Ps 29 (30) v6

[Ruth Mathys]

In Ps 29 (30) v6, what is the force of the neuter article?

τὸ ἑσπέρας αὐλισθήσεται κλαυθμὸς

Is it because ἑσπέρας by itself (or with τῆς) would be ambiguous?

Ruth Mathys

[Ken M. Penner]

In Ps 29 (30) v6, what is the force of the neuter article?
τὸ ἑσπέρας αὐλισθήσεται κλαυθμὸς
Is it because ἑσπέρας by itself (or with τῆς) would be ambiguous?

Good question. I don't have a good answer. I'm guessing some noun is elided, but a plausible candidate is not coming to mind right now. Muraoka's Lexicon includes:

adverbial gen. ἑσπέρας ‘in the evening’ Ge 19.1; τὸ ~ας De 16.4 (II without τό vs. 6), 28.67 (:: τὸ πρωΐ); εἰς τὸ ~ας ‘towards the evening’ Ge 49.27 (II τὸ πρωϊνόν ‘in the morning

It's the most common way of translating the Hebrew בערב, as in Num 9:15; Deut 16:4; 28:67.
Other ways are τὸ δειλινόν Lev 6:13; τὸ δείλης 3 Kgdms 17:6; ἑσπερινῷ Prov 17:9; ἑσπέρας Isa 21:13. So there is at least one instance of ἑσπέρας without τὸ.

[Barry Hofstetter]

τὸ ἑσπέρας αὐλισθήσεται κλαυθμός,
καὶ εἰς τὸ πρωὶ ἀγαλλίασις.

I don't think it's necessary to supply any missing noun. The neuter articles here simply substantialize the adverbs. In this case the first usage would be an accusative of respect "weeping lodges in the evening" and the second the object of the preposition, "joy [waits] until the morning."

[Daniel Semler]

τὸ ἑσπέρας αὐλισθήσεται κλαυθμός,
καὶ εἰς τὸ πρωὶ ἀγαλλίασις.

I don't think it's necessary to supply any missing noun. The neuter articles here simply substantialize the adverbs. In this case the first usage would be an accusative of respect "weeping lodges in the evening" and the second the object of the preposition, "joy [waits] until the morning."

Hi Barry,

That's what I was considering after I came up short for a missing noun, and for πρωί that seemed quite ok to me. But ἐσπέρα is an noun rather than an adverb. So I was wondering if that was still valid or if perhaps one needed to assume an omitted infinitive ?

Thx
D

[Barry Hofstetter]

Hi Barry,

That's what I was considering after I came up short for a missing noun, and for πρωί that seemed quite ok to me. But ἐσπέρα is an noun rather than an adverb. So I was wondering if that was still valid or if perhaps one needed to assume an omitted infinitive ?

Thx
D

But notice that it's ἑσπέρας, genitive of time, which is an adverbial usage.

[Daniel Semler]

Hi Barry,

That's what I was considering after I came up short for a missing noun, and for πρωί that seemed quite ok to me. But ἐσπέρα is an noun rather than an adverb. So I was wondering if that was still valid or if perhaps one needed to assume an omitted infinitive ?

Thx
D

But notice that it's ἑσπέρας, genitive of time, which is an adverbial usage.

Got it - that's what I was missing. Thanx D

[Ruth Mathys]

It's easier to follow in the second colon because the translator chose to make it a prepositional phrase. So then of course you need something to nominalise the adverb. However, it's useful to know that τὸ ἑσπέρας was already a stock expression.

My thought as to how the phrase developed is that maybe the genitive by itself was no longer felt to be sufficiently adverbial. I still would've expected a prepositional phrase. But then, I'm not a native speaker.

Ruth Mathys

[Ken M. Penner]

According to TLG, the Septuagint has the earliest attested instances of τὸ ἑσπέρας.
In searching this up, I discovered this gem from PTOLEMAEUS, De differentia vocabulorum (= Περὶ διαφορᾶς λέξεων) [Sp.] (e codd. Ottobon. gr. 43 + Vat. gr. 197). {1643.003} page 393.

τὸ ἑσπέρας τοῦ ὀψὲ διαφέρει· ἑσπέρα μὲν γάρ ἐστιν δυο-
μένου τοῦ ἡλίου, ὀψὲ δὲ βραδέως καὶ μεθ’ ὁντινοῦν
χρόνον. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ προστιθέασιν ὀψὲ τῆς ἡμέρας.

Other than this instance, it seems to occur only in biblical expressions.