Well, I think Jonathan perhaps went overboard on this matter of "what is
bad Greek?"--but having conceded to Edward Hobbs that perhaps Mark's Greek
is not so bad as I have long argued it to be, I guess one ought to be
careful about making such assertions. I do think, however, that one can
speak tenatively about "solecisms" in Revelation, and perhapshere and there
in John's gospel also. Granted, there are not yet, in the first century,
those Atticist "prescriptions" laid down by a quasi Academie Francaise of
what "acceptable" Greek might be, but still, there are, as Randy says, some
constructions that are so rare as to fall, evidently, outside the sense of
propriety of writers of the language. I think that the nominative attracted
into the case of the antecedent is indeed rare, but I don't think it's
unheard of. I can remember being shocked (a long time ago!) when I first
saw what is a fairly common construction in classical Attic: OIDA SE TIS EI
for "I know who you are"--one wants something like the German version of
the Lord's Prayer that seems odd to English speakers: "Vater unser, Der Du
in Himmel bist ..."--we want OIDA TIS SU EI.
>Carl's citation of Acts 22:10, KAKEI SOI LALHQHSETAI PERI PANTWN hWN
>TETAKTAI SOI POIHSAI, is the nearest thing I've seen to the
>construction that I've called impossible Greek. In fact, Carl seems
>to take it as EXACTLY the kind of construction whose existence I'm
>doubting. My position can't be maintained without answering this
>point. I take the view Carl acknowledged as possible, that hWN is the
>object of POIHSAI and is therefore attracted from the accusative, not
>from the nominative. Carl prefers to take hWN as the subject of
>TETAKTAI, but I would argue that the subject of TETAKTAI is the
>infinitive phrase, not the pronoun.
>
>Most people won't buy that explanation immediately, because English
>usage makes it so natural to read the relative clause as "the things
>which have been appointed (or commanded) for you to do," making the
>pronoun the subject (neuter plural subject with a singular verb). But
>we can replace our English lens with a Greek one by looking at some
>examples of similar constructions in which the subject is
>unquestionably an infinitive phrase. It's also helpful to recast Acts
>22:10 using the active voice of TASSW and see what the pronoun's
>function would be in that construction; the transformation to the
>passive doesn't change that function. I won't trouble the list with
>further support for taking the infinitive as subject unless someone
>else wants to pursue it.
Well, Randy, you have my curiosity pricked up now. I'm beginning to wonder
(a) whether perhaps it is our sense o what is right in ENGLISH that governs
our discomfort with taking hWN in the above passage as the subject of
TETAKTAI and makes us prefer understanding the infinitive POIHSAI as the
subject instead. I'm frankly not so sure about this any more, but I'm
INCLINED to think that the infinitive really is explanatory. A parallel has
occurred to me, but it may raise more questions than it resolves: Mk 4:11:
hUMIN TO MUSTHRION DEDOTAI THS BASILEIAS TOU QEOU. No problem; but Mt
13:11: hOTI hUMIN DEDOTAI GNWNAI TA MUSHRIA THS BASILEIAS TWN OURANWN ...
and Lk 8:10 hUMIN DEDOTAI GNWNAI TA MUSTHRIA THS BASILEIAAS TOU QEOU ... I
am inclined to think that Mark's text is older, in accordance with the 2SH,
but I can readily see how the case or Mk being secondary to Mt & Lk could
be put, with GNWNAI as part of the original tradition. Does this have any
bearing on Acts 22:10, KAKEI SOI LALHQHSETAI PERI PANTWN hWN TETAKTAI SOI
POIHSAI? Well, I really suspect that if POIHSAI was (were) meant as
subject of TETAKTAI, it would have been expressed earlier in the clause as
in the examples hUMIN DEDOTAI GNWNAI TA MUSTHRIA. But I'm far less
confident about this than I once was. Once more, Randy, you have caught me
reverting to what you call agnosticism!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/