Matt 1:2 article usage
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Matt 1:2 article usage
Matt 1:2 Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ,
In his exegesis of various article usage in the NT, Thomas Middleton in his 1833 disquisition on the Greek article calls the article usage in this verse "wholly foreign from the Greek practice" (p. 124):
What's going on here? It is clearly NOT the anaphoric use of the Greek article.
I recall suggestions that the article is case marking indeclinable names, but (a) note that Ἰούδαν does not need case marking and (b) why isn't the nominative case-marked as well?
In his exegesis of various article usage in the NT, Thomas Middleton in his 1833 disquisition on the Greek article calls the article usage in this verse "wholly foreign from the Greek practice" (p. 124):
What's going on here? It is clearly NOT the anaphoric use of the Greek article.
I recall suggestions that the article is case marking indeclinable names, but (a) note that Ἰούδαν does not need case marking and (b) why isn't the nominative case-marked as well?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
Middleton may be right in appealing to Hebraic usage, or at the very least this is based on the LXX. I know he points to 1 Chron 6:4, but he really didn't need to go that far into Chronicles to see.
1 Chron 1:10 (Hebrew followed by LXX)
וְכ֖וּשׁ יָלַ֣ד אֶת־נִמְר֑וֹד ה֣וּא הֵחֵ֔ל לִהְי֥וֹת גִּבּ֖וֹר בָּאָֽרֶץ
καὶ Χοὺς ἐγέννησεν τὸν Νεβρώδ· οὗτος ἤρξατο εἶναι γίγας κυνηγὸς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
τὸν = אֶת
1 Chron 1:34 (note LXX doesn't include Hebrew 1:11-16, 18-23)
וַיּ֥וֹלֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־יִצְחָ֑ק בְּנֵ֣י יִצְחָ֔ק עֵשָׂ֖ו וְיִשְׂרָאֵֽל
Καὶ ἐγέννησεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαάκ. καὶ υἱοὶ Ἰσαάκ· Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἠσαύ.
τὸν = אֶת
1 Chron 2:10
וְרָ֖ם הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־עַמִּינָדָ֑ב וְעַמִּינָדָב֙ הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־נַחְשׁ֔וֹן נְשִׂ֖יא בְּנֵ֥י יְהוּדָֽה
καὶ Ἀρρὰν ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμειναδάβ, καὶ Ἀμειναδὰβ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ναασσὼν ἄρχοντα τοῦ οἴκου Ἰούδα
Both τὸν = אֶת
The same is true for 1 Chron 2:11-13, 18-20 etc.; so I would say either this is Semitic-Greek translation, or possibly Matthew was just imitating the ἐγέννησεν τὸν as seen in the genealogical lists as found in 1 Chronicles.
If I remember correctly, 1 Chronicles is seen as a very literally Greek-Hebrew translation, so using τὸν may indeed just be to give at least a respectable Greek translation of אֶת; Aquila would always translate אֶת as σὺν.
1 Chron 1:10 (Hebrew followed by LXX)
וְכ֖וּשׁ יָלַ֣ד אֶת־נִמְר֑וֹד ה֣וּא הֵחֵ֔ל לִהְי֥וֹת גִּבּ֖וֹר בָּאָֽרֶץ
καὶ Χοὺς ἐγέννησεν τὸν Νεβρώδ· οὗτος ἤρξατο εἶναι γίγας κυνηγὸς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
τὸν = אֶת
1 Chron 1:34 (note LXX doesn't include Hebrew 1:11-16, 18-23)
וַיּ֥וֹלֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־יִצְחָ֑ק בְּנֵ֣י יִצְחָ֔ק עֵשָׂ֖ו וְיִשְׂרָאֵֽל
Καὶ ἐγέννησεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαάκ. καὶ υἱοὶ Ἰσαάκ· Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἠσαύ.
τὸν = אֶת
1 Chron 2:10
וְרָ֖ם הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־עַמִּינָדָ֑ב וְעַמִּינָדָב֙ הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־נַחְשׁ֔וֹן נְשִׂ֖יא בְּנֵ֥י יְהוּדָֽה
καὶ Ἀρρὰν ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμειναδάβ, καὶ Ἀμειναδὰβ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ναασσὼν ἄρχοντα τοῦ οἴκου Ἰούδα
Both τὸν = אֶת
The same is true for 1 Chron 2:11-13, 18-20 etc.; so I would say either this is Semitic-Greek translation, or possibly Matthew was just imitating the ἐγέννησεν τὸν as seen in the genealogical lists as found in 1 Chronicles.
If I remember correctly, 1 Chronicles is seen as a very literally Greek-Hebrew translation, so using τὸν may indeed just be to give at least a respectable Greek translation of אֶת; Aquila would always translate אֶת as σὺν.
