Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ken Penner" <pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca>]

Amenophei is in the dative case, here meaning "to" (The king communicated
"to" Amenophis).
The phrase about Paapios immediately follows Amenophei: patros de Paapios
onti. Onti is the participle of "be" in the dative case: "to [the one]
being." Patros and Paapios are both gentive, and refer to the same person.
Amenophei and onti are both dative, and refer to the same person.

"The king communicated his desire to Amenophis (i.e., to the one who was
[son] of father Paapias)."

In 243, the king recalled the prediction para Amenophews tou Paapios. Here
Amenophews is genitive, because it is governed by the preposition "para",
here meaning "from". The phrase tou Paapios is likewise genitive ("of (the)
Paapis"), but in light of 232, does not refer to Amenophis but to his
father, as you thought originally.

The news perturbed the king, who recalled the prediction from Amenophis
[son] of Paapis.

Ken Penner, M.C.S. (Biblical Languages, Greek Focus), M.A. (Hebrew Poetry)
Ph.D. (cand.), McMaster University
pennerkm AT mcmaster.ca
Greek and Hebrew vocabulary software: http://s91279732.onlinehome.us/flash
or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flash_pro/join



> > >I hope some people here are more knowledgeable in Greek 
> than I am because 
> > I 
> > >want to make certain of some passages from the Greek text 
> of Josephus.  It 
> > has 
> > >to do with his reference to a certain "Amenophis", a 
> wiseman, universally 
> > >accepted to be a well-documented actual person from AE, 
> Amenhotep son of 
> > Hapu.  
> > >When Josephus first mentions the wiseman he writes, 
> "Amenophis patros de 
> > >Paapios" and then later 
> > >"Amenophis ton Paapios", both translated as "Amenophis son 
> of Paapis.  I 
> > know 
> > >that
> > >"patros" means "father", but I can't understand the 
> presence of "de" in the 
> > 
> > >phrase.  Also, I think "ton" can mean "the son of" but 
> also just plain 
> > "of".  
> > >Anybody?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > "de" means "and" or "but" but is positioned after the first word 
> > following it. So "Amenophis patros de Paapios" means something like 
> > "Amenophis and of the father (of) Paapis" - assuming that 
> "Paapios" is a 
> > somewhat unusual genitive form from Paapis. "ton" is a form of the 
> > article, but it doesn't make sense here because it is 
> accusative, but 
> > "Amenophis ... Paapios" may mean "Amenophis [son] of 
> Paapis", with "son" 
> > implied which is quite common. Of course the whole thing 
> could be more 
> > clear from the Greek context, especially as Greek word 
> order is very 
> > free and different phrases can interleave with one another.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Well, the sentence apprears to say "(the king) communicated 
> his desire to his 
> namesake (men auto) Amenophis patros de Paapios" whose widsom 
> and knowledge 
> of the future were regarded as marks of divinity".  This last 
> made everybody 
> certain all this referred to Amenhotep son of Hapu, an 
> individual who later 
> became deified.
> But I'm not so sure.  In the writing of "Paapios", the second 
> a has an accent 
> mark above it.  Why?  And the footnote says the editor 
> prefers "Papios" 
> --with only the second a.  The next context says "Amenophis, 
> king of Egypt, who 
> recalled the prediction of (para Amenophis ton Paapios 
> mnestheis prodeloseos).  
> Would any of this make more sense of "Paapios" was a toponym 
> instead of a 
> proper name?