What Is the Evidence for What Logos Says Here?

David Paul

When I right-click on this word in 2 Thes. 2:11, I get this:

My question is...what support exists for saying that ergon is the root of energeia? I'm not finding it.

Myke Harbuck

NIDNTTE has this under ἔργον:

GL 1 The noun ἔργον is spelled with an initial digamma in the Doric dialect (sim. in Mycenaean), which no doubt preserves the orig. form, wergon (from the corresponding IE term derives even Eng. work). The word is freq. already in Homer, where it often refers to deeds performed in war (e.g., Il. 6.522), but also to agricultural activities and other occupations. Indeed, throughout the history of the Gk. language, ἔργον has been simply the generic term for “deed” or “action,” being often contrasted to terms that mean “word, speech” (e.g., λόγος G3364, Thuc. 2.65.9; ἔπος G2229, Plato Resp. 494e). By metonymy, ἔργον can refer to that which has been worked (e.g., it can mean “land” and then more broadly “property” and “wealth”) or produced (e.g., metalwork, machine, building, book [cf. Eng. work in the sense “literary product”]).

...

2 Among compounds, interest attaches to ἐνέργεια (and its cognates). This term is used already by the pre-Socratic philosophers to denote “activity,” though in some contexts a better rendering would be “force” or “effectiveness.” It plays a special role in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, where it means something like “actuality” (e.g., 1048a–b, opp. δύναμις G1539, “potency”). The vb. ἐνεργέω, accordingly, means “to be active, effective” (trans., “to effect”); the adjs. ἐνεργός and ἐνεργής, “active, effective”; and the late noun ἐνέργημα, “activity.” This group of words serves in Hellenism and in Philo to describe cosmic and physical forces.

Myke Harbuck

Also, LALGNT lists as ἔργον as a cognate of ἐνέργεια:

ἐνέργεια (energeia), working. Cognate words: ἀγαθοεργέω, ἀμπελουργός, ἀργέω, δημιουργός, ἐνεργέω, ἐνέργημα, ἐνεργής, ἐργάζομαι, ἐργασία, ἐργάτης, ἔργον, εὐεργεσία, εὐεργετέω, εὐεργέτης, ἱερουργέω, κακοῦργος, κατεργάζομαι, οἰκουργός, πανουργία, πανοῦργος, περιεργάζομαι, περίεργος, προσεργάζομαι, ῥᾳδιούργημα, ῥᾳδιουργία, συνεργέω, συνεργός, συνυπουργέω

So it seems that is the ἔργον correct root, and that ἔργον is the generic term for work or activity, whereas, as compound word, ἐνέργεια is that activity in supernatural force.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147108#Comment_1147108

There is a long article on ἔργον in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament if you have it.  I was going to paste some of it, but to paste it in such a way that would give you enough information would be longer than is legal.  It's on page 2:635.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147124#Comment_1147124

I have "fact checked" some of the words that Logos brings up.  For the most part... I think Logos does a pretty good job of it. But I find myself always "fact checking" every time. 

As I understand it... Logos came from man, not God and thus is not "divinely inspired". So...  I "fact check" as best I can. 

Besides...  I look on "fact checking" as being part of my study in any lesson I prepare. 

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147124#Comment_1147124

Thanks for the replies. They are helpful. [Y]

I am noticing a place early in the TDNT article that seems to have a comma where a period should be. If there is anyone who has this dictionary in hardcopy, could you please check to see if that typo is present there, or is it an OCR fault? Sending a typo to FL is pointless if the mistake is in the physical resource. Thanks.

Vol. 2, p. 635.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

David Paul said:

My question is...what support exists for saying that ergon is the root of energeia? I'm not finding it.

Essentially, the root analysis for the NT groups together words that share a root, but determining the 'form' of a given root is ... tricky. We basically pulled a label to represent the group; it was usually the shortest noun or verb (extant in NT) that represented the basic concept/idea.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147227#Comment_1147227

Not that Rick needs support but

Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:

but determining the 'form' of a given root is ... tricky.

less so if you go back to the Indo-European

[quote]

ἔργον [n.] ‘work, labour, work of art’ (Il.). «IE *uerǵ- ‘work’»

•DIAL Myc. we-ka-ta /wergatās/.

•COMP As a first member e.g. in ἐργο-λάβος ‘undertaker’; further PN Ἐργα-μένης (Bechtel 1917a: 23f.; cf. ἐργά-της but also Ἀλκαμένης); very often as a second member -εργός (or -οργός), e.g. γεωργός ‘farmer’ (see ►γῆ), ►δημιουργός.

•DER ἐργώδης ‘laborious, heavy’ (Hp., X.). ἐργάτης [m.] (from the plur. ἔργα; Schwyzer 500; cf. ἐργάζομαι) ‘labourer’, especially ‘farmer’; also adj. ‘laborious’ (IA), fem. ἐργάτις, with ἐργατικός ‘ptng. to an ἐργάτης, laborious’, ἐργατίνης = ἐργάτης (Theoc.; cf. Chantraine 1933: 203, Schwyzer: 490), διεργάτινος (Mytilene), ἐργατήσιος ‘profitable’ (Plu. Cat. Ma. 21; uncertain; cf. Chantraine 1933: 42); ἐργασία, to ἐργάζομαι, see below; denominative verb ἐργατεύομαι, -εύω ‘work hard’ with ἐργατεία (LXX, pap.). Ἐργάνη, Delph. ϝαργάνα epithet of Athena (Delphi VI–Va, etc.), also = ἐργασία (pap., H.); ἔργανα, ϝέργανα (written γέργ-)· ἐργαλεῖα (H.); ἐργαλεῖον, usually plur. -εῖα, Cret. ϝεργ- ‘tool, instrument’ (IA); there is no *ἔργαλον (cf. Chantraine 1933: 60). Denominative verb ἐργάζομαι ‘work’ (Il.; Schwyzer 734), Cret. ϝεργάδδομαι, often with prefix ἀπ-, ἐν-, etc.; several derivatives: ἐργαστικός ‘busy, productive, labourer’ (IA); ἐργασία, Cret. ϝεργ- ‘(heavy) labour, fieldwork, profession’ (IA) with ἐργάσιμος ‘in business, cleared (land)’ (also to ἐργάζομαι; cf. Arbenz 1933: 44f.); ἐργαστήρ ‘field labourer’ (X.), ἐργαστής ‘id.’, also ‘negotiator’ (A. D., Rom. inscr.); ἐργαστήριον ‘workshop’ (IA; cf Chantraine 1933: 62f.; thence [after vinculum] Lat. ergastulum, though acc. to Leumann Sