I am very confused as to why Παῦλος would be in the accusative in this case and why the article τόν (if it indeed belongs to Παῦλον in this instance) is placed at such a strange location. I find the entire sentence structure of the first part rather odd, to be honest — at least compared to what I’ve seen before.
The key to understanding this is to recognise that Ἐγένετο introduces two constructions which contain infinitives.
What case do you think Ἀπολλῶ is? Do you recognise the construction “τὸν Ἀπολλῶ εἶναι”
Do you recognise the construction " Παῦλον (διελθόντα) … ἐλθεῖν" ?
Ask yourself why the verbs εἶναι and ἐλθεῖν are infinitives. If this is something you haven’t seen before perhaps you need to consider using a Text book to learn a bit more grammar.
Also, ἐγἔνετο beginning a sentence like this is rare outside of biblical Greek (LXX and NT), but still quite comprehensible. Let me just supplement our Seneca’s excellent questions by noting that you also have the article τῷ preceded by ἐν. Any clue as to what’s going on there? Once you’ve thought this and Seneca’s questions through, if you still have difficulty we can answer a bit more directly.
I first thought that Ἀπολλῶ was in the genitive here, but considering the τὸν prior to it, I am not too sure. I would’ve translated the first Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ τὸν Ἀπολλῶ εἶναι ἐν Κορίνθῳ […] as follows: It happened during (the time of) Apollos’ being in Corinth […] , but if that were the case, then shouldn’t it be τοῦ Ἀπολλῶ?
Or is it, perhaps — if I remember correctly — that some infinitives require their subjects to be in the accusative case? If so, my guess is that Ἀπολλῶ is actually in the accusative case — along with Παῦλον — since they’re both the subject of an infinitive? I’m not entirely sure, but I do think I remember hearing something similar to that.
Good to hear I remembered that correctly, that makes quite a few sentences a bit clearer now. For some reason I had thought the subject of an infinitinive to be in the genitive case, not entirely sure why — especially considering I seem to have learnt otherwise before.
Regarding the ἐν τῷ … εἶναι construction, I am, once again, not entirely certain. But it seems to simply be an infinitive being used as a noun, coupled with the dative case — infinitives that are used as nouns are always, if I remember correctly, neuter — to denote the time during which the event the verb describes occured; a literal translation, I guess, would be something like in / during the … being. I think the proper term was something like articular infinitive (which would make sense, since it’s an infinitive that has an article)?
Again correct. Used with ἐν it normally denotes temporal circumstance. See, you know more than you think you did, you just need to be forced to remember it. Do you have a grammar or grammars in your possession you can consult?
I don’t, unfortunately, have any grammars per-se, but I do have H&Q Intensive Greek Course, as well as JACT’s Reading Greek; they’re text-books rather than grammars though. I have, however, been meaning to get a grammar that I can consult without having to carry a bulky text-book with me, so if you happen to have any recommendations for a good and not too extremely expensive grammar, I’d be much obliged!
And sorry for my, I guess, rather easily ascertainable question. Next time I’ll try to do as you did and ask myself some questions regarding the constructions, that does appear to have helped in my remembering them.
Those resources should cover the topics we’ve discussed. A reference grammar is very good though. Smyth is venerable but still quite helpful, and is free online (Such as at the Tuft’s Perseus site). If you want to shell out more than a dollar or two, the Cambridge Greek grammar is up to date and takes into account modern linguistics.
ἐν τῷ … εἶναι could go with anything, and is very much a Septuagintism. Ἐγένετο with the later infinitives will only show up in a grammar covering Biblical Greek, I think? The LSJ points this usage out c. inf though, which is all you really need.
But that cutover to finite εἶπεν, signaled only by τε, is a little interesting.
Hi Marvin,
There’s the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (CGCG, sounds good said aloud!). That’s a reference grammar worth getting, see Barry above. It’s focussed on classical Greek but covers most NT usages. NT grammars are best avoided.
The author of Luke and Acts (let’s call him Luke) is the most literate of the evangelists, but using εγενετο like this, as he is ridiculously fond of doing, seems to be in pseudo-imitation of Septuagint usage (based on the Hebrew). It’s alien to ordinary Greek.
ἐν τῷ τὸν Ἀπολλῶ εἶναι ἐν Κορίνθῳ. (Apollos was an associate of Paul’s: τον Απολλῶ accusative.) The construction exemplifies standard koine Greek usage: εν τῳ with acc.&infin. (for εν cf. εν τουτῳ “meanwhile"). The subject of an infinitive is regularly accusative (never genitive), except when it’s the same as the subject of the sentence (nominative).
Παῦλον διελθόντα τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη ἐλθεῖν εἰς Ἔφεσον
καὶ εὑρεῖν τινας μαθητάς.
I think you understand this. Without the opening εγενετο it would be Παῦλος διελθὼν τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη ἦλθεν και εὗρεν …. (And Luke doesn’t always switch to acc.&infin, after εγενετο, which contributes nothing to the meaning, only flavor.)
εἶπέν τε πρὸς αὐτούς: he reverts to ordinary Greek narrative, and εγενετο is left behind..
“Εἰ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες;” The ει is used to introduce the question, as we say “He asked them if …”. Greek doesn’t use quotation marks.
Thank you very much for your very comprehensive and insightful answer! That Cambridge certainly seems one I’ll be getting, considering it seems pretty comprehensive and has now been recommended to me by a fair number of people.
Concerning Luke’s literacy, I have a question that is, perhaps, somewhat off-topic: I have now frequently heard and read that the Greek of the Revelation is, apparently, very very bad; can you confirm this? If so, do you perhaps have an example or two which showcase its… well, badness?
The subject of an infinitive is regularly accusative (never genitive), except when it’s the same as the subject of the sentence (nominative).
Perhaps my confusing also stems somewhat from this. I had never really paid too much attention to what case an infinitive’s subject is in — as perhaps I should have — and just kind of ignored it mostly, as what I read seemed to make sense; but in this case I was just very confused, since the sentence structure is (I find) rather different than that of other ἐγένετο clauses (or at least so I think). Additionally, you mentioned such clauses being the result of NT writers copying them from the LXX, right? If so, when I will — eventually — begin reading the LXX, should I be expecting an even larger number of these ἐγένετο clauses?
The rest of the excerpt was, as you have already guessed, relatively simple for me to understand, even though I had some trouble with its beginning.
When it comes to quotes, I also, at times, get confused, especially when it’s not introduced by a ὅτι; but luckily my version of the GNT always capitalises the first word of a quotation, so they are generally rather simply to spot.
Once again, I thank you very much for your insightful answer!
You’re welcome. In my view εγενετο is just a stylistic affectation in Luke-Acts—not exclusively there, but most prominently, but not consistently sustained. There’s no reason to think the author knew Hebrew, though it’s possible he had some acquaintance with Aramaic, also a semitic language (unlike Greek). Personally I doubt he had much acquaintance with the LXX even.
I wouldn’t call the Greek of Revelation bad. It does have its oddities, as you’ll find when you read it, but they shouldn’t be exaggerated.
Its author certainly knew how to build suspense! That to me is the most interesting thing about this remarkable book, but it tends to get submerged beneath sterile questions of its place in the Church.
There are, as Michael pointed out, oddities and solecisms. Perhaps the most egregious (if you were literate in Greek at that time and had a good education) is Rev 14:19,
But Michael is right, the occasional solecism (and some of those may be intentional) do not outweigh the unique literary qualities of the book. I personally believe the his style is an affectation meant to link the text with the apocalyptic genre in general, widely popular among Jews and Christians of the period.
When you start reading Revelation in Greek, one of the best commentaries still is H.B Swete’s 1907 commentary. It’s an impressive monument to late 19th/early 20th century scholarship, and is invaluable to this day.
