Textkit Logo

Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar?

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar?

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu May 10, 2018 9:14 am

Are these two fragments synoptic parallels or just different occasions when a similar message was given?

Matthew 12:11-12 wrote:Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τίς ἔσται ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἕξει πρόβατον ἕν, καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον, οὐχὶ κρατήσει αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγερεῖ; Πόσῳ οὖν διαφέρει ἄνθρωπος προβάτου. Ὥστε ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν καλῶς ποιεῖν.


Luke 14:5 wrote:Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν, Τίνος ὑμῶν υἱὸς ἢ βοῦς εἰς φρέαρ ἐμπεσεῖται, καὶ οὐκ εὐθέως ἀνασπάσει αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου;


There seem to be parallel elements:
  • The falling (in) is similar,
  • what is fallen into is a little similar,
  • what or who does the falling is somewhat similar
  • the element of emphasis is there expressed by οὐ -> οὐχὶ ("how could he not") and οὐκ -> οὐκ εὐθέως ("would he not without hesitation") and
  • the action of getting him or it out is probably the same, assuming that ἀνασπάσει = κρατήσει αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγερεῖ.

Does that degree of similarity meet the criterea for it being a synoptic parallel?
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Thu May 10, 2018 11:49 am

Similar idea, but I would expect a greater degree of verbal parallelism if it were a synoptic parallel.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Thu May 10, 2018 2:54 pm

This is quite an interesting little passage, but you should include Mark 3:1-6 and Luke 6:6-11 to see what's going on.

What Luke is doing here is clear enough to me anyway. Mark 3:1-6 is the original story, concerning the man with the withered hand. Matthew expands it in 12:9-14, and adds the illustration. Luke, following Mark, has already summarized the story early on in 6:6-11. So far so good, and not too controversial, I hope?

Now is where it gets fun. Here in Luke 14:5, I think, Lukes has arrived at the same story in Matthew, and doesn't want to drop the very nice illustration. But he has already summarized the withered hand story from Mark and can't just repeat it, nor go back and erase. So the ἄνθρωπος χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν becomes ἄνθρωπός τις ὑδρωπικός -- a bit of a wink to the reader -- and he tells an altered version to preserve the Matthean content.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby C. S. Bartholomew » Thu May 10, 2018 7:51 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Similar idea, but I would expect a greater degree of verbal parallelism if it were a synoptic parallel.


I agree and furthermore my assessment of the entire field of Synoptic research is more critical than Eta Linnemann's. My favorite book on the topic is by David Laird Dungan.

David Laird Dungan, History of the Synoptic Problem, Yale UP, 1999.

Linnemann, Eta. Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary
Dependence of the First Three Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Thu May 10, 2018 10:25 pm

jeidsath wrote:This is quite an interesting little passage, but you should include Mark 3:1-6 and Luke 6:6-11 to see what's going on.

What Luke is doing here is clear enough to me anyway. Mark 3:1-6 is the original story, concerning the man with the withered hand. Matthew expands it in 12:9-14, and adds the illustration. Luke, following Mark, has already summarized the story early on in 6:6-11. So far so good, and not too controversial, I hope?

Now is where it gets fun. Here in Luke 14:5, I think, Lukes has arrived at the same story in Matthew, and doesn't want to drop the very nice illustration. But he has already summarized the withered hand story from Mark and can't just repeat it, nor go back and erase. So the ἄνθρωπος χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν becomes ἄνθρωπός τις ὑδρωπικός -- a bit of a wink to the reader -- and he tells an altered version to preserve the Matthean content.


Interesting, plausible, and like nearly all theoretical reconstructions, subjective and impossible to prove. One of the things that makes NT studies so much fun... :lol:
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Wed May 16, 2018 10:20 am

jeidsath wrote:This is quite an interesting little passage, but you should include Mark 3:1-6 and Luke 6:6-11 to see what's going on. ...

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Interesting, plausible, and like nearly all theoretical reconstructions, subjective and impossible to prove. One of the things that makes NT studies so much fun... :lol:

Seeing as this seems like a respectful forum full of healthy positive energy, let me share something that I found quite interesting when I was looking into Joel's suggestion to read Luke 6.

It seems that in composition / compilation, Luke needed to add an extra phrase to the end of verse one to complete the sentence, so he added a clause based on ψήχειν/ψώχειν (a synonym of τίλλειν) to round out the thought beginning with ἠσθιον used as a contextualiser. I guess that the Medieval redactors felt that there was no much telicity in having the direct object τοὺς στάχυας with that verb, so they bumped that object up to the previous (specific) clause with τίλλειν. As far as being a composer / redactor, Luke was able to round out (or make complete) thoughts, but in this case, he left his introductory or contextualising phrase too heavy for the sensibilities of wider readership.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Wed May 16, 2018 1:09 pm

ἑκηβόλος wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Interesting, plausible, and like nearly all theoretical reconstructions, subjective and impossible to prove. One of the things that makes NT studies so much fun... :lol:

Seeing as this seems like a respectful forum full of healthy positive energy, let me share something that I found quite interesting when I was looking into Joel's suggestion to read Luke 6.

