From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 08 1998 - 07:10:44 EST
At 3:47 PM -0600 12/7/98, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>In Acts 17:3 we encounter:
>
>KAI hOTI hOUTOS ESTIN hO CRISTOS [hO] IHSOUS
>hON EGW KATAGGELLW hUMIN
>
>The text here is uncertain in regard to the two occurrences of hO. H.A.W.
>Meyer, one of my favorite Dead White German Males, rejects the second [hO]
>without comment. He then states that the subject of ESTIN is IHSOUS hON EGW
>KATAGGELLW hUMIN and that hOUTOS hO CRISTOS is the object of ESTIN.
>
>I suspect that there is a connection between the rejection of the second [hO]
>and Meyer's analysis of the syntax. Some rule formulated by someone hundreds
>of years ago probably covers this case. I even suspect that someone on this
>list probably studied this rule at some time or even wrote their dissertation
>on it.
I doubt there's any connection whatsoever. The hO before IHSOUS is found in
only one MS: Vaticanus and one late minuscule. Metzger,Textual Commentary,
2nd ed., writes: "hO CRISTOS [hO] IHSOUS [C]: The wide variety of readings
seems to have arisen from the unusual reading preserved only in codex
Vaticanus. Since, however, the Committee was reluctant to accord a decisive
role to one manuscript, it preferred to indicate the slender basis of the
reading by enclosing within square brackets the definite article before
IHSOUS. For the change to direct discourse from indirect compare 1:4f.;
23:22, Lk 5:14."
The "rule" in question is indeed an old one and a traditional one; I
generally teaching it in the second or third lesson in Beginning Greek: the
distinction between an attributive and a predicative word or phrase. In
this instance, as CRISTOS is not a proper name but an epithet, while IHSOUS
is indeed a proper name, one would expect hO CRISTOS IHSOUS or hO IHSOUS hO
CRISTOS--or one might get both names in either order without article, but
if CRISTOS is understood as an epithet, it should have its own article. For
comparison's sake, you might readily enough have ANHR hO AGAQOS or hO
AGAQOS ANHR, but you shouldn't ever see hO AGAQOS hO ANHR.
As for the syntax, the terminology you've cited, Clay, strikes me as
somewhat bizarre; one might consider hOUTOS a predicate word with ESTIN and
a subject hO CRISTOS IHSOUS hON EGW KATAGGELLW hUMIN, but I've never heard
or read of an "object" of a copula. One other matter: I've corrected
EISTIN in what I've cited from you in three instances; I think this is a
fascinating anomaly: a conflation of ESTIN and EISIN. A pretty little piece
of strange MS tradition here!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT