Re: Accusative absolute

Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Sat, 18 Jan 1997 06:54:34 -0600

At 8:50 AM -0600 1/17/97, Carlton Winbery wrote:
>Randy Leedy wrote;
>>Why am I always on the wrong side of these questions? Both Carl and
>>Carlton apparently take Eph. 1:18 (PEFWTISMENOUS TOUS OFQALMOUS) as
>>something other than an accusative absolute. How else can it be
>>taken?
>>
>>Perhaps it works to take the pctp as circumstantial to the following
>>EIDENAI and therefore its understood subject to be the accusative of
>>general reference UMAS, with OFQALMOUS an accusative of reference
>>(i.e. "you having been enlightened in the eyes of your heart"). But
>>it sure looks a lot easier to me to take the construction as
>>accusative absolute ("the eyes of your heart having been
>>enlightened"). I'd like to hear the reasons for doing otherwise.
>>
>>It seems to me that if the ptcp. were to be taken as circumstantial
>>to EIDENAI, it should follow the EIS TO rather than precede it. While
>>I'm at it, I take Carlton's example from Acts as another clear
>>instance; he described it as "the nearest thing," and I'd like to
>>know what keeps it from being "the real thing" in his view.
>>
>The key question in an absolute construction is its relatedness to a main
>clause. Basically it is "unrelated" (except in thought) to a main clause.
>In the case of Eph. 1:18 James Brooks and I had different ideas. It the
>relatedness is to the preceeding clause, it looks a bit more like an
>absolute, but even there the indirect object of the verb is the owner of
>the heart which is enlightened. If the following clause is the one related
>(per NRSV), then it is clearly circumstantial.

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here, Carlton, when you say,
"If the relatedness is to the preceding clause, it looks a bit more like an
absolute ..." My own understanding of the basic phrase here, PEFWTISMENOUS
TOUS OFQALMOUS, is that it is appositional to the primary object of the
verb DWHi in vs. 17: "eyes of your heart(s) illuminated so that you know
=2E.." is an appositive to PNEUMA SOFIAS KAI APOKALUJEWS EN EPIGNWSEI AUTOU,
an alternative way of saying the same thing. So: "May God ... grant you a
spirit (that is) wise and enlightened (by revelation) in understanding him,
(that is) eyes of your heart (that are) illumined so that you know what is
the hope ..."

I agree with Randy that it is exceedingly awkward to relate PEFWTISMENOUS
to the hUMAS of the phrase EIS TO EIDENAI hUMAS, and I honestly don't
believe it is conceivable that the writer would position a participle like
this well out in advance of the pronoun with which it should be linked,
particularly since the "natural" understanding of the EIS TO EIDENAI hUMAS
infinitive phrase is that it indicates the CONSEQUENCE of the illumination
of the eyes. My feeling is that people are bothered by the word-order of
PEFWTISMENOUS TOUS OFQALMOUS and want to understand TOUS OFQALMOUS, as
Randy expressed it, as an accusative of specification with a perfect
passive participle which itself ought to construe with a hUMAS that is
either explicit or implicit, i.e. "enlightened in your heart's eyes";
although such a construction (pf. pass. ptc. + acc. of specification) is so
common in Greek that when Latin poets imitate it grammarians call it a
"Greek accusative" (wrongly, in my opinion, because I think it is a native
Latin construction also); I can't see any reason why we should not
understand TOUS OFQALMOUS as the noun with which PEFWTISMENOUS agrees, and
understand the positioning of PEFWTISMENOUS ahead of TOUS OFQALMOUS as
rhetorical for emphasis. Let me try another less-literal version that still
expresses my understanding of the construction: "May God bestow upon you an
insight made wise and inspired to understand him, inner eyes filled with
light to let you know the nature of the hope into which he has called you."
I really think that PNEUMA SOFIAS KTL. and PEFWTISMENOUS TOUS OFQALMOUS are
in apposition, parallel ways of expressing the same notion alternatively,
comparable to the poetic principle of Hebrew liturgical poetry to which the
style of this whole sequence seems very much akin.

What IS an accusative absolute--at least in origin--is to be found once in
the NT as 1 Cor 16:6: PROS hUMAS DE TUXON PARAMENW H KAI PARAXEIMASW ...
"I'll take up residence with you, should the contingency arise, or even
pass the winter with you..." Here we actually have the neuter accusative
aorist participle of TUGXANW used impersonally functioning independently of
these two 1 sg. future tense main verbs; probably, although I don't have an
LSJ at home with me to be able to tell whether it's so, this TUXON has
become another adverbial expression meaning "maybe." But it originated as
an accusative absolute of the sort seen in classical Attic, translatable in
very crudely literal English as "it chancing."

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/