It seems that in composition / compilation, Luke needed to add an extra phrase to the end of verse one to complete the sentence, so he added a clause based on ψήχειν/ψώχειν (a synonym of τίλλειν) to round out the thought beginning with ἠσθιον used as a contextualiser. I guess that the Medieval redactors felt that there was no much telicity in having the direct object τοὺς στάχυας with that verb, so they bumped that object up to the previous (specific) clause with τίλλειν. As far as being a composer / redactor, Luke was able to round out (or make complete) thoughts, but in this case, he left his introductory or contextualising phrase too heavy for the sensibilities of wider readership.


Here is Luke for reference:

Luke 6:1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ1 διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων, καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν


My first reaction to this was to think that you were being sarcastic and deliberately writing a post to prove my point. But in case you are serious, note that Matthew has:

Matt 12:1 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν...

And if we accept Marcan priority:

Mark 12:23 Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας.

Note that Matthew also "adds" καὶ ἐσθίειν, so would you say the same dynamic is coming into play, the need to round out the thought? And why would anyone think there is no "telicity" for the verb τίλλω? And what medieval redactors? The vast majority of manuscripts from ancient times read this way, and the textual variation that exists does not affect the point.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Wed May 16, 2018 1:26 pm

ψήχειν/ψώχειν (a synonym of τίλλειν)


But they are not synonyms.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Wed May 16, 2018 2:43 pm

jeidsath wrote:
ψήχειν/ψώχειν (a synonym of τίλλειν)


But they are not synonyms.


Good point.

ψώχω (Hesych.; Etym. Mag. p. 818, 44; as a mid. Nicander, Theriaca 629) to rub someth. under pressure so as to make it smaller (cp. ψώμιον), rub so as to thresh or separate the seed from its husk (Diosc., Mat. Med. 5, 159 pass.) ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν Lk 6:1.—DELG s.v. ψήω D. Frisk s.v. ψῆν. M-M.

τίλλω impf. ἔτιλλον; aor. ptc. τίλας (ApcrEzek [Epiph. 70, 10]). Pass. pf. ptc. gen. τετιλμένου Is 18:7; aor. 3 sg. ἐτίλη Da 7:4 (Hom. et al.; pap, LXX; PsSol 13:3; AscIs 2:11) pluck, pick τὶ someth. (Diod S 5, 21, 5 τοὺς παλαιοὺς στάχυς τίλλειν; τίλλ. χόρτον: PFlor 321, 47; 322, 20.—Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 223, De Jos. 16) στάχυας heads of wheat Mt 12:1; Mk 2:23; Lk 6:1.—Dalman, Arbeit II 339; BCohen, The Rabb. Law Presupp. by Mt 12:1 and Lk 6:1: HTR 23, 1930, 91f; Murmelstein (s. on σπόριμος).—DELG. M-M. Spicq. Sv.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 1004). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Wed May 16, 2018 6:31 pm

I'm hungry, but the apples are on the tree unpeeled...
Let me peel that for you.
Let me cut the skin off

But they are not synonyms.


Well, I'm sorry for your loss. I hope you find something else to eat.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Wed May 16, 2018 8:58 pm

Luke is not describing two ways to peel an apple (or a head of grain, as it were).

Here is what you get after you τίλλειν a head of grain:

Image

After you then ψώχειν that head of grain between your fingers, you get the following:

Image

These are not synonyms.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu May 17, 2018 1:09 am

jeidsath wrote:Luke is not describing two ways to peel an apple (or a head of grain, as it were).

Here is what you get after you τίλλειν a head of grain:

Image

After you then ψώχειν that head of grain between your fingers, you get the following:

Image

These are not synonyms.

Beautiful pictures. Which on eof them did Matthew imagine was being eaten when he simply wrote καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν? I think it was the second one. There is however, the logically possible argument that Mark and Matthew mention the disciples' hunger, so they could be assumed to have skipped the step involving rubbing off the husks and eaten what they had plucked, like livestock. But, it guess that it would be shorter period of time from sight to swallow if the didn't have a mouth full of stalks and husks.

Consider that a sentence like, "She killed a chicken and they had delicious lunch." doesn't imply that they ate raw meat, like foxes. The word "killed" means "cooked", in that it mentions just a part of the process. Because both "killed" and "cooked" are talking about the same thing in reality, they are synonyms. Another person can say, "She cooked a chicken and they had a delicious lunch." and we understand that it was killed (and plucked) too, before boiling or roasting. When I am mentioning "synonyms", that is the sense that I am using it in. Luke uses a synonym = he uses another word that describes a step in the preparation process to talk about the whole process. Perhaps you could think of it as synecdochic synonymy.

