Luke 12:36 - Minuscule 157

[S Walch]

Traditional text of Luke 12:36:

καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις προσδεχομένοις τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων, ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ.

Minuscule 157 has two variants here, reading (var. in bold):

καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις προσδεχομένοις τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν, τὸ πότε ἀναλύσει ἐκ τῶν γάμων, ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτόν.

My question is how best to understand the additional τὸ before πότε:

1. as agreeing with ἀναλύσει as if ἀναλύσει was supposed to be ἀναλῦσαι.
2. Similar to Luke's usage with τὸ πῶς and τὸ τί (see 22:2; 19:48; and BDF §267(2) ).
3. Something else entirely that I've not been able to find.

I'm falling down heavily on option 3.

Can see the image http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_157 - It's CSNTM Image Id: 127263 / CSNTM Image Name: 00000201.jpg , second page lines 7-11.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Traditional text of Luke 12:36:

καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις προσδεχομένοις τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν πότε ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων, ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτῷ.

Minuscule 157 has two variants here, reading (var. in bold):

καὶ ὑμεῖς ὅμοιοι ἀνθρώποις προσδεχομένοις τὸν κύριον ἑαυτῶν, τὸ πότε ἀναλύσει ἐκ τῶν γάμων, ἵνα ἐλθόντος καὶ κρούσαντος εὐθέως ἀνοίξωσιν αὐτόν.

My question is how best to understand the additional τὸ before πότε:

1. as agreeing with ἀναλύσει as if ἀναλύσει was supposed to be ἀναλῦσαι.
2. Similar to Luke's usage with τὸ πῶς and τὸ τί (see 22:2; 19:48; and BDF §267(2) ).
3. Something else entirely that I've not been able to find.

I'm falling down heavily on option 3.

Can see the image http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_157 - It's CSNTM Image Id: 127263 / CSNTM Image Name: 00000201.jpg , second page lines 7-11.

1. Possible, but unlikely, I think I think the dative would be necessary there to express time, so would expect τῷ. At that time I think -ει and -αι would be pronounced identically, so there's that, but it's harder to think of two errors here (though not impossible).
2. Yes, τό is used to objectify the clause in some way, but it's hard to think of why it would be needed here. I think it's more plausible that a scribe familiar with Luke's style might insert it however.
3. I don't think there is any mysterious third usage, but maybe a real text critical error? But my TC skills are not sufficient for a ready hypothesis here.

[S Walch]

1. Possible, but unlikely, I think I think the dative would be necessary there to express time, so would expect τῷ. At that time I think -ει and -αι would be pronounced identically, so there's that, but it's harder to think of two errors here (though not impossible).

It could be that το is an error for τω (both ω/ο being pronounced similarly), however the grave accent over the ο suggests this not likely the case.

For this I was thinking along the lines of Luke 12:5's τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι, and understanding it as "when he has returned from the wedding feast" etc.

2. Yes, τό is used to objectify the clause in some way, but it's hard to think of why it would be needed here. I think it's more plausible that a scribe familiar with Luke's style might insert it however.

Same thing I'm struggling to find an explanation for too.

3. I don't think there is any mysterious third usage, but maybe a real text critical error? But my TC skills are not sufficient for a ready hypothesis here.

Possibly. But looking at the general quality of Minuscule 157 one is hard pressed to see how the copyist would produce such an insertion.

The normal homoeoteleuton or homeoarchon which produces errors of accidental insertion don't appear to be playing a part here.

[S Walch]

Colour image available at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Urb.gr.2 - page 217r lines 7-11.

[S Walch]

I think the answer lies in BDF §266 and Basil L. Gildersleeve's Syntax of Classical Greek 575-6, with the understanding "the [time] when", thus:

And you, [be] like people who are waiting for their master, for [the time] when he returns from the wedding feast, so that after he comes and knocks, they can open the door to him immediately.

This wouldn't be too dissimilar to the use of article + νῦν in places like Acts 24:25; Rom 8:22; Phil 1:5.

I found an interesting thesis entitled "The Greek Article: A Functional Grammar of Ha-items in the Greek New Testament with special emphasis on
the Greek Article" by Ronald Dean Peters (official publication | link to thesis) who discusses the use of the article with adverbs pp. 237-9. Here he says:

"As with participles and adjectives, when the article is used to modify an adverb, the adverbial idea is used as the identifying characteristic of the referent. Concurrently, the referent is characterized as something concrete, as belonging to the realm of the experience of an actual thing or event."

