salutation to the Colossians, 1:1-2

[bacon]

παυλος, αποστολος ιησου χÏ￾ιστου δια θεληματος θεου, και τιμοθεος á½￾ αδελφος, τοις εν κολασσαις á¼￾γιοις και πιστοις αδελφοις εν χÏ￾ιστω· χαÏ￾ις ὑμιν και ειÏ￾ηνη απο θεου πατÏ￾ος ἡμων.
I have two questions for these verses.
First, both the KJV and NAS translate the "τιμοθεος á½￾ 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 á¼￾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.

[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 á¼￾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]

I'll just add that a synonymous construction to encompassing the proverbial exzpression by article and word (τοις εν κολασσαις á¼￾γιοις) would be the repetiotion of the article if the proverbial expression isn't encompassed: τοις á¼￾γιοις τοις εν κολασσαις.

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

[Bert]

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 )

Doesn't Τιμόθεος á½￾ ἀδελφός put more emphasis on Timothy being a brother than -Brother Timothy- conveys?
The translations could just as well have said -my brother- (But if he is Paul's brother, and Paul is brother to the Colossians, than he is a brother to the Colossians as well, hence -our brother.-)
I read this something like; and Timothy, you know who I mean, our brother...
I Koine you would kind of expect a possessive pronoun of some sort but in Homeric Greek and I think in Attic as well, the possessive is usually lacking if the context can supply who's brother/ wife/ hand/ etc.

[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 ΧÏ￾ιστω αδεÏ￾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]

Nice and quick with your reply.

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 ΧÏ￾ιστω αδεÏ￾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 appreciate your suggestion and I am not saying that Brother Timothy is a wrong translation, just not as complete as it could be.
Would you say there is a difference between á½￾ á¼￾δελφὸς Τιμόθεος and Τιμόθεος á½￾ ἀδελφός ?

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

There can be substantial differences.
I started learning Koine and did not get into Homeric till later.
I find it very interesting that some of the regular things in Homeric Greek can still be found in the New Testament. For instance the use of the Koine article as a relative and personal pronoun.

BTW, it is nice to have a native Greek participating in these discussions.

[IreneY]

Nice and quick with your reply.

It's my job; it had me slaving over my PC so I might as well take a break her and there.

I appreciate your suggestion and I am not saying that Brother Timothy is a wrong translation, just not as complete as it could be.
Would you say there is a difference between á½￾ á¼￾δελφὸς Τιμόθεος and Τιμόθεος á½￾ ἀδελφός ?

Definitely! And it's sth a little more than just the stress on one or the other of the words

There can be substantial differences.
I started learning Koine and did not get into Homeric till later.
I find it very interesting that some of the regular things in Homeric Greek can still be found in the New Testament. For instance the use of the Koine article as a relative and personal pronoun.

Considering that you can find some similarities even with Modern Greek, I'd say it's logical but still subtly (sometimes) different in ways that may confuse.

BTW, it is nice to have a native Greek participating in these discussions

Thanks Nice to find people so interested in Latin and ancient Greek (not that easy to find around here I am ashamed to say)

[Bombichka]

Quote:
I appreciate your suggestion and I am not saying that Brother Timothy is a wrong translation, just not as complete as it could be.
Would you say there is a difference between á½￾ á¼￾δελφὸς Τιμόθεος and Τιμόθεος á½￾ ἀδελφός ?


Definitely! And it's sth a little more than just the stress on one or the other of the words

can you try to explain what other shades of meaning does the either word order convey according to you?

[IreneY]

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

[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]

Thanks for the explanation, IreneY!

actually, what you're saying goes well with what I found out the other day while browsing through a curious book: Carrière, Jean, Stylistique grecque; L'usage de la prose attique.
Here's what this fellow has to say concerning the variations of ο ιεÏ￾ος πολεμος / ο πολεμος ο ιεÏ￾ος / πολεμος ο ιεÏ￾ος (sorry but it's hard for me to translate from French to English, neither of which is my native tongue):

Quoique grammaticalement équivalentes, ces trois constructions sont inégalement employées (la première est la plus fréquente) et laissent place à de légères nuances: la seconde, en exprimant deux fois l'article et en détachant l'épithète en fin de groupe, insiste, à la manière d'une apposition, sur la qualité distinctive de la chose à laquelle cet épithète s'applique... la troisième construction indique que l'intention de qualifier, indécise d'abord dans l'esprit l'auteur, ne se précise que peu après (une guerre, [soit] la [guerre] sacrée)

it seems to me that what you as a native peaker have just explained fits Carrière's account.

if so, it's fascinating how the same feature can go on from the Attic prose through NT up to the Modern Greek usage.

generally I tend to think of Ancient and Modern Greek as two separate languages (in the same way nobody claims Latin and Italian are one language), but it seems the more or less traditionalist and conservative linguistic attitude that has always existed among educated Greeks has influenced the spoken idiom in more than one subtle and interesting ways.

[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]

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]

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?

[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