To come back to the bigger picture for a moment, in essence I'm saying that Luke uses a pleonasm for the sake of maintaining stylistic forms.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu May 17, 2018 2:00 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:ψώχω (Hesych.; Etym. Mag. p. 818, 44; as a mid. Nicander, Theriaca 629) to rub someth. under pressure so as to make it smaller (cp. ψώμιον), rub so as to thresh or separate the seed from its husk (Diosc., Mat. Med. 5, 159 pass.) ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν Lk 6:1.—DELG s.v. ψήω D. Frisk s.v. ψῆν. M-M.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 1004). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Besides ψώμιον, you could also compare ψίξ / ψιχίον.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu May 17, 2018 2:47 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:My first reaction to this was to think that you were being sarcastic and deliberately writing a post to prove my point.

New ideas are reacted to in a variety of ways.

Barry Hofstetter wrote:... why would anyone think there is no "telicity" for the verb τίλλω?

It is useful to differentiate between three types of telicity; lexicosemantic, morphosyntactic and discourse-structural. Because τίλλειν is lexically telic, the association of the extra element τοὺς στάχυας with it would syntactically limit an already limited word - like something with two coats of paint of the same colour is still the same colour. When Luke wrote ἐσθίειν τοὺς στάχυας, the τοὺς στάχυας added an element of morphosyntactic telicity that may have conflicted with its discourse-structural need to have a lack of telicity - like painting a darker colour over a light colour in a place where light colours are expected.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby Barry Hofstetter » Thu May 17, 2018 2:55 am

ἑκηβόλος wrote:
Consider that a sentence like, "She killed a chicken and they had delicious lunch." doesn't imply that they ate raw meat, like foxes. The word "killed" means "cooked", in that it mentions just a part of the process. Because both "killed" and "cooked" are talking about the same thing in reality, they are synonyms. Another person can say, "She cooked a chicken and they had a delicious lunch." and we understand that it was killed (and plucked) too, before boiling or roasting. When I am mentioning "synonyms", that is the sense that I am using it in. Luke uses a synonym = he uses another word that describes a step in the preparation process to talk about the whole process. Perhaps you could think of it as synecdochic synonymy.

To come back to the bigger picture for a moment, in essence I'm saying that Luke uses a pleonasm for the sake of maintaining stylistic forms.


I'm practically speechless. Really? Not only are kill and cook not synonyms, but the "logic" you use to arrive at your conclusion is incredible. You are giving your own idiosyncratic definition of synonym, a definition to which nobody else will agree.

This conversation sounded hauntingly familiar to me, and then I remembered:

Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass wrote:
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."


Of course, that invites the question, "Why is a raven like a writing desk?"
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby mwh » Thu May 17, 2018 3:36 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
I'm practically speechless.

But not completely.

Note "synecdochic." It's an interesting argument, however misguided.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Thu May 17, 2018 4:59 am

Larry: Moe picked an apple and ate.

Curly: Moe picked an apple, bit into it, and ate.

ἑκηβόλος: See, Curly has rounded out Larry's thought using a contextualiser, adding telicity with "bit," synonymous as it is to "pick." Curly has left his contextualising phrase to heavy for our sensibilities. For Larry, "pick" is synecdochic for "bit and ate."

Barry: "ap·ple /ˈapəl/ noun 1. the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh. Many varieties have been developed as dessert or cooking fruit or for making cider. 2. the tree which bears apples."

Joel: Curly's composition is based on Larry's. The Shemp document is a 19th-century fever dream of German scholarship.

Michael: sees an opportunity to troll believers in Moe
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu May 17, 2018 4:29 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
ἑκηβόλος wrote:Luke uses a synonym = he uses another word that describes a step in the preparation process to talk about the whole process. Perhaps you could think of it as synecdochic synonymy.
You are giving your own idiosyncratic definition of synonym, a definition to which nobody else will agree.

The classical definition, in which synonyms which are valid in (non-contextual) abstract, which everybody agrees to, reflects the idea that words in themselves and of themselves have a meaning - Classical rule; Synonyms are words which of themselves have similar meanings. If we move to the view that words have meanings in context, and without context (verbal or non-verbal) there is no meaning, then the definition of synonym needs to to be defined in terms of contexts too - Context based rule; Synonyms are words with have the same or similar meaning as each other in the context in which they are used. Further to the contextual meaning and synonymy, in the case where a word infers far more than its simple meaning in a context, then anything else that could infer the larger meaning is "synonymous". Going the other way, inherent or zero context synonyms are a particular type of contextualised synonyms where the value of context is zero or null - everybody agrees with my definition its zero condition. Most people agree that words interact with their contexts for meaning to be developed. I find a conflict between holding to the idea of contextualised meaning, while maintaining the concept of decontextualised synonymy.

In a translational text like the New Testament, there is and added issue of different (hypothetical) approaches to translation are expressing an original meaning, and whether different renderings of a Vorlage are synonymous.

I think that the standard by which a synonym can be judged is interchangeablity. If one word can be put in place of another in a given context, and the overall meaning is about the same, then there is a case for synonymy. Within the absolute or non-contextual definition of synonymy, substituting one word for the other at the head of a definition is sufficient interchangeability to warrant the recognition of synonymy. In a context driven definition of synonymy, interchangeability in a given context is adequate to define words as synonymous in that particular context. In the case of synecdoche, then a word, which can infer the same whole, might be considered synonymous, because the meaning to be conveyed is not the part which conveys it, but rather the whole, which is implied in context by the part.