I am glad to hear that, definitely looking forward to reading that book then! I had been somewhat afraid that its Greek would be so bad that reading it wouldn’t be very enjoyable, but after what you two have said, it certainly seems that it doesn’t appear to be the case. The commentary you mentioned also seems very comprehensive and I’ve downloaded it to have it handy when I start reading the Revelation.
Regarding the excerpt you provided, am I correct in understanding that it should have probably been τὴν ληνὸν … τὴν μεγάλην? If so, it certainly appears as if such, let’s call them grammatical quirks to be nice, would cause a little bit of confusion if you come across them; but I’ve taken a quick look at the commentary you’ve provided and it appears to address this. So I’m confident that these solecisms won’t pose too much of an issue to me if I have that commentary handy. So thank you once again!
I can’t begin to imagine that that sort of gender disagreement would come about from simple uneducated Greek or a GSL error, as the την shows that the gender of ληνος is known to be female. Without assuming a copying half-fix (τον → την), it looks like he was trying to modify θυμος, but had the problem that another masculine genitive would adhere to του θεου there.
Compare Re 12:12 θυμὸν μέγαν for the author’s preference for this noun+adj. combination, but also its frequent Septuagint occurrence. I think that he was going for something like 2Chron. οὐκ ἀπεστράφη κύριος ἀπὸ ὀργῆς θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου. Composing orally (or without an eraser), he found that the τοῦ θεοῦ made the completion with τοῦ μεγάλου impossible.
The writer certainly likes μέγας – he uses it 80 times. Only once, however, does it modify θυμός, and that’s at 12:12. In fact, it looks like the most frequent noun it modifies is φωνή, I count 20 times. It’s hard to see how that one occurrence establishes a “preference,” and it’s clear that τὸν μέγαν is meant to modify winepress, however the solecism arose. Jerome takes it that way, misit in lacum irae Dei magnum.
The ideas of a “great winepress of God’s wrath” and a “winepress of God’s great wrath” both work with verse 20, so “clear” here may actually only mean “familiar”.
I don’t think that Jerome had more information about it than us, and his understanding would only be an appeal to authority. (Unless, of course, the Mormons are right, and John was still around for him to hit up for an explanation.)
Jerome was fluent in Greek and Latin in way you and I never can be, so I think a valid appeal to authority here. I know of no one in the history of interpretation that takes it in the way you want. Swete:
But τὴν ληνὸν … τὸν μέγαν is doubtless a solecism, which can only be excused on the ground of rapid writing, but finds a parallel in 21:14 τὸ τεῖχος … ἔχων
.
Swete, H. B. (Ed.). (1906). The apocalypse of St. John (2d. ed., p. 188). New York: The Macmillan Company.
If no one has ever looked, that would seem to me like an opportunity to have a reasoned discussion and lay out the facts. We can start fresh and assume that any authority cited will quote the argument fossilized in history by Jerome’s Latin. Our most useful action here would be to outline the best case possible. My arguments summarized:
τὸν ληνὸν … τὸν μέγαν would be an easy to understand error but τὴν ληνὸν … τὸν μέγαν is not. ληνός even continues as a feminine noun in the next sentence.
The author of Revelation uses θυμός μέγας, showing that it’s a conjunction that at least occurs to him
It’s a common usage in the Septuagint, and was therefore on the lips of Greek-speaking Jews/Christians of the time. See the 2 Chron. for a possible base phrasing
The ἡ ληνός ἡ μεγάλη understanding is overly tempting because it is so facile, but it becomes hard to work out how it happened
I could make arguments on the other side:
ὁ ληνός may have been original (it is a gender used in Byzantine Greek), and corrected throughout by someone who missed “τὸν μέγαν”
Verse 20 indicates that the proportions of the ληνός were certainly large
ὁ θυμὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ has no adjective in 15:1 (though neither does ληνός is 14:20)