Think we can certainly class ἀναλύσῃ ἐκ τῶν γάμων as anticipating an actual "event."

I haven't done an extensive search in Greek literature, but it's either non-existent elsewhere or extremely rare to have the definite article with πότε as I would interpret its use in Minuscule 157. Gildersleeve gives uses of it with τότε.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

I haven't done an extensive search in Greek literature, but it's either non-existent elsewhere or extremely rare to have the definite article with πότε as I would interpret its use in Minuscule 157.

There are numerous samples of τὸ πότε in the Church Fathers. The qualifying expression is a different matter.

[S Walch]

There are numerous samples of τὸ πότε in the Church Fathers.

Oh fantastic! Do they agree with my interpretation (if you have examples to hand, would love to read them), or am I way off the mark?

BDAG, LSJ and BDF give no example (that I could find anyway), and didn't really search all that much from there...

[Stirling Bartholomew]

There are numerous samples of τὸ πότε in the Church Fathers.

Oh fantastic! Do they agree with my interpretation (if you have examples to hand, would love to read them), or am I way off the mark?

BDAG, LSJ and BDF give no example (that I could find anyway), and didn't really search all that much from there...

The TLG public corpus has at least a dozen examples. Just type TO POTE in the text search field. I can't evaluate them because I don't clearly understand your interpretation.

[S Walch]

Cheers Stirling. Lots to look through

Perhaps the following from Aristotle (Rhetoric 3.5) may be most relevant:

καὶ διὰ τὸ ὅλως ἔλαττον εἶναι ἁμάρτημα διὰ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ πράγματος λέγουσιν οἱ μάντεις: τύχοι γὰρ ἄν τις μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ἀρτιασμοῖς ἄρτια ἢ περισσὰ εἰπὼν μᾶλλον ἢ πόσα ἔχει, καὶ τὸ ὅτι ἔσται ἢ τὸ πότε, διὸ οἱ χρησμολόγοι οὐ προσορίζονται τὸ πότε.

(J. H. Freese English Translation):
And as there is less chance of making a mistake when speaking generally, diviners express themselves in general terms on the question of fact; for, in playing odd or even, one is more likely to be right if he says “even” or “odd” than if he gives a definite number, and similarly one who says “it will be” than if he states “when.” This is why soothsayers do not further define the exact time.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

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

§ 11.2 Εἰ δὲ λέγετε ὅτι ὁ Υἱὸς ἦν ποτε ὅτε αὐτὸς οὐκ ἦν, μωρὰ καὶ ἀνόητός ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόκρισις· πῶς γὰρ ἦν αὐτὸς, καὶ οὐκ ἦν αὐτός ; Οὐκοῦν ἐν τούτοις ἀποροῦντας ὑμᾶς ἀνάγκη λοιπὸν λέγειν, ‘ ἦν ποτε χρόνος, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ Λόγος τοῦτο γὰρ φύσει σημαίνει καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ‘ποτέʼ ὑμῶν ἐπίῤῥημα. Καὶ ὅπερ δὲ πάλιν γράφοντες εἰρήκατε, ‘ οὐκ ἦν ὁ Υἱὸς πρὶν γεννηθῇ,ʼ ταὐτόν ἐστι λέγειν ὑμᾶς, ‘ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν· χρόνον γὰρ εἶναι κἀκεῖνο καὶ τοῦτο πρὸ τοῦ Λόγου σημαίνει. Πόθεν οὖν ὑμῖν ἐξεύρηται ταῦτα; ‘Ἵνα τί καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὡς τὰ ἔθνη, ἐφρυάξατε, καὶ μελετᾶτε κενὰʼ λεξείδια κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ ;

§ 11.2 But if you say that the Son was once, when He Himself was not, the answer is foolish and unmeaning. For how could He both be and not be? In this difficulty, you can but answer, that there was a time when the Word was not; for your very adverb 'once' naturally signifies this. And your other, 'The Son was not before His generation,' is equivalent to saying, 'There was once when He was not,' for both the one and the other signify that there is a time before the Word. Whence then this your discovery? Why do you, as 'the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord and against His Christ.'
— A. Robertson & J.H. Newman