Barry Hofstetter wrote:Of course, that invites the question, "Why is a raven like a writing desk?"

I draw a blank on that. You'll have to explain it to me.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Thu May 17, 2018 5:27 pm

They aren't synonyms in the Luke verse. One word refers to plucking the heads, the other to crushing them in the hand to get the kernels.

In Matthew the "pluck" signifies the whole process (yes, this is "synecdoche"). And "rub" or "crush" could have been used to refer to the same. The meanings would have been synonymous in such an (imaginary) case. There is no "classical" about it. However, in Luke, neither word signals the whole process, and there is no synecdoche, and there is no synonymity.

Your initial statement did not make any such tortured theory as you have now tried to argue. Reviewing, it appears that you made a blunder, and are trying to throw up squid ink now. I don't see the point. People who don't know the technical vocabulary you are using can't understand you anyway, and people who do know the technical vocabulary that you are using aren't impressed by its overuse.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu May 17, 2018 6:27 pm

jeidsath wrote:Michael: sees an opportunity to troll believers in Moe

Interestingly, the impetus for this part of the thread comes from the repeated use of εὐδία by our believing friends. Seeing bedwere put εὐδία at the very end of a sentence irritates me. Without some disconnective strategy, such as putting it in a prepositional phrase, it can't be there.

jeidsath wrote:ἑκηβόλος: See, Curly has rounded out Larry's thought using a contextualiser, adding telicity with "bit," synonymous as it is to "pick." Curly has left his contextualising phrase to heavy for our sensibilities. For Larry, "pick" is synecdochic for "bit and ate."

You have more-or-less got that, so here is the background. Assuming Marcian precedence and then working in the details from Matthew, the crux comes when Luke tries to remove the periphrasis and replace it with the inceptive (ingressive) imperfect. The basis for composition is the pairing of verbs, and that is worked out by the three authours in different ways.

In Mark, the scene begins with the first pair of vebs in the (possibly) Semitic structure of Καὶ ἐγένετο¹ παραπορεύεσθαι² αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, That structure may in fact not follow the phrase pairing rules so closely. After that, in the second verbal pair the periphrastic tense is paired with the following participle καὶ ἤρξαντο¹ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὁδὸν ποιεῖν¹ τίλλοντες² τοὺς στάχυας.

In Matthew, the ἐγένετο structure is dropped, leaving the παραπορεύεσθαι in first position in the verbal pair. Quite predictably, it is put into the "passive" form of the middle-passive voice to signify that a verb which is usually used in the second place in a verbal pair, is now being used in first place. (Carl Conrad doesn't seem to have made an attempt to account for patterns of usage, that show up when the dual speech styles are analysed, when he talks about in his two-voice theory). Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη¹ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· The verb in second place follows that οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν², Next, there are two ways to analysis what is happening. Either the ἄρχεσθαι is the first verb of the pair and there are two verbs in the second part, viz. καὶ ἤρξαντο¹ τίλλειν² στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν², OR that the periphrastic tense is the first verb with its status as a (periphrastic) first verb coming from the ἄρχεσθαι, and verb in the infinitive by itself (separated by the καί) is the second verb, viz. ἤρξαντο¹ τίλλειν¹ στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν². There are reasons for each of those choices being valid, so I'm undecided.

When Luke redacts that, he gets rid of the periphrastic tense with ἄρχεσθαι, and that has a knock on effect in the structure. Luke treats ἐγένετο + infinitive here as a periphrastic tense taking the positiin of the first in the pair, viz. Ἐγένετο¹ δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι¹ αὐτὸν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· The second phrase concerns the disciples that are doing their action in the context if Jesus' action (ie. walking too) καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τοὺς στάχυας, That first pair is followed by another pair, with καὶ ἤσθιον, ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν., in which ἐσθίειν has been moved into the position of the first (contextualising) verb in the pair. It seems to be good compositional practice to avoid leaving a first phrase hanging there, in the absence of a second phrase to complement it. That is to say, Luke added a second phrase expressing another part of the larger foraging / eating action. Such an action was already entailed in the story, and was explicated because there was a need to add another type 2 phrase.

Type 1 phrases tend to be less telic than type 2 phrases. That suggests that in the variant reading καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. (attested in P4, P75, Vaticanus and Ephraemi Rescriptus) should possibly be read with the τοὺς στάχυας grouped with the ψώχοντες.

Our zealous friend bedwere has got himself into a similar situation as Luke was forced to avoid, I think, with his recent composition.
Καίπερ πρωῒ τοῦ ἡλίου χρόνον οὐ φαινομένου, δείλῃ εὐδία ἐγένετο.

