salutation to the Colossians, 1:1-2

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.
Post Reply
bacon
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:05 am

salutation to the Colossians, 1:1-2

Post by bacon »

παυλος, αποστολος ιησου χ?ιστου δια θεληματος θεου, και τιμοθεος ? αδελφος, τοις εν κολασσαις ?γιοις και πιστοις αδελφοις εν χ?ιστω· χα?ις ὑμιν και ει?ηνη απο θεου πατ?ος ἡμων.
I have two questions for these verses.
First, both the KJV and NAS translate the "τιμοθεος ? αδελφος" part as "... Timothy our brother...". Absent a ἡμων like that at the end of verse 2, where does the "our" come from? My thinking was along the lines of "Timothy, the brother" or perhaps better "brother Timothy".
Second, regarding the phrase,"... τοις εν κολασσαις ?γιοις...", I am interested in the sandwiching of εν κολασσαις between the article and the noun. Is this a grammatical technique of tying the prepositional phrase uniquely to the noun?, if so, would there have been confusion here without using this technique?,or is this more of a "looseness" of the article/noun pair?
Thanks for any help.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

Well, when it comes to the first question I must say that I am not an expert in NT's 'terminology'.
However, your translation "brother Timothy" is the correct one. Perhaps the translation "Timothy our brother" was chosen so that there will be no confusion in the meaning of the word brother (I mean that today brother X brings monasteries into mind :) )

As for the second one: It is a very common syntactical phenomenon whose name I don't know in English! There would be no confusion if the words were at their proper place (τοις ?γιοις εν κολασσαις) but it is seldomly used, especially in cases like this one, in which the prepositional phrase has the role of an adjective if you know what I mean.

Another example of this phenomenon is (I have no ancient Keyboard installed on this one so bare with me) εν του ποταμου τη όχθη. More words can be put between two of close relation but I hesitate to write an example since I cannot type for the time being accents breathings etc

Bombichka
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:58 pm

Post by Bombichka »

I'll just add that a synonymous construction to encompassing the proverbial exzpression by article and word (τοις εν κολασσαις ?γιοις) would be the repetiotion of the article if the proverbial expression isn't encompassed: τοις ?γιοις τοις εν κολασσαις.

I think the latter is leff frequent in koine, though. it's more common among the Attic writers.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

look, in NT I can honestly say that I am open to all suggestions :)

I only know that our churchmen usually call each other (and laymen too) ο εν Χ?ιστω αδε?φός ... . This literally translate to the brother in Christ right?
So, what I am saying is that brother Timothy is a nice "safe" translation. I am not very familiar with that kind of terminology, but if you say that it would translate to "our brother" I'll go with that. I don't think however that they used the brother X form at all. (I was and am referring to the translation and not the original text)

(I am not making any comparison with Homeric or Classical Greek since the differences are some times great)

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »



Bombichka
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:58 pm

Post by Bombichka »



User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

let me murder a translator, have a bath and catch up with Morpheus and I'll manage a coherent answer

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

ok let's see if I can write something that makes some sense now (no guarantee about spelling though, it's being anoter too busy day)

o aderfos Timotheos
to me, it's not only that it emphasizes the word brother, it also shows what is considered Tim's most important "quality"
It sort of like saying that Timothy 's being a brother is what should the Colossians take into consideration (bear in mind that it's of a more subtle value, less strong than what it appears by my -so called- explanation)

Timotheos o aderfos
with this word order he's actually adding some more info about which Timothy we are talking about. It is Timothy as a person who is important, not just his being a brother

Does that make any sense?

Bombichka
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:58 pm

Post by Bombichka »



User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

well, as far as I could follow the French text I agree with it

As far as you last comment goes, I can't say I really grasped the full meaning of it but no, it's not a different language; I don't think any linguist (apart from some notable exeptions who also denied that modern Greeks have a right to call themselves Greek) has said so. That's a big discussion though I guess and best not started in a such a thread :)

Bombichka
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:58 pm

Post by Bombichka »

well, I meant that, technically, Modern Greek relates to Ancient Greek in the same way as Italian relates to Latin.

thus, it's illogical to claim Modern Greek is the same language as Ancient Greek if we claim that Italian isn't the same language as Latin.

we should either postulate that both (and any other languages for that matter) represent the same continuity, or that both are separate from their ancient forms.

or, as it seems to me more productive, we should insist on the relativity of the notion "same/different language" on a diachronical level in the same way linguists say it is hard to determine it on a synchronical level, e.g. in the case of "language/dialect" distinction.

but those are indeed random thoughts which are completely off-topic here.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

Bombichka wrote:well, I meant that, technically, Modern Greek relates to Ancient Greek in the same way as Italian relates to Latin.

thus, it's illogical to claim Modern Greek is the same language as Ancient Greek if we claim that Italian isn't the same language as Latin.
I know neither Latin nor Italian (nor Portugese/Spanish/French) but it is my impression that the differences between Latin and its daughter languages(?) are greater than between Classical Greek and Modern Greek. Is my impression correct?

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

so I've heard but I don't know Italian either (just a bit of French) so I can't really argue the point :) All I know is that there are great differences between the ancient forms of Greek and modern Greek (though not so much with Koine) but the similarites are great too

Post Reply