επι - Matt 14:14, 15:32; 4:6, 14:11

[Louis L Sorenson]

Look at the feeding of the 5000. How we you explain these as being different? Are there different nuances in the cases?

Mt 14.19 καὶ κελεύσας τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου WH Treg NIV
Mt 14.19 καὶ κελεύσας τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ τοὺς χόρτους RP
Mk 6.39 καὶ ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια ἐπὶ τῷ χλωρῷ χόρτῳ.

[D Ryan Lowe]

Skepticism is perhaps warranted, but I would prefer skepticism to be backed up with an argument against it, or an alternate proposal for the difference in meaning for the three cases for επι.

Well, I'm still skeptical. The cases don't have the syntactic functions you're proposing for them in this construction. And even if they did, in classical and Koine Greek, prepositions are the heads of their phrases, so the cases of their objects shouldn't matter syntactical above the prepositional phrase. The proposition παρά also governs three cases, but it is not claimed to feature this behavior. There's no reason why the pattern, if valid, shouldn't generalize to prepositions governing genitive and accusatives; or, that it would suggest that all prepositional phrases with genitive objects should be adnominal. It really sounds like a special syntactic rule for ἐπί, and there is no theoretical reason why ἐπί should be so special. These are just some of the reasons why I'm feeling skeptical.

Hi Stephen,

You bring up good points. I don't think I can fully satisfy all your skepticism, but I will try my best.

I don't think we can say that if it applies to επι, therefore it must apply to all prepositions. επι is more or less unique in that there is little to no difference in meaning for the cases. παρα takes on slightly different meanings in its cases, and a word like μετα means something vastly different when you change cases. I don't think this is comparable.

I do think, though, that this syntactic rule can apply to other prepositions. For example. εις always takes the accusative, and functions very similarly to επι with the accusative. They usually involve motion toward something, and the prepositional phrase functions like a direct object of the verb.

Note in BDAG, definition 4 for επι "marker of movement to or contact w. a goal, toward, in direction of, on" that the accusative dominates this category, with a handful of genitives as well. Definition 14 "marker indicating the one to whom, for whom, or about whom someth. is done, to, on, about" is also dominated by the accusative, and definition 15, "marker of feelings directed toward someone, in, on, for, toward" is exclusively accusative. All of these are things that function like a direct object of a verb.

εν, on the other hand, always takes the dative, and functions similarly to επι with the dative. εν usually denotes a position or state of being inside. Note that definition 2 for επι, "marker of presence or occurrence near an object or area, at, near,' never occurs in the accusative. Such a definition usually provides background information of location, and never functions like a direct object of a verb.

Here's one example: Revelation 14:14-16
14: Καὶ εἶδον ... ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ...
And I saw ... one like a son of man sitting on the cloud.

This is accusative, describing that he saw the son of man who had sat himself on the cloud. This is an introduction of the character.

But from there on out, he is referred to as καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης with the genitive, "one sitting on the cloud." This is used in v. 15 and v. 16. The character was established in v. 14 based on what John saw, and in v. 15 and v. 16 he can refer to the person as a single noun phrase, ""one sitting on the cloud."

That's the way I read it. You can compare the synoptic gospels and think that there may be stylistic differences between the gospel writers. However, John the Revelator uses different cases for επι for similar phrases throughout Revelation. I think analyzing the syntax might be the key to unfolding this great mystery in Revelation. What I don't think is a viable option is that John arbitrarily chose whatever cases he felt like for επι.

[Tony Pope]

Since this thread has been revived I've been motivated to look at the data some more.

[Matt 14:14] και εξελθων ο ιησους ειδεν πολυν οχλον και εσπλαγχνισθη επ αυτοις και εθεραπευσεν τους αρρωστους αυτων
[Matt 15:32] ο δε ιησους προσκαλεσαμενος τους μαθητας αυτου ειπεν σπλαγχνιζομαι επι τον οχλον οτι ηδη ημεραι τρεις προσμενουσιν μοι και ουκ εχουσιν τι φαγωσιν και απολυσαι αυτους νηστεις ου θελω μηποτε εκλυθωσιν εν τη οδω
Do you mind explaining the difference in meaning between the use of "επι" in Matt 14:14 and Matt 15:32? One is with the accusative but the other is with the dative.