It seems that his second phrase is another first phrase. If his εὐδία ἐγένετο is rightfully a contextualising phrase, then it needs another more telic phrase after it. That could be achieved by using inherently telic vocabulary, perhaps with more use of direct objects.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby mwh » Thu May 17, 2018 6:49 pm

Joel, In trolling Barry with a lexicographical entry for apple you neglected to specify your source, with full bibliographical reference.

I think it's good to be introduced to terms and concepts like telicity.

I once met a girl called Felicity.
I told her I did it
without temporal limit
but she said I was lacking telicity.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Thu May 17, 2018 7:12 pm

jeidsath wrote:They aren't synonyms in the Luke verse. One word refers to plucking the heads, the other to crushing them in the hand to get the kernels.

In Matthew the "pluck" signifies the whole process (yes, this is "synecdoche"). And "rub" or "crush" could have been used to refer to the same. The meanings would have been synonymous in such an (imaginary) case. There is no "classical" about it. However, in Luke, neither word signals the whole process, and there is no synecdoche, and there is no synonymity.

I think of it like the "it" that appears idiomatically, in things like, "Do you want the water melon or not? Yes. I want it." The pronoun is required by the language. I have no idea why the particular detail of the rubbing was explicated and not another detail like chewing.

jeidsath wrote:Your initial statement did not make any such tortured theory as you have now tried to argue.

Your tone suggests that perhaps you could have written "torturous" there.

jeidsath wrote:Reviewing, it appears that you made a blunder, and are trying to throw up squid ink now. I don't see the point.

I'm flexible on this. Presenting arguments based on the concept of a fluid synonymy based on Luke's reworking of Mark and Matthew's synecdoche, or presenting them based on logical lexicosemantic taxonomy, where the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both) seem to both be reasonable lines of explanation to pursue. If the reasoning about synonymy is problematic for you, you could think of the way that "eat steak" entails "have a main course". When my mother asks, would people like steak or a pork chop for dinner, you know that there will be salad or vegetables with it, depending on the season. Adding another detail about eating the main course doesn't add another course to the meal. Something like, "put the steaming vegetables out on a dish on the table", gives the same (unstated) information about which course is being eaten.

You are saying that pluck is pluck, and rub is rub, and at that level of understanding the individual actions I agree with you, of course. I'm saying that pluck is forage and rub is forage, and forage was a legal action. They took the grain from their neighbour's field, and put it straight in their mouths. They didn't put any in their pockets for later. They plucked rather than harvested. They rubbed rather than threshed. Throwing in the sickle and winnowing would both imply a contravention of the law. Either or both of the words that Luke uses means that their action was lawful foraging.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Thu May 17, 2018 7:53 pm

No, I meant "tortured," in that your reasoning and presentation has some easily identifiable flaws. "Torturous" would emphasize that it's painful to read through. It's not painful or difficult to read your prose. I only find it disappointing that, after reading, I get to the end and see that someone has wasted so many 2 dollar words for a 2 cent meal. I spent my youth dealing with the real technical vocabularies of math and physics, whose inherent complexities derive from the difficulty of the concepts and the fact that everybody working in the field is an autist with social issues. When I see a technical vocabulary with an artificial and affected complexity, I simply find it silly. Science-envy.

"Telicity" is appropriate in the right context of linguistics or composition (or the right dirty limerick), but you shouldn't pull it out for times when you can say "resolution" instead.

Generally, if your technical vocabulary increases the precision of your prose, you've deployed it correctly. But "the concept of a fluid synonymy" or "logical lexicosemantic taxonomy" or "the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both)" is mushy and imprecise. Mushy prose is muddled thought.

Let's look in detail at these:

"the concept of a fluid synonymy" -- Yes, words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others. I believe that this was covered in elementary school for most people.

"logical lexicosemantic taxonomy" -- Taxonomies are rational by definition, so "logical" adds nothing. Neither does lexicosemantic add anything, as you are not actually using it to contrast against non-lexicosemantic taxonomies. A "fluid synonymy" is completely "lexicosemantic."

Further, it's misleading that you've invented an imaginary conflict between fluid synonymy and rigid taxonomies of synonyms. We are all adults here, and we all understand that words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others.

"the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both)" -- the word "imply" carries all the meaning here, with the other words adding nothing real.

Fix the mushy thinking, please! The 2 dollar words don't hide it, and actually make the problem worse. Once you're thinking clearly, then you'll know exactly the right time to deploy them.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Fri May 18, 2018 2:12 am

Ha ha. Quite a different reaction to new ideas than Barry's surprise and near speechlessness. Bringing your past experiences and present assumptions about things to bear on something new is quite valid. Thank you for engaging with this so passionately.

jeidsath wrote:"Telicity" is appropriate in the right context of linguistics or composition (o[f] the right dirty limerick), but you shouldn't pull it out for times when you can say "resolution" instead.

Michael has substituted the initial "pl" of τίλλειν with an "f".

