[B-Greek] The Article / Was Zechariah 8:3 (LXX)
stbaldwi at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 13 21:31:14 EDT 2009
<BLU0-SMTP89F9969E3AA9FE8AB5063FF3C70 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Leonard's question coincides with a small amount of reading I've been doing=
in Wallace [GGBB]. The article in Greek seems to be [according to Wallace'=
s intro] a most curious thing. Its uses are not immediately apparent to the=
novice and does not function in the same as e.g. English. We see articles =
appearing and disappearing seemingly arbitrarily.
Wallace mentions Middleton's book The Doctrine of the Article [150+ yrs old=
I'd be interested to know the current state of knowledge=2C any comments on=
the treatment of the subject in GGBB -- and also=2C something that occurre=
d to me in the discussion on Zechariah -- namely=2C if the Biblical writers=
are introducing Hebraisms [and Aramaisms] into their [Greek] texts=2C does=
this not present a problem in trying to arrive at a definition of "correct=
" Greek usage? Does this force us to look outside of the Biblical texts for=
correct usage since the LXX is [mostly] from Hebrew and chunks of the NT a=
re [apparently] reporting on proceedings conducted in Aramaic [or is the la=
tter true only of the gospels?] Or put another way=2C where do we look in t=
he Bible for examples of good Greek?
Just curious. Hope this makes sense!
stbaldwi at hotmail.com
> From: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
> To: cwconrad2 at mac.com
> Date: Tue=2C 13 Oct 2009 10:13:30 -0400
> CC: leonardj at live.com=3B b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Zechariah 8:3 (LXX)
> The presence or absence of articles in most the LXX is certainly one
> of its biggest problems. Carl is quite right in suggesting that in
> Zech 8:3 (and often in the LXX) one cannot rely on the translated text
> to reflect standard usage. While it can be safely stated that articles
> in the Hebrew text are typically represented in the Greek=2C it can not
> be inferred that articles in the Greek have explicit warrant in the
> Hebrew parent text. Ergo: usage in the LXX is not bona fide Greek
> usage until proven to be such.
> On Oct 13=2C 2009=2C at 5:51 AM=2C Carl Conrad wrote:
>> On Oct 13=2C 2009=2C at 2:27 AM=2C Leonard Jayawardena wrote:
>>> KLHQHSETAI hH IEROUSALHM POLIS hH ALHQINH KAI TO OROS KURIOU
>>> PANTOKRATOROS OROS hAGION.
>>> POLIS hH ALHQINH is translated "a true city" in Brenton's
>>> translation and "a city that is true" in the NETS translation.
>>> What purpose does the definite article serve before ALHQINH? Why
>>> isn't in the form POLIS ALHQINH in parallel with OROS hAGION?
>>> Alternatively=2C why not OROS TO hAGION in parallel with POLIS hH
>>> POLIS hH ALHQINH is literally "a city=2C the true one"?
>> I think what we have here in the Greek LXX text is simply a literal
>> translation of the Hebrew construct-noun IR-hA-EMETH=2C in which case
>> the Greek definite article isn't functioning as it ordinarily does in
>> Greek usage.
>> Carl W. Conrad
>> Department of Classics=2C Washington University (Retired)
>> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
>> B-Greek mailing list
>> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Albert Pietersma PhD
> 21 Cross Street=2C
> Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
> Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
> Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft=92s powerful SPAM protection.=0A=
More information about the B-Greek