[B-Greek] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Apr 16 11:54:03 EDT 2006
On Apr 16, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Albert & Julia Haig wrote:
>> [RB] In the example DE would signal a change of subject/topic.
> Thanks for this, Randall. I think I'm coming to understand the
> point at issue. Briefly, here are three relevant examples of the
> use of DE in Matthew. There doesn't seem to be any change of
> subject/topic in any of these cases except for the shift in speaker/
> actor (i.e. person(s) A say something, and then person(s) B reply).
> Is this enough to constitute a shift in terms of the use of DE?
> Mt. 2:4-5 KAI SUNAGAGWN PANTAS TOUS ARCIEREIS KAI GRAMMATEIS TOU
> LAOU EPUNQANETO PAR AUTWN POU hO CRISTOS GENNATAI. hOI DE EIPAN
> AUTWi, EN BHQLEEM THS IOUDAIAS ...
> Mt.4:19-20 KAI LEGEI AUTOIS DEUTE OPISW MOU, KAI POIHSW hUMAS
> hALIEIS ANQRWPWN. hOI DE EUQEWS AFENTES TA DIKTUA HKOLOUQHSAN AUTWi.
> Mt. 14:16-17 hO DE EIPEN AUTOIS OU CREIAN ECOUSIN APELQEIN, DOTE
> AUTOIS hUMEIS FAGEIN. hOI DE LEGOUSIN AUTWi OUK ECOMEN hWDE EI MH
> PENTE ARTOUS KAI DUO ICQUAS.
>> [RB] Just the opposite, the LXX choose KAI as its conjunction to
>> match vav, since both KAI and VAV could be used to join nouns
>> together as well as clauses. It takes extra energy for someone to
>> add DE to a text when the default was KAI. That means that they do
>> it for a reason.
> This seems to be generally true but not always. Looking through
> Genesis, I came upon 2:6:
> LXX: PHGH DE ANEBAINEN EK THS GHS KAI EPOTIZEN ...
> Heb: ve'ed ya`aleh min-ha'aretz vehishqah ...
> In one case vav is translated as DE, and in the other as KAI.
> Presumably the translators thought that vav was used to shift the
> topic in the first case but not the second? If so, then the
> semantic range of vav in Hebrew seems to encompass both meanings.
> If this is true, it would seem possible that a native Hebrew
> speaker writing in Greek might confuse the meanings or not
> appreciate the distinction (since the distinction is lacking in
> Hebrew). Indeed, isn't this what I've done because I'm a native
> English speaker, in which language the distinction is also lacking?
I don't think that the Greek DE in Gen 2:6 is simply translating VE;
I think it's indicating the shift of focus to the spring rising; the
KAI ahead of the second clause here does convey the simple
continuative sense of the second VE. I'd like to see what Al
Pietersma has to say on this, but it appears to me that the LXX
translator has in this instance correctly used the DE to indicate a
shift of focus, here to the spring.
>> [RB] So how would Greeks have heard Mt 28:17? OI DE 'and others'
>> DE marks a change and OI means a different group.
> OK, I see the point now. So is it impossible that the DE marks a
> change of topic from faith to doubt? Why?
It marks a shift from focus upon those (of the disciples) who
responded in faith to at least two others (of the disciples) who
responded with doubt.
> The other thing that is puzzling about Mt. 28:17, compared to the
> other examples, is that the preceding context presents only two
> actors. The actors are "Jesus" and "the eleven disciples". I can
> understand the use of DE to alternate between previously
> established actors (whether groups or individuals) in the context.
> But it seems strange to use it to introduce a new group of actors
> by means of a pronoun without specifying who they are. It is even
> stranger when the new group is a sub-group of one of the
> established groups, and not a distinct group. In this respect, Mt.
> 28:17 is not even analagous to 26:67, where the group which is
> introduced by means of a pronoun and DE is at least arguably
> distinct from the preceding group.
> But, OK, I'm convinced, it should read "but some doubted". Mea
> culpa, mea culpa. Though this use, in which a pronoun and DE are
> used to introduce an otherwise unspecified and elsewhere
> unmentioned group, does seem to be rare.
The citations from Xenophon's Hellenica and Cyropaedia which I gave
you earlier (you said you would have to hunt them up, but I had done
that, gave you the citations as well as my own English version of
them) involved the same sort of shift to a sub-group of those cited
in what precedes the clause in which the pronoun hO + DE appears.
That is also what is pointed at in the BDAG subsection of the entry
on hO/hH/TO that I cited
> 2. Under hO/hH/hO. The usage of hOI DE to indicate the behavior/
> action of a subgroup of those whose action has been described just
> previously): hO MEN ... hO DE
> b. 28:17 hOI DE introduces a second class; just before this, instead
> of the first class, the whole group is mentioned (cp. X., Hell. 1, 2,
> 14, Cyr. 3, 2, 12; KMcKay, JSNT 24, ’85, 71f)=but some (as Arrian,
> Anab. 5, 2, 7; 5, 14, 4; Lucian, Tim. 4 p. 107; Hesych. Miles. [VI
> AD]: 390 fgm. 1, 35 end Jac.).
and in the reference to Smyth's grammar cited by Bert de Haan:
> Smyh refers to this exact usage in section 2838 b.
"§2838. δέ without μέν.--A clause with δέ often has no
correlative particle in the clause with which it is contrasted. Here
μέν is not used because the opposition in the first clause was
too weak, or because the speaker did not intend to announce a
following contrast or did not think he was going to use a contrasted
δέ clause. Sometimes the entire first clause may have to be
supplied in thought from the general connection or from what has gone
before. δέ without μέν in such cases is common in poetry, but
not rare in prose, even in brief antitheses, as ἃ
πάντες ἀεὶ γλίχονται λέγειν,
ἀξίως δ' οὐδεὶς εἰπει̂ν
δεδύνηται exploits which everybody continually desires to
recount, but which no one has been able to set forth adequately D.
6.11. See also 2835.
"b. οἱ δέ, when opposed to a larger number of persons or
things, is often used without οἱ μέν, as
προεληλυθότες ἐπὶ χῑλόν, οἱ δ'
ἐπὶ ξύλα having gone for fodder, and some for fuel X. C.
6.3.9. [p. 646]"
In sum, then, what we have in verse 17 of Mt 28 is a statement of the
"general" reaction of the eleven disciples to the appearance of
Jesus: they did obeisance to him, and then the specific response of
at least two of the eleven who are not named: they weren't quite sure.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
More information about the B-Greek