Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:05:41.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relative Pronoun in the New Testament Some Critical Remarks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Victoria Spottorno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In spite of the amount of writing about grammatical questions on NT Greek, it is not superfluous to develop and to document some of these subjects whose extension exceeds the limits of handbooks of Morphology and Syntax. The present work has been suggested by Prof. G. D. Kilpatrick and it tries, by its exhaustiveness, to determine what hitherto could only be the fruit of an intuition based on partial or sample studies.

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1982 , pp. 132 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] JBL XII (1923), 150–7.Google Scholar

[2] Blass/Debrunner, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen, 1959), p.183.Google Scholar

[3] Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom-book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 123–4.Google Scholar

[4] Turner, N., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III Syntax (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

[5] Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. I Prolegomena (Edinburgh, 1949), p. 92.Google Scholar

[6] Hort, F. J. A., The first Epistle of St Peter 1, 1–2, 17 (London, 1898), p. 133.Google Scholar

[7] This is something that I verify trying uselessly to draw out a meaning clue for ˘ς and ˘στις. I could fmd examples like these: Mt. 13. 12 ˘στις γάρ ήχει δοθήοεται αύτώ καί περισσευθήσεται ˘στις δέ ούκ έχει, καί ˘ έχει άρθήσεται άπ αύτού. (We should expect ˘τι for ˘). Mt. 18. 4 ˘στις ούν γαπειυώσει έαυτόρ … 18. 5 καί őς δέξηται έν παιδίον τοιγύτο … 18. 6 ˘ς δ' αν οκανδαλίοη ήνα τών μικρών τούτων … (the construction of the sentences is different but the meaning of the relatives is still the same). LK. 1. 26 είς πόλω τές Γ αλιλαίς ή őνομα Ναζαρέθ 2. 4 είς πόλιω Δανείδ ήτις καλείται Βηθλεέμ (ήτινι would have been out of use in the NT, but ή instead of ήτις would have been possible). LK. 14. 27 őστις ού βαστάζει τόν στανρόν έαντού … ού δύναται είναί μαν μαθηντής. 14.33 πάς έξ ύμών őς ούκ άποτάσσεται πāοώ τοις έαντού δύναται είναί μον μαθητής. (Is the antecedent the cause of using őς for őστις?) LK. 23. 27 ήαθητή ού αύτ˘ πολύ πλήθος τού καί γυναικών αί έκόπτοντο καί έθρήνονν αύτόν. 23. 55 κατακολονθήσασαι δέ γυναίκες ˘σαν συνεληλνίαι έκ τής Γ αλιλαλας αύτ˘. Jo. 8. 53 … Αβράμ, őστις άπέθανεν. 18. 13 … Kαïϕα, δς ήν άρχιερεύς γού ένιαντού έκείνον Jo. 21. 25 Εστιν δέ καί äλλα πολλà ä έποίησεν ό “Iησούς, äτινα έàν γρàϕηται καθ’ ëν … (I make the remark that the use of έάν in some other cases [vid. supra Mt. 18. 5] presents the simple relative). Ro. 16. 5–7 àσπáσθε ‘Επαινετόν τόν àγαπητόν μον, ς έστιν άπαρχή τής ‘Aσίας είς Ξριστόν. άσπáσθε Μασίαν, ˘τις πολλà έκοπίασεν είς ύμāς. àσπάςασθε 'Aνσρόνικον καί 'Iοννίαν τούς συγγενείς μον καί συναιχμαλ ώτονς μον, οίτινες είσιν έπίσημοι έν τοίς άποστόλοις. οί καί πρό έμού γέγοναν έν Xσιστ˘. (we find őς … ήτις… οίτινες … οί … a variation in a chiasmic form, with no difference of meaning and with indentiical structure). Ga. 5. 15–21 ίngr;α μή ά έάν θέλητε ταύτα ποιήτε. εί δέ πνεύματι άγεσθε, ούκ έστέ ύπό νόμον. φανερά δέ έστιν τα έργα τής σαρκός, έρις, ζήλος, θυμοί, έρθείαι, διΧοστασίαι, αίρέσεις, μέθαι, κώμοι, καί τά őμοια τούτοις, ά προλέγω ύμίν καθώς προείπον (there is no semantic dinstinction between ά and άτινα, as we can also see at Col. 2. 22–23). Re. 11. 9 …γής πόλεως τής μεγάλης, ητις καλείταί πνευματικώς Σόδομα καί Αίγυπτος 14.8 έπεσερ έπεσεν Βαβυλών ή μεγάλη, ή έκ τού θυμού τής πορρείας αύτής πεπότικερ πάρτα τά έθνη. ete. … One could find all kind of examples that would break any criterion for the semantic distinction between őς and őστις in the TN. So, by means of the second table of the present work and the sebsequent discussion, I try to demonstrate that the relatives in the NT are grouped on the base of some ‘declension law’ ruled by the frequency in the oral use of the language.

[8] Cad., , op. cit., p. 152.Google Scholar

[9] Kälker, K., Quaestioness de elocutione Polybiana (Leipziger Studien II, 1880), pp. 245 ff.Google Scholar

[10] We find έως ότον 7 times: Mt. 5. 25 (D* om εως); Lk. 12. 50 (v.l. έως ού), 13. 8, 15. 8 (v.l. έως ού editors differ), 22. 16 (v.l. έως ού), 22. 18 (v.l. έως ού; editors differ); Jo. 9. 18 (v.l. έως ου); and εως ού 15 times: Mt. 1. 25, 13. 33, 14. 22, 17. 9, 18. 34, 26. 36 (v.l. om ωύ); Lk. 13. 21, 15. 8 (vid. supra) and 22. 18 (vid. supra); Jo. 13. 38 (v.l. om ού); Ac. 21. 26, 23. 12, 23. 14 (v.l. om ού), 23. 21, 25. 21.

[11] In Mk. 6. 23 editors do not agree, and the presence or omission of ɤ makes ɤτι to be a conjunction and not a relative: Mk. 6. 23 ɤτι δ έάν με αίτήσης δώσω σοι ℵΑΚΛΘΠ f13 28 33c 565 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1242 1253 1344 1365 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lectm ita, aur, b, c, d, f, ff2, l, q vg (copsa bo) goth arm ɤτι έάν με αίτήσης δώσω σοι (img)45 BΔ 33* 1241 160m, 1127m, syrph Origen δ έάν με…1009 εί τι άν με…Dgr έάν με…1211m, 1634msyrs, This list of mss. belongs to NT UBS edition (London, 1968) the one the most complete for this case. The text of that edition has printed ő τι (two words) and in the Commentary (vol. II London, 1971, p. 90) they explain the omission of ό as due to a wrong understanding of όтι, so that they prefer the writing ό тι to avoid ambiguity.

[12] Blass/Debrunner, F., op. cit., p. 183.Google Scholar

[13] Cad., , op. cit., p. 152.Google Scholar

[14] Cad, , op. cit., p. 154.Google Scholar

[15] Cad., , op. cit., p. 153.Google Scholar

[16] Cad., , op. cit., p. 154.Google Scholar

[17] Cad., , op. cit., p. 153, note 3.Google Scholar

[18] The list of mss. of the variants collected here is taken from Tischendorf's, edition, Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Octava Critica Maior (Graz, 1965).Google Scholar

[19] Cad., , op. cit., p. 153. We also find a small error: it must be Mk. 4. 16 where we read Mk. 4. 13.Google Scholar

[20] Vid. infra.

[21] Cad., , op. cit., p. 155.Google Scholar This assertion seems to be accepted by Turner, N. (A Grammar of NT Greek (Edinburgh, 1963), p. 47).Google Scholar

[22] Burton, E. W., The Epistle to the Galatians, I.C.C. (Edinburgh, 1950), p. 257.Google Scholar

[23] Cad., , op. cit., p. 155.Google Scholar

[24] In the mss. D e, from Tischendorf's edition.

[25] Cad., , op. cit., p. 157.Google Scholar

[26] We have reckoned 21 instances of πς preceding the pronoun ς in all its cases (Mt. 22. 10, Lk. 2. 20, 9. 43, 9. 43, 12. 8, 12. 10, 12. 48, 24. 25, Jo. 4. 29, 4. 39, 5. 20, 6. 37, 6. 39, 14. 26, 15. 15, 17. 2, Ac. 2. 21, 13. 39, 26. 2, Ro. 10. 13, 14. 23, Ga. 3. 10). We may notice that πς appears 22 times before σος only in the plural forms σοί and οα.

[27] Cad., , op. cit., p. 157.Google Scholar

[28] The mss. ℵcB3 CNXΓΠ unc7 al pier; from Tischendorf's edition.

[29] The mss. P 63. 78*. 95. 101. 106. dscr; from Tischendorf's edition.

[30] Witnessed by the ms. E alone, according to Tischendorf's edition.