Pronomen Abundans and Pronomen Coniunctum. A ... - DWC

PRONOMEN ABUNDANS AND PRONOMEN CONJUNCTUM 83
The author must have written down this pers. pronoun, because he
thought that it was not clear any longer that the relat. pronoun referred
to J es us 271.
The Chronicle of Malalas offers two examples, but both of them are
quotations from the LXX :
147,11-2 M~ aè Wraiát"W Ó fJe6ç aov, èq/ cp 1te1WtfJwç el è1t' avnp, Uywv . ..
(= Is. 37,10, Regn. IV 19,10).
156,15-7 OViWÇ Uyet ~vewç Ó fJeoç iep xetanp fWV Kvecp, ou eXeái'YJaa
iijÇ i5eçtaç aViov iOV e1ta~ovaat ëft1teoafJev aViov ëfJv'YJ, ~ai laxvv f3aatUwv
i5taeençw (= Is. 45,1).
Act. Cart. 10,2 eli50v ávi5ea nvá, ou ëanÀf3ev {mèe iOV ifÀwv ~ ö'ljJtç aViov.
Doctr. Jac. 68,5 li50v èyw e1táyw e1t' aViovç ~a~á, eç d)v ov i5vvf]aovTat
eçeÀfJûv eç aViwv.
Vit. Euthym. 87,22 ... iO aûtpoç iWV ft'YJie01tOÀtiWV. eç d)v nveç aViwv
ov~ àvef3áÀoviO . ..
2.2. Semitism8
Are there any cases of Semitic influence among these examples? The
two quotations in the Chronicle of Malalas may be so, of course: we have
observed that the LXX teems with such cases 272. It is good to ask the
same question with regard to the other instances. They all stem from
hagiographic texts, which, partly at least, have been written by Jews.
Another reason why these examples should be investigated on this point
is that the writers of this kind of literature underwent astrong influence
from the LXX and the NT.
The following cases are, I believe, rather dubious. In the fust place
Doctr. Jac. 68,5, and further Act. Cart. 10,2. Another case ab out which
one may have one's doubts is Sym. Styl. 30,24, but in reading the context,
one has to admit that the content of the relat. clause is emphasized so
strongly that it seems better to consider it as nonessential. All the other
examples may be considered as cases of relat. connection (Act. Xanth.
75,16 f. is a parenthesis).
271 Ljungvik (Stud., p. 28) mentions two more examples taken from this text:
75,31 f. '16011 Ta nÀoiov nEel ou )(aTfJEIp.ev lvf)á&, lv cp TcfHIP.p.év1) laûv1pVxfJ lv aVTl/J
and 83,8 f. àvfJe Yele nç .. . nea xeóvwv nvwv . . . l)(1)eVTTE TOVTOV Ihóv, cp )(al nae{}évoç
nç maTEvaaaa, 'Ij)(oÀovifu aVTl/J. The last case mayalso not be considered as a case of
pronomen abundans : the relat. clause falls apart into two clauses, the relat. pronoun
cp depending upon maTEvaaaa, aVTl/J upon 'Ij)(OÀ06f}EI. A similar case occurs in
Mosch. 2976B: 'An1)À{}op.EV elç vQaalv, lv fJ yevóp.evol lifwaáp.E{}a aVTó{}1 p.Éyav
)(aTà {}Eav p.ovaxóv. The relat. pronoun belongs here to yevÓP.EVOI, aVTó{}1 to l{}waáp.E{}a.
272 See I 2.4.4.2 and 2.4.4.4. Actually, the pronomen abundans in 147,11-2
may be a Semitism: the relat. clause appears to be essential. As in the other instance
the relat. clause is nonessentiaI, it cannot be decided whether this is a case of Semitic
infiuence or not.