-
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
I searched for examples of the pattern highlighted above in the GNT - determiner noun, noun δὲ, where the two nouns are the same. I found no examples outside of this genealogy. So yeah, Middleton is right that this is unusual.Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ,
S. Walch's examples from the LXX seem relevant.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 315
- Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
I never really noticed this but now you point it out it stands out.Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑August 29th, 2021, 4:44 am Matt 1:2 Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ,
I recall suggestions that the article is case marking indeclinable names, but (a) note that Ἰούδαν does not need case marking and (b) why isn't the nominative case-marked as well?
Curiously he does not list the Matthean genealogy as an example.Wallace mentions the use with indeclinable nouns:
d. With Indeclinable Nouns
The article is used with indeclinable nouns to show the case of the noun.
Luke 1:68 εὐ̓λογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
blessed is the Lord God of Israel
John 4:5 πλησίον τοῦ χωρίου ὃ ἔδωκεν Ἰακὼβ τῷ Ἰωσὴφ
near the place which Jacob gave to Joseph
Without the dat. article, it would be possible to misconstrue Ἰωσήφ as the subject of ἔδωκεν. The article serves no other purpose than clarifying the roles of Joseph and Jacob.63
Gal 3:29 τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ
you are the seed of Abraham
Cf. also Matt 3:9; 8:10; Luke 1:55; John 1:45, 49; 4:6; 8:39; Acts 7:40; 1 Pet 3:6.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 240-241.
https://accordance.bible/link/read/Wallace_Greek#4219
I wouldn't be surprised if in the practice just got replicated to the declinable cases in the genealogy just because that's how the rest of it was done.
Incidentally there is the genealogy of Noah in Gen 10 and in the LXX in places it follows the same practice as Matthew - τόν for אֶת
Thx
D
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
It does appear that nearly every instance of אֶת has an accusative definite article in the Greek (both singular and plural) when it comes to the genealogy in Genesis 10:Daniel Semler wrote: ↑August 30th, 2021, 10:19 am Incidentally there is the genealogy of Noah in Gen 10 and in the LXX in places it follows the same practice as Matthew - τόν for אֶת
Genesis 10:12-13 (small sample)
וְֽאֶת־רֶ֔סֶן בֵּ֥ין נִֽינְוֵ֖ה וּבֵ֣ין כָּ֑לַח הִ֖וא הָעִ֥יר הַגְּדֹלָֽה׃
וּמִצְרַ֡יִם יָלַ֞ד אֶת־לוּדִ֧ים וְאֶת־עֲנָמִ֛ים וְאֶת־לְהָבִ֖ים וְאֶת־נַפְתֻּחִֽים׃
καὶ τὴν Δάσεμ, ἀνὰ μέσον Νινευὴ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον Χάλαχ· αὕτη ἡ πόλις ἡ μεγάλη.
καὶ Μεσράιν ἐγέννησεν τοὺς Λουδιεὶμ καὶ τοὺς Νεφθαλιεὶμ καὶ τοὺς Αἰνεμετιεὶμ καὶ τοὺς Λαβιεὶμ
This also applies to the genealogical lists in Genesis 11, 25, 46, or pretty much any place where you find the word ἐγέννησεν in the LXX.
-
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
Many thanks for your comments, esp. the Chronicles parallels. They are certainly striking.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
Middleton's explanation looks plausible. However, Stephen Levinsohn looks at the matter rather differently in his Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. 2000, ch. 9 The Article with Substantives, p.159.
According to this approach the examples from the LXX could also be explained in terms of salience. It would also be inappropriate to mark the proper nouns the other way around, i.e. the subject with the article and the object without. In other words it would not be purely a matter of disambiguation.Levinsohn wrote:Then there is the genealogy of Matt. 1:1ff.; each new point of departure/propositional topic is anarthrous. This suggests that each ancestor in turn becomes salient and that the genealogy develops by switches from one salient ancestor to the next.12 [footnote 12: The articular references to Judah (v. 2c) and to other children whose names are declinable suggest that the purpose of the genealogy is not so much to make a comment and supply new information about each father ... Rather, it is to enumerate the genealogies (see v. 17), which is best achieved by centering attention on the fathers.]
-
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
Interesting! So we have two well-founded theories, I think, that run in opposite directions. I love the attention to detail and the breadth of knowledge people on B-Greek bring to this.Tony Pope wrote: ↑August 31st, 2021, 4:51 am Middleton's explanation looks plausible. However, Stephen Levinsohn looks at the matter rather differently in his Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. 2000, ch. 9 The Article with Substantives, p.159.According to this approach the examples from the LXX could also be explained in terms of salience. It would also be inappropriate to mark the proper nouns the other way around, i.e. the subject with the article and the object without. In other words it would not be purely a matter of disambiguation.Levinsohn wrote:Then there is the genealogy of Matt. 1:1ff.; each new point of departure/propositional topic is anarthrous. This suggests that each ancestor in turn becomes salient and that the genealogy develops by switches from one salient ancestor to the next.12 [footnote 12: The articular references to Judah (v. 2c) and to other children whose names are declinable suggest that the purpose of the genealogy is not so much to make a comment and supply new information about each father ... Rather, it is to enumerate the genealogies (see v. 17), which is best achieved by centering attention on the fathers.]
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
It is fine to have two proposals, but they need to be checked for consistency.
For example, it is fine for an unarthrous name to start something new, but it is against the grain of Greek to keep putting the article on the new information (more salient), the engendered sons in these cases. Middleton's explanation covers the LXX.
So look at what Josephus does in Antiq. 1:83-85:
Josephus is important because he is writing a prosaic, free-flowing Greek while the LXX is clearly a direct translation with more obvious expectancies of language interference and transfer. Note that Josephus does not add the article when introducing the names of sons but he does use contextualization ["topic"] devices [green], to which system the article belongs.
Now the question of the kind of source that Matthew accessed is a different question. Matthew could have written septuagintally in this genealogy or he may have accessed a source. In either case one would be on questionable grounds to write sensitive and subtle rules for Greek on this basis.
In other areas besides this genealogy Levinsohn writes and analyzes as though the gospel texts are fully natural Greek and need purely Greek explanations. The reality, of course, is that natural Greek writers and readers did not accept the NT as normal Greek. There were many and varied influences on NT Greek and to some degree there were 'thresholds' that allowed some unnatural features to slip under the radar. For example, comparing Luke's use of less-conscious items between the gospel, Acts 1-15 and 16-28 show many inconsistencies.
So consistency with the greater Greek language and the known proclivities of "gospel Greek" favor Middleton.
For example, it is fine for an unarthrous name to start something new, but it is against the grain of Greek to keep putting the article on the new information (more salient), the engendered sons in these cases. Middleton's explanation covers the LXX.
So look at what Josephus does in Antiq. 1:83-85:
Αδάμῳ μὲν τριακοστῷ ἤδη καὶ διακοσιοστῷ ἔτει γεγονότι παῖς Σῆθος γίνεται, ὃς ἐνακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη ἐβίωσε. Σῆθος δὲ κατὰ πέμπτον καὶ διακοσιοστὸν ἔτος ἐγέννησεν Ἄνωσον, ὃς πέντε ζήσας ἔτη καὶ ἐνακόσια Καϊνᾷ τῷ παιδὶ τὴν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπιμέλειαν δίδωσι τεκνώσας αὐτὸν περὶ ἐνενηκοστὸν καὶ ἑκατοστὸν ἔτος· οὗτος ἐβίωσεν ἔτη δώδεκα πρὸς τοῖς ἐνακοσίοις. 84 Καϊνᾶς δὲ βιοὺς δέκα καὶ ἐνακόσια Μαλαῆλον υἱὸν ἔσχεν ἔτει γενόμενον ἑβδομηκοστῷ καὶ ἑκατοστῷ. οὗτος ὁ Μαλαῆλος ζήσας πέντε καὶ ἐνενήκοντα καὶ ὀκτακόσια ἔτη ἐτελεύτησεν Ἰάρεδον καταλιπὼν υἱόν, ὃν ἔτος πέμπτον ἑξηκοστὸν καὶ ἑκατοστὸν γενόμενος ἐγέννησε. 85 τοῦτον εἰς ἐννέα καὶ ἑξήκοντα πρὸς τοῖς ἐνακοσίοις βιώσαντα Ἄνωχος υἱὸς διαδέχεται γεννηθεὶς περὶ ἔτη δύο καὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῷ τυγχάνοντος. οὗτος ζήσας πέντε καὶ ἑξήκοντα πρὸς τοῖς τριακοσίοις ἀνεχώρησε πρὸς τὸ θεῖον, ὅθεν οὐδὲ τελευτὴν αὐτοῦ ἀναγεγράφασι.
Josephus is important because he is writing a prosaic, free-flowing Greek while the LXX is clearly a direct translation with more obvious expectancies of language interference and transfer. Note that Josephus does not add the article when introducing the names of sons but he does use contextualization ["topic"] devices [green], to which system the article belongs.
Now the question of the kind of source that Matthew accessed is a different question. Matthew could have written septuagintally in this genealogy or he may have accessed a source. In either case one would be on questionable grounds to write sensitive and subtle rules for Greek on this basis.
In other areas besides this genealogy Levinsohn writes and analyzes as though the gospel texts are fully natural Greek and need purely Greek explanations. The reality, of course, is that natural Greek writers and readers did not accept the NT as normal Greek. There were many and varied influences on NT Greek and to some degree there were 'thresholds' that allowed some unnatural features to slip under the radar. For example, comparing Luke's use of less-conscious items between the gospel, Acts 1-15 and 16-28 show many inconsistencies.
So consistency with the greater Greek language and the known proclivities of "gospel Greek" favor Middleton.
-
- Posts: 4165
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Re: Matt 1:2 article usage
Are there writers from the time who say Greek in the NT is not normal?RandallButh wrote: ↑September 1st, 2021, 12:57 pm The reality, of course, is that natural Greek writers and readers did not accept the NT as normal Greek.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/