ καθόλου μὴ εἶναι, αλλὰ τὸ ποτὲ μὴ 3.7.42 εἶναι διανενόηται. τῆς δὲ φωνῆς ταύτης ανυποστάτου παν τάπασιν οὔσης, εἰ μὴ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ χρόνου σημασίαν ἐρεί δοιτο, ανόητον ἂν εἴη καὶ μάταιον τὸ μήτε τι πρὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ εἶναι λέγειν μήτε πάντοτε τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι κατασκευάζειν. ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὁμολογεῖν μηδενὶ τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα διαιρεῖσθαι 3.7.43 συνάφειαν τὸ αΐδιον αὐτῷ πάντως προσμεμαρτύρηκεν. εἰ δὲ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ λέγοι μὴ εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, τῷ τοιούτῳ λόγῳ οὐκ αντεροῦμεν αὐτοί, αλλὰ τὴν γραφὴν αντιθήσομεν, ἥ φησιν ἐν τῷ πατρί τε εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τὸν πατέρα, τὸ πότε ἢ ὅτε ἢ τότε μὴ προστιθεῖσα τῷ λόγῳ, αλλὰ τῇ αποφατικῇ ταύτῃ καὶ απολύτῳ φωνῇ τὸ αΐδιον αὐτῷ μαρτυρήσασα. 3.7.44

[1] Note: Initial alphas may appear w/o breathing marks.
Source https://greekdownloads3.files.wordpress ... nomium.pdf

[Stirling Bartholomew]

In the last example I mistakenly concatenated two citations making them look as if they were continuous which they are not. To avoid confusion, here is a continuous citation.

3.7.41 ... εἰ οὖν χρόνος οὐκ ἦν, καθὼς ὁ αντιλέγων συντίθεται, συνανῄρηται πάντως καὶ ἡ χρονικὴ σημασία· ταύτης δὲ μὴ οὔσης τὸ αΐδιον τῆς ἐννοίας κατὰ πᾶσαν ανάγκην αντεισελεύσεται. τῇ γὰρ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι φωνῇ καὶ τὸ ποτὲ πάντως συνυπα κούεται. εἰ γὰρ χωρὶς τοῦ ποτὲ τὸ μὴ εἶναι λέγοι, οὐδὲ νῦν εἶναι δώσει· εἰ δὲ τὸ νῦν διδοὺς πρὸς τὸ αΐδιον μά χεται, πάντως οὐ τὸ καθόλου μὴ εἶναι, αλλὰ τὸ ποτὲ μὴ 3.7.42 εἶναι διανενόηται. τῆς δὲ φωνῆς ταύτης ανυποστάτου παν τάπασιν οὔσης, εἰ μὴ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ χρόνου σημασίαν ἐρεί δοιτο, ανόητον ἂν εἴη καὶ μάταιον τὸ μήτε τι πρὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ εἶναι λέγειν μήτε πάντοτε τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι κατασκευάζειν. εἰ γὰρ μήτετόπος μήτε χρόνος μήτε τις ἑτέρα κτίσις ἐστὶν ἐν ᾗ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐν αρχῇ ὢν λόγος, πανταχόθεν τοῦ δόγματος τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐξῄρηται τὸ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι τὸν κύριον. οὐκοῦν οὐχ ἡμῖν, αλλ' ἑαυτῷ διαμάχεται ὁ καὶ εἶναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ δογματίζων. ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὁμολογεῖν μηδενὶ τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα διαιρεῖσθαι 3.7.43 συνάφειαν τὸ αΐδιον αὐτῷ πάντως προσμεμαρτύρηκεν. εἰ δὲ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ λέγοι μὴ εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, τῷ τοιούτῳ λόγῳ οὐκ αντεροῦμεν αὐτοί, αλλὰ τὴν γραφὴν αντιθήσομεν, ἥ φησιν ἐν τῷ πατρί τε εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τὸν πατέρα, τὸ πότε ἢ ὅτε ἢ τότε μὴ προστιθεῖσα τῷ λόγῳ, αλλὰ τῇ αποφατικῇ ταύτῃ καὶ απολύτῳ φωνῇ τὸ αΐδιον αὐτῷ μαρτυρήσασα. 3.7.44

Source https://greekdownloads3.files.wordpress ... nomium.pdf

[Stirling Bartholomew]

While looking at the samples from Gregory Nyssa Against Eunomius I noted one or more instances of τοῦ ποτὲ where τοῦ wasn’t paired with any following genitive. Now I am wondering if this might be a case where the article τοῦ plus ποτὲ function as a constituent. But what kind of constituent?

Gregory Nyssa Against Eunomius

Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ "ποτέ" οὐ προσίεται ὁ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων κατὰ τὸν ἄφραστον λόγον τῷ πατρὶ συνών, γεννητὸς μὲν ἐστίν, οὐ μήν ποτε τοῦ εἶναι ἄρχεται· οὔτε γὰρ ἐν χρόνῳ οὔτε ἐν τόπῳ τὴν ζωὴν ἔχει. ἐξαιρεθέντος δὲ καὶ τόπου καὶ χρόνου καὶ παντὸς τοιούτου διανοήματος ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως, τὸ πρὸ ἐκείνου νοούμενον ὁ πατήρ ἐστι μόνος. ἀλλ' ἐν τούτῳ καὶ ὁ μονογενὴς ὤν, καθὼς αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνός φησι, τὴν τοῦ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι ὑπόνοιαν δέ 1.1.631 ξασθαι φύσιν οὐκ ἔχει. εἰ μὲν γάρ ποτε οὐκ ἦν καὶ ὁ πατήρ, ἀναγκαίως τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνυπαρξίᾳ καὶ ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀϊδιότης ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω συναπεκόπτετο. εἰ δὲ ἀεί ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ, πῶς ὁ υἱός ποτε οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ μὴ δυνάμενος ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ χωρὶς τοῦ πατρὸς νοηθῆναι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ σιωπώ 1.1.632 μενον ἀεὶ τῷ πατρὶ συνονομαζόμενος; ἡ γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς κλῆσις ἐπίσης τῶν δύο προσώπων ἐν ἑαυτῇ τὴν ἐπισημασίαν ἔχει, αὐτομάτως τῆς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐννοίας τῇ φωνῇ ταύτῃ συνεισιούσης. πότε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱός; ἐν τίνι τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ κατελήφθη; ἐν τόπῳ; τόπος οὐκ ἦν· ἐν χρόνῳ; πρὸ χρόνων ὁ κύριος. εἰ οὖν πρὸ τούτων ἦν, πότε οὐκ ἦν;

Source https://greekdownloads3.files.wordpress ... nomium.pdf

I looked at the syntax mentioned above from BDF §266 and Basil L. Gildersleeve. Still trying to wrap my mind around this. It looks simple but not perfectly obvious.

[S Walch]

Thanks for these, Stirling.

Think the main relevant one is this:

ἥ φησιν ἐν τῷ πατρί τε εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τὸν πατέρα, τὸ πότε ἢ ὅτε ἢ τότε μὴ προστιθεῖσα τῷ λόγῳ...

which affirms both the Son exists in the Father and the Father in the Son, the "when" or "where" or "then" not adding to the message...

Robertson, Adverbs Treated as Substantives (p. 547), as also noted in the R. D. Peters thesis/book is relevant to my understanding of πότε with the definite article.

Now I am wondering if this might be a case where the article τοῦ plus ποτὲ function as a constituent. But what kind of constituent?

Is τοῦ not to be construed with εἶναι in this clause?

[Seumas Macdonald]

I think some of the constituents of the substantivised phrases are somewhat longer than you highlighted, Stirling.

In the material from Nyssa AE 3.7.41f:
τὸ ποτὲ μὴ 3.7.42 εἶναι
τὸ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι τὸν κύριον

It's not that τὸ ποτε can't function as the constituent, but that these tend to be set phrases in the context of 4th century disputes, the 'when he was not' as 'the [time] when he was not], or 'the "when" when he was not', and so on. When you've read the umpteen times in the fathers, they seem normal.

τὴν τοῦ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι ὑπόνοιαν

the constiuent here would be ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι only governed by the τοῦ because of the dependence on ὑπόνοιαν.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

When you've read the umpteen times in the fathers, they seem normal.

τὴν τοῦ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι ὑπόνοιαν

the constituent here would be ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι only governed by the τοῦ because of the dependence on ὑπόνοιαν.

I agree. I would say that τοῦ makes ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι function like a genitive which limits ὑπόνοιαν.

Thank you for responding and clarifying the scope of the larger constituents. "umpteen times" is a good expression, redundancy being perhaps the most striking feature of these Against whatever texts.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Thanks for these, Stirling.

Think the main relevant one is this:

ἥ φησιν ἐν τῷ πατρί τε εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τὸν πατέρα, τὸ πότε ἢ ὅτε ἢ τότε μὴ προστιθεῖσα τῷ λόγῳ...

which affirms both the Son exists in the Father and the Father in the Son, the "when" or "where" or "then" not adding to the message...

Robertson, Adverbs Treated as Substantives (p. 547), as also noted in the R. D. Peters thesis/book is relevant to my understanding of πότε with the definite article.

Now I am wondering if this might be a case where the article τοῦ plus ποτὲ function as a constituent. But what kind of constituent?

Is τοῦ not to be construed with εἶναι in this clause?

Yes. I haven't looked at R. D. Peters[1] but I agree with your analysis. I tend to think of constituents as nested layers of structure, the analysis of which is like pealing an union. It is a iterative process and fairly often I get the layers wrong the first time round.

[1] Firefox warned me not to even think of visiting that web address.