PW~S in Epictetus

clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at
Sun Aug 20 22:14:54 EDT 2000

on 08/20/00 5:11 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> At 1:44 PM -0700 8/20/00, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
>> Encountered a use of PWS in reading *Levinskaya which I have not encountered
>> before in a citation from Epictetus**
>> This citation is perfectly simple to understand but it did raise some
>> questions about how PW~S might be used. I was not able to find any
>> enlightenment from the standard sources on this (LSJ, Smyth, BDF, BAGD). I
>> don't think this is a NT or LXX pattern of usage. Searched for multiple PW~S
>> strings and found only one in Jer. 31:39 which was not similar since each
>> PW~S introduced a new clause. I toyed with the idea that each PW~S in this
>> Epictetus** citation was introducing a new clause but that reading seemed to
>> be improbable since hEKASTOS seems to indicate a distribution across all
>> three groups. However if we read LEGETAI as an equative verb functioning
>> like EIMI then it is feasible that LEGETAI could be "elided" so to speak
>> after the second and third PW~S. But this still leaves some loose ends to be
>> tied up.
> I assume that the third word in the citation should be IOUDAION


Yes, this is right,  IOUDAION
> Perseus LSJ has for PW~S:
> IV. p. in indirect questions for hopôs , Aesch. Eum. 677, Soph. Trach. 991
> (anap.), Aristoph. Kn. 614, Xen. Mem. 1.2.36, etc.; ethaumazon an p . . .
> edeisan IG12(3).174.28 (Cnidus, Epist.Aug.); zêtêthêsetai p. hoti kai touto
> alêthes esti S.E. M.8.16.
> and that's what I'd assume we have in this instance--a succession of three
> clauses of indirect question following upon the introductory OUC hORAiS; I
> would understand elliptical carry-over of hEKASTOS LEGETAI (EINAI) in the
> second and third PWS clauses: "Why do you play the role of a Jew when you are
> Greek? Don't you see how one is said as an individual to be Jewish, how (one
> is said as an individual to be) Syrian, how (one is said as an individual to
> be) Egyptian?"

OK, then I was toying with the right idea. There are three clauses here.
However, I was suspecting that some how the three occurrences of PW~S were
working together, you know like OUTE . .OUTE and so forth. Apparently this
is not the case. We do not really have a string of three PW~S,  just three
independent ones.  

Thanks again Carl, you answered my question.

Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

More information about the B-Greek mailing list