Matt. 14:14 I would read this dative as a passive construction, i.e. "he was deeply moved by the crowd." Note the verb is passive. The emphasis, I think, is that the crowd had an effect on Jesus, and Jesus responds by healing.
Matt. 15:32 I would translate this accusative more in an active sense, i.e. "I have pity on the crowd." The verb is still passive, but Jesus is speaking in an active, volitional sense of how he is willingly having compassion on the crowd, and desires to show his compassion.

Thoughts?

I would modify this suggestion somewhat. Looking through the occurrences of ἐπί in the Gospels and Acts, I found about 34 examples of ἐπί taking the dative after a verb (or verb phrase) expressing emotion. This may well be the most frequent use of ἐπί with the dative in these five books, and the dative must be the expected case after a verb of emotion because the other cases are hardly ever used in that situation. So Matt 14.14 doesn't require any explanation. The same construction comes in Luke 7.13 καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν ὁ κύριος ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ’ αὐτῇ.

I think your explanation of the accusative in Matt 15.32 is on the right lines. Ἐπί with the accusative is frequently used both in literal expressions of motion to the vicinity of someone and, correspondingly, in figurative expressions that express desires or actions intended to have a positive effect on someone. For example,
Matt 12.49 καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν· ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου.
Luke 6.35 ... ὅτι αὐτὸς χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ πονηρούς.

Matt 15.32 is, I suggest, like these. It differs subtly from Matt 14.14 in that it accentuates the outgoingness of the emotion rather than simply stating the emotion. (This difference corresponds to the well-known function of the accusative in expressions of literal motion.)

Mark 9.22 has the same verb, again with ἐπί and the accusative. In that context the father is asking for practical help, not just for an emotion to be registered. He is begging Jesus to extend compassion in the boy's direction, so to speak.
Mark 9.22 ... βοήθησον ἡμῖν σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς.

[David Lim]

Here's one example: Revelation 14:14-16
14: Καὶ εἶδον ... ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου ...
And I saw ... one like a son of man sitting on the cloud.

This is accusative, describing that he saw the son of man who had sat himself on the cloud. This is an introduction of the character.

But from there on out, he is referred to as καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης with the genitive, "one sitting on the cloud." This is used in v. 15 and v. 16. The character was established in v. 14 based on what John saw, and in v. 15 and v. 16 he can refer to the person as a single noun phrase, ""one sitting on the cloud."

That's the way I read it. You can compare the synoptic gospels and think that there may be stylistic differences between the gospel writers. However, John the Revelator uses different cases for επι for similar phrases throughout Revelation. I think analyzing the syntax might be the key to unfolding this great mystery in Revelation. What I don't think is a viable option is that John arbitrarily chose whatever cases he felt like for επι.

Actually I'm skeptical of these claims for similar reasons as Stephen. Also, for the example of Rev 14:14-16 that you bring up, it isn't good evidence because there is a textual variant at Rev 14:16. If the Byz text was the original, then your claim doesn't hold for the author. If the NU text was the original, then perhaps the Byzantine scribes did not discern a difference unlike you. In any case, Rev 14:14-16 is too statistically insignificant to draw any conclusions from it. In general I would like to see statistical evidence of any claim from a corpus, otherwise it is difficult for me to imagine native speakers being able to learn differences that cannot be statistically distinguished from random fluctuations. Examples in English that come to mind are "with respect to" / "with regard to" / "in regard to" / "in respect to", for which I as a native speaker cannot discern any difference, and consider them simply as alternative "spellings".