You'd have to explain a bit what you mean by "resolution". Is it like plot resolution, like when tension in the storyline is resolved - the non-specific statements of the contextualising phrase leave us wondering what will happen next, then the detailed phrase resolves our wondering? Alternatively, is it resolution like as in a high definition TV, where second phrase or verb is the detailed description of something specific? Both of those seems plausible interpretations of your "resolution" here, because they are both inherent in the phrase pairing model. If I myself was to prefer one, it would be the detailed definition one.

jeidsath wrote:"the concept of a fluid synonymy" -- Yes, words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others. I believe that this was covered in elementary school for most people.

In school you learned that recognised synonyms were limited in use by their contexts. I am saying that anything can be a synonym if it means the same thing in a given context. The meaning behind the text or implied by the text in context is the test of synonymy, not just words themself. The ultimate basis of my thinking about synonymy is Halliday's social semiotic theory.

jeidsath wrote:"logical lexicosemantic taxonomy" -- Taxonomies are rational by definition, so "logical" adds nothing. Neither does lexicosemantic add anything, as you are not actually using it to contrast against non-lexicosemantic taxonomies.
"Logical" contrasts with other taxonomies here. The assumption that you are using to counter it is indeed being challenged by this statement. As you have correctly noticed, this is the first mention of a new idea. The relationship between the vocabulary structures of Greek, and the development of the Western ideas of logic is an interesting topic, but it doesn't seems to have direct bearing on the textual adaptations here.

As I mentioned previously (to Barry, I think), I find it useful to differentiate between three ways of deriving meaning; inherent (lexicosemantic), morphosyntactic and text structural. Using the adjective lexicosemantic here is deliberate.

jeidsath wrote:A "fluid synonymy" is completely "lexicosemantic."

You need to re-think that. Your statement here reads as "a synonymy based on context is only based in inherent meaning".

jeidsath wrote:Further, it's misleading that you've invented an imaginary conflict between fluid synonymy and rigid taxonomies of synonyms. We are all adults here, and we all understand that words can be synonyms in some contexts but not others.

Feeling that you've been misled, when your ideas are challenged is one possible reaction to new ideas. I'll leave you to get over your own reaction in this case, being as you are an adult.

jeidsath wrote:"the hyponyms imply the hypernym either severally or together (either or both)" -- the word "imply" carries all the meaning here, with the other words adding nothing real.

Ditto from above for this part of the tantrum too. Of course there is meaning in the whole phrase - simply saying "imply" doesn't say as much as the phrase.

Within these three retellings of the story, we are left to imply from the logical hyponyms that the action is lawful. There is no inherent need, as this example shows, to use the logical hypernym in the contextualising clause. In other passages, however, there is a much more explicit logical relationship between the contextualising and detailed, such as the two types in Acts 8:3 Σαῦλος δὲ ἐλυμαίνετο τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ τοὺς οἴκους εἰσπορευόμενος, σύρων τε ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας παρεδίδου εἰς φυλακήν., where in the first pair going into the houses of the Christians is an example or explanation of how he mistreated the church, and in the second the place he ultimately dragged them to is prison.

Let me step aside from the reply to Joel, for a moment, to mention something not already mentioned. One of the important things in composition is the relationship between structural hyponyms and hypernyms. While they do seem to be an open ended set at first, their repetition suggests that they might be more formulaic. Perhaps the most obvious one in use in the gospels is the one containing ἀποκριθεὶς ... εἶπεν. That raises the question of whether the structural hypernym limits the choice of structual hyponyms or the opposite, that the second phrase has a number of first phrase contextualisers to choose from. In the case of ἀποκριθεὶς ... εἶπεν we could say that logically, "answer" is the hyponym of "speak", because answering infers speaking, but that is counter-intuitively not the case. The contextualisingly structural nature of the two-phrase pattern says that answering (them/him/her) is the context in which he spoke. Looking at only logical taxonomy, without considering structural taxonomy might lead to wrong conclusions about the nature of structural taxonomy. The easiest resolution to that dilemma is to say that ἀποκρίνομαι is not a verb of speaking, and is not in the logical taxonomy of speaking verbs.

jeidsath wrote:Fix the mushy thinking, please! The 2 dollar words don't hide it, and actually make the problem worse. Once you're thinking clearly, then you'll know exactly the right time to deploy them.

There is always a tension between expression and thought. Forcing thoughts into rigid structures of expression can lead to "logic" simplifying thought. Some of the things you've said here or implied like that taxonomy is by definition logical, hypernyms and hyponyms are a binary pair that doesn't need to be stated, or that every primary school student knows synonymy is only applicable in some contexts may not have been misunderstood if your thoughts had more freedom to creatively range, outside of the strictures of logic.
Last edited by ἑκηβόλος on Fri May 18, 2018 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Fri May 18, 2018 2:32 am

I hope that you don’t speak to your mother this way, poor woman.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby mwh » Fri May 18, 2018 2:54 am

ἑκηβόλος wrote:Michael has substituted the initial "pl" of τίλλειν with an "f".
:D Did I say I was from Nantucket?

I left out the obligatory second line:

I once knew a girl called Felicity
who engaged me with constant lubricity.
I told her I did it
without temporal limit
but she said I was lacking telicity.

(vidi vici at non veni.)

Forgive the frivolity. I think this could have been a worthwhile discussion, but see no prospect of that now.
Last edited by mwh on Fri May 18, 2018 3:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
mwh
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2720
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Fri May 18, 2018 3:39 am

If you really think that there was good discussion here, Michael, I'll suppress my annoyance with delivery and give a serious reply to ἑκηβόλος' first statement. I don't want to destroy an interesting thread because I get annoyed.

Context to make this make sense:

Early version of 6:1:

[1] καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν

Likely later versions:

[2] καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τοὺς στάχυας καὶ ἤσθιον ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν
[3] καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τοὺς στάχυας καὶ ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν ἤσθιον

It seems that in composition / compilation, Luke needed to add an extra phrase to the end of verse one to complete the sentence.


Here it is without: καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας

Not terribly abrupt. τοὺς στάχυας seems to work well enough as direct object for both. So no, I don't agree that Luke was forced to add a concluding phrase. In fact, I imagine that it could have been added because he had some specific point of Jewish ceremonial law in mind with ψώχοντες. Some sort of technicality about milling or grinding on the Sabbath.

ἑκηβόλος wrote:so he added a clause based on ψήχειν/ψώχειν (a synonym of τίλλειν) to round out the thought beginning with ἠσθιον used as a contextualiser.


ἤσθιον isn't really a separate thought in [1]. And ψήχειν/ψώχειν is not a synonym of τίλλειν in this context. However, it's correct that ἤσθιον is used as a contextualiser.

ἑκηβόλος wrote:I guess that the Medieval redactors felt that there was no much telicity in having the direct object τοὺς στάχυας with that verb, so they bumped that object up to the previous (specific) clause with τίλλειν.


This is a reasonable statement. If ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας is too much a single unit, it leaves ἔτιλλον without a direct object.

ἑκηβόλος wrote:As far as being a composer / redactor, Luke was able to round out (or make complete) thoughts, but in this case, he left his introductory or contextualising phrase too heavy for the sensibilities of wider readership.


It's not clear to me what is supposed to be contextualising now. Is was ἤσθιον a minute ago. But yes, τοὺς στάχυας was moved up for a reason.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Fri May 18, 2018 3:41 am

jeidsath wrote:I hope that you don’t speak to your mother this way, poor woman.

Far more robustly than the glove touching with you in this present conversation. She sees emotions and setimentalities for the socially constructed means of control and encumbrences on certain individual members (especially women) that they are. At over 80 she still has plenty of spunk and fire to get into a good conversation. We engage as intellectual equals, not patronising each other with condescending niceties.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Fri May 18, 2018 5:11 am

jeidsath wrote:[3] καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τοὺς στάχυας καὶ ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν ἤσθιον

I was tossing up whether to extend discussion to this Bezae, or not, and decided against it. Whatever it is - earliest version or a rescripting of a Western version - it does not follow the rule of dual style (contextalising - detail) pairs. Seeing as you've brought it in to the discussion though, let me say that I think that if it was the proof copy sent to the editor's desk by Luke himself, then the editor rearranged it to incorporate the structural duap pairs in his redaction. If it was a scripting from an early version, either the translator followed the word order of the version or he was post classical or non-native speaker of Greek, and knew Greek from an era or a background from when or where the dual speech style of the classical and Koine period was no longer used in the language. Modern Greek is not composed in this way. I should get around to looking at a range of texts over time, but I suspect that for some time at least, the level of education of the writer will be the determining factor. The Septuagint has mixed success or ignores the dual dpeevh styles feature of the language. Quotations of the Septuagint are also sometimes seem to be left as they are.

jeidsath wrote:
It seems that in composition / compilation, Luke needed to add an extra phrase to the end of verse one to complete the sentence.


Here it is without: καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας

Not terribly abrupt. τοὺς στάχυας seems to work well enough as direct object for both. So no, I don't agree that Luke was forced to add a concluding phrase. In fact, I imagine that it could have been added because he had some specific point of Jewish ceremonial law in mind with ψώχοντες. Some sort of technicality about milling or grinding on the Sabbath.

It may be both for the sake of style and to make a point. I mentioned above that I didn't know why he chose ψώχειν rather than another detail verb.

This τίλλειν is a detail verb. It happens in the context of going through the fields.

Another way to look at this is that plucks a στάχυν eats a σπέρμα. It is an odd collocation to eat the head of grain, so Luke added the proviso that they rubbed them with their hands not ate the head completely unprocessed. That creates a problem for using τοὺς στάχυας as an object for "eat", except if eat is understood as a synecdoche for peel and eat.

There is no reason that the need to round out the speech-style pair did not also serve as the occasion to make a point about Jewish law and also to serve as a "mind you they peeled them first" phrase too.

It is only abrupt when you are looking for the dual speech styles. If you aren't looking for them, you won't find them. I was hoping that bedwere's losts or the Cambridge dictionary would assign words and meanings to either or both of the categories to aid on idiomatic composition. The composition yrxtbooks are also disappointing.

ἑκηβόλος wrote:As far as being a composer / redactor, Luke was able to round out (or make complete) thoughts, but in this case, he left his introductory or contextualising phrase too heavy for the sensibilities of wider readership.


It's not clear to me what is supposed to be contextualising now. Is was ἤσθιον a minute ago. But yes, τοὺς στάχυας was moved up for a reason.

As noted above, the question, "What was being contextualised?" presupposes part 2 priority in language, while the question, "What does it contextualise?" presupposes part 2 priority in composition. Because children begin their engagement with language in the tactile, detailed and immediate world of their daily needs and immediate surroundings, I suspect that part 2 vocabulary was the first learned in life by native speakers. As the complexity of structures increased, I suppose some if the part 2 language was given a contextualising role in part 1. Moreover, some specifically part 1 vocabulary, such as εὐδία, would probably have been introduced.

Either lexicosemantically (inherently) because it is only a part 1 / contextualising verb, or morphosyntactically because because it is an ingressive imperfect or a theta passive or structurally because for some reason it finds itself in a part 1 statement is enough reason for a verb to be contextualising. Being in or used in a part 1 statement often affects its range of meaning too - sometimes overlapping with the ill-defined logical concept of metaphorical.

In this case, we have seen that it can act as a part 2 verb in Marcian and Matthean redactions and possibly their respective oral traditions during the kerygmatic period, so it is not inhetently a part 1 or 2 verb. Tense and or placement determime what it is. Being in a part 1 position its structural meaning will imply, as they were eating.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Fri May 18, 2018 4:09 pm

Another way to look at this is that plucks a στάχυν eats a σπέρμα. It is an odd collocation to eat the head of grain, so Luke added the proviso that they rubbed them with their hands not ate the head completely unprocessed.


This is the heart of things isn't it? You and I find it odd, perhaps. But we both speak languages with word order more concrete than Greek's. Did Luke find it odd? Because Matthew did not.

Start by looking at Mark's version: καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας. How does Matthew revise this? οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν, καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν. So, in fact, Matthew has done exactly what we are saying Luke couldn't do, and had the disciples eat a head of grain.

And which of the two is Luke revising here? Did he adopt Matthew's change by accident, following Mark, or is he following Matthew? Luke's version does look quite similar to Matthew's, excepting the phrase at the end, not present in Matthew or Mark. The two postulated revision processes would presumably be different.

Scenario #1 Mark -> Luke

καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας
->
καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν

In this scenario, Luke's process, perhaps, is to remove the inconsequential ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, and front the actual information-bearing verb τίλλειν. This information-bearing verb, he expands to τίλλειν καὶ ἐσθίειν. τίλλειν τοὺς στάχυας becomes τίλλειν καὶ ἐσθίειν τοὺς στάχυας.

He then rounds out the sentence with the participle phrase, either for informational or stylistic reasons.

Scenario #2 Matthew -> Luke

οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν, καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν
->
καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν

We have the three elements, τίλλειν, ἐσθίειν, and στάχυας already present in Matthew. But it's harder for me to see a clear mental process for how this would be revised directly to Luke's version. στάχυας is in its unobjectional position close to τίλλειν, and not causing the proposed discomfort that τίλλειν καὶ ἐσθίειν στάχυας might. The revision could be prompted by the desire to add the participle phrase at the end, which might point towards a desire to convey information.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Sat May 19, 2018 3:26 am

[quote="jeidsath"][quote]Another way to look at this is that plucks a στάχυν eats a σπέρμα. It is an odd collocation to eat the head of grain, so Luke added the proviso that they rubbed them with their hands not ate the head completely unprocessed.[/quote]

This is the heart of things isn't it? You and I find it odd, perhaps. But we both speak languages with word order more concrete than Greek's. Did Luke find it odd? Because Matthew did not. [/quote]
I don't understand the subtext of this latest post of yours.

Is your post written to continue discussion or to have a final say?
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby jeidsath » Sat May 19, 2018 4:38 am

ἑκηβόλος wrote:I don't understand the subtext of this latest post of yours.

No subtext
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

μὴ δ’ οὕτως ἀγαθός περ ἐὼν θεοείκελ’ Ἀχιλλεῦ
κλέπτε νόῳ, ἐπεὶ οὐ παρελεύσεαι οὐδέ με πείσεις.
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
 
Posts: 2389
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Mt 12:11-12 & Lk 14:5 synoptic parallels or just similar

Postby ἑκηβόλος » Sat May 19, 2018 12:06 pm

Re 2 up: Yes. That is a good summary of many things.

I think heart of the matter for the dual styles is textual coherence. That is more true in poetry, where the use of syntactic conjunctives (conjunctions) and adverbial prepositions is less frequent, so other forms of coherence such as the dual speech styles become relatively more prominent.
The child is the father of the man.
(W.W., 1802)
User avatar
ἑκηβόλος
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:19 am
Location: Nanchang, PRC


Return to Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests