Luke 2:4-5, 15, 21

[vir litterarum]

[4] Ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ?κ πόλεως ?αζα?ὲτ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυεὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλε?μ, διᾲ τὸ εἶναι α?τὸν ?ξ οἴκου καὶ πατ?ιᾶς Δαυείδ, [5] ἀπογ?άψασθαι σὺν Μα?ιὰμ τῇ ?μνηστευμένῃ α?τῷ, οὔσῃ ?νκ?ῳ.

Why isn't the article repeated before οὔσῃ?


[15] Καὶ ?γένετο ὡς ἀπῆλθον ἀπ' α?τῶν εἰς τὸν ο??ανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, οἱ ποιμένες ?λάλουν π?ὸς ἀλλήλους Διέλθωμεν [p. 120] δὴ ἕως Βηθλεὲμ καὶ ἴδωμεν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο τὸ γεγονὸς ὃ ? κ??ιος ?γνώ?ισεν ἡμῖν.

is the δὴ a sentence adver or is it just intensifying "ews"?


Καὶ ὅτε ?πλήσθησαν ἡμέ?αι ὀκτὼ τοῦ πε?ιτεμεῖν α?τόν, καὶ ?κλήθη τὸ ὄνομα α?τοῦ Ἰησοῦς, τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου π?ὸ τοῦ συλλημφθῆναι α?τὸν ?ν τῇ κοιλία.

How is τὸ ὄνομα functioning in this verse?

[modus.irrealis]

[vir litterarum]

See I thought οὔσῃ ?νκ?ῳ was predicative also until I looked at the NASB translation which reads thus: "...who was engaged to him, and was with child." This translation clearly makes οὔσῃ ?νκ?ῳ attributive. But then I just found an excellent commentary that confirms your excellent translation of the circumstantial participle. Just another reason not to trust even the "most faithful translation" of the Bible:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EDA9AA ... A1-PA53,M1


You're right that δή is almost always postpositive, but in certain cases such as δὴ τότε or δὴ γά? it can be prepositive, so I was just wondering if perhaps it was an exception.

I was thinking subject also, but it seemed weird to me in translation: "his name was called Jesus"? That doesn't really work in English.


For the "kai" see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EDA9AA ... A1-PA62,M1

[modus.irrealis]

[vir litterarum]

Here's what the commentary says about οὔσῃ ?νκ?ῳ:

The οὔσῃ introduces, not a mere fact, but the reason for what has just been stated. Not, he had her with him, and she happened to be wih child; but, he took her with him, "because she was with child." After what is related Mt. i. 19 he would not leave her at this crisis.

If A substantive is preceded by two attributives, though, can't it take only one article, e.g. ? παχὺς πλο?σιος ἀνή?̣ or "the fat,rich man"? Wouldn't it be possible, then, to use only one article when two attributives are following their noun?



Here's what it says about the "kai":

"The καὶ is almost our "then" and the German da: but it may be left untranslated. It introudces the apodosis, as often in Grk., and esp. in Lk.


I knew "de" often introduced the apodosis, but I was not aware that "kai" was used in the same way.

[modus.irrealis]

[vir litterarum]

So if one were to say " ? ἀνη? ? πλο?σιος παχ?ς," the παχ?ς must be predicative?

[modus.irrealis]

[vir litterarum]

what made you change your mind?

[Swth\r]

[modus.irrealis]

[vir litterarum]

(which he says may in fact be predicative even if we translate it as attributive)

I don't understand what you mean by this. Why would we translate a predicative adjective as an attributive adjective?

[modus.irrealis]

After some digging up on google books, I managed to get the relevant sections. In section 50.9 about "attributive positions with two attributes or more", he writes:

It also happens that the second modifier without an article of its own follows the substantive: ? ἀγαθὸς ἀνὴ? Μα?αθῶνι. However, such an attribute is strictly speaking the predicative position and an expanded translation as a predicate only follows a hint which is present in the Greek.

but later, in section 50.10.3, specifically about participles, he writes:

Especially when there are several modifiers of the participle and/or attributes of the substantive an attributive participle, sometimes with one or more of its modifiers, is squeezed out of the usual attributive positions into an apparently predicative position. The primary mover here again is the tendency of the article to attach as closely as is convenient to its substantive. If that is the only reason for the position of the participle it retains the slightly deadended, simply adjectival force it would usually have in attribution. But the properly predicative position the participle has been thrust into can have the effect of releasing its causal and explanatory force. Then expansive translations are in order. The inherently ambivalent nature of the idiom opens up many nice questions of interpretation. In more place than might at first seem natural the simply attributive deadened interpretation is best. But this presumption does not always hold.

So I guess the why would be because the position might be a result simply of this tendency for the article to move nearer the noun. What do you think of the Xenophon quote I gave (which is actually 5.6.20 and not 5.6.1)? An attributive interpretation seems natural, although now it seems to me it could be predicative as well, say something like "of the land around [here], it being about the Black Sea."

[vir litterarum]

Thank you for the reference: Cooper's explanation is lucid and enlightening. It seems that most translators at any rate agree with Cooper that in this instance the "attributive deadened interpretation is best." I was not aware that attributes were ever removed from the article-noun complex in order to keep the article closer to the noun, and I am sure such knowledge will enhance my reading of Attic prose. As your quote from the Anabasis indicates, I am certain in most instances context will easily indicate whether a predicative or attributive reading is best; however, I am still wondering whether Luke was intending to say, as the aforementioned commentator asserts, that Mary's pregnancy was the reason Joseph brought her, or whether her pregnancy was merely a concurrent attribute with her betrothal.