There are many counter-examples to your suggestion that the case affects syntactic relation, specifically when you state that there aren't instances with a verb having both an accusative object and a prepositional modifier "επι + acc."
[Matt 10:34] μη νομισητε οτι ηλθον βαλειν ειρηνην επι την γην ουκ ηλθον βαλειν ειρηνην αλλα μαχαιραν
[Mark 15:46] και αγορασας σινδονα και καθελων αυτον ενειλησεν τη σινδονι και κατεθηκεν αυτον εν μνημειω ο ην λελατομημενον εκ πετρας και προσεκυλισεν λιθον επι την θυραν του μνημειου
[Luke 6:48-49] ομοιος εστιν ανθρωπω οικοδομουντι οικιαν ος εσκαψεν και εβαθυνεν και εθηκεν θεμελιον επι την πετραν πλημμυρας δε γενομενης προσερρηξεν ο ποταμος τη οικια εκεινη και ουκ ισχυσεν σαλευσαι αυτην τεθεμελιωτο γαρ επι την πετραν ο δε ακουσας και μη ποιησας ομοιος εστιν ανθρωπω οικοδομησαντι οικιαν επι την γην χωρις θεμελιου η προσερρηξεν ο ποταμος και ευθεως επεσεν και εγενετο το ρηγμα της οικιας εκεινης μεγα
[Acts 13:50] οι δε ιουδαιοι παρωτρυναν τας σεβομενας γυναικας και τας ευσχημονας και τους πρωτους της πολεως και επηγειραν διωγμον επι τον παυλον και τον βαρναβαν και εξεβαλον αυτους απο των οριων αυτων
[Acts 15:10] νυν ουν τι πειραζετε τον θεον επιθειναι ζυγον επι τον τραχηλον των μαθητων ον ουτε οι πατερες ημων ουτε ημεις ισχυσαμεν βαστασαι
[2 Cor 3:13] και ου καθαπερ μωυσης ετιθει καλυμμα επι το προσωπον εαυτου προς το μη ατενισαι τους υιους ισραηλ εις το τελος του καταργουμενου
[Rev 18:19] και εβαλον χουν επι τας κεφαλας αυτων και εκραζον κλαιοντες και πενθουντες και λεγοντες ουαι ουαι η πολις η μεγαλη εν η επλουτησαν παντες οι εχοντες τα πλοια εν τη θαλασση εκ της τιμιοτητος αυτης οτι μια ωρα ηρημωθη

Based on my search of the NT, almost all the usages do not seem to occur in at least one case, and yet they cover all possible combinations of singles and pairs. In fact, the examples I have just found above follow the same rules, which have nothing to do with syntax but only semantic meaning. I suggest that people had learned for each usage that it could only be used with a certain subset of the cases, just as in English some verbs can be used with the to-infinitive ("allow him to walk"), others with the bare infinitive ("let him walk") and some with both ("help him [to] walk"). There may have been reasons for the differences but they are opaque to most language users.

[Brett]

Here is something I put together for an upcoming (maybe it is out already) lexicon of the GNT. Sorry but the formatting did not carry over.

EPI

ἐπί preposition with a basic meaning on, but with a wide range of meanings according to the context;

I. with the genitive often denotes contact; (1) in answer to "where?" on (LU 2.14); (2) with verbs of motion answering "to what place?” or “where?" on, in (HE 6.7); (3) expressing proximity at, by, near (JN 21.1); (4) in legal procedures in the presence of, before (an official court) (AC 25.10); (5) figuratively, related to rule and authority over (RO 9.5); (6) figuratively; (a) as giving a basis on the basis or evidence of (1T 5.19), with reference to (GA 3.16); (b) based on, in view of, in accordance with (MK 12.14); (7) to mark an (historical) era or time, in the era/time of, under (the rule of) (MK 2.26), during (RO 1.10);

II. with the dative often denotes position; (1) of place on, in (MK 6.39); of proximity at, near, by (MT 24.33), over (LU 23.38), to, toward (2C 9.14); (2) marks hostility or opposition against (LU 12.52); (3) of time at, in, in the time of, during (HE 9.26); (4) of cause or occasion because, on account of, on the basis of, from (the fact that) (RO 5.12); (5) figuratively, of aim or purpose for (the purpose of) (EP 2.10); (6) figuratively, of power, authority, control over (LU 12.44);

III. with the accusative often denotes motion or direction; (1) of place on (MT 14.29); over (also figuratively of authority, rule, power) (LU 9.1), across (MT 27.45); as far as, to, up to (MK 16.2), at (JN 8.7), in (the same [place]) (1C 11.20); (2) marks hostility or opposition against (MT 26.55); (3) figuratively, of goal or purpose for (MT 26.50); (4) figuratively, of making addition to something already present on, on top of (PH 2.27); (5) figuratively, in relation to feelings toward a person or thing: (believe) on (AC 9.42), (weep) for (LU 23.28), (have compassion) on, toward (MT 15.32); (6) of extension of time, answering "when?" or "for how long?" for, over a period of (LU 4.25); (7) to indicate number, in answering "how many times?" with ἐ . untranslated (AC 10.16); (8) to indicate degree or measure, in answering "how much?" ἐφ̓ὅσον to the degree that, for as long as (GA 4.1), insofar as (MT 25.40); ἐ. τὸ χεῖρον to the worse, [from bad] to worse (2T 3.13); (9) with reference to, concerning, about (MK 9.12)


Acts 15.17b was not translated. I wasn't comfortable giving a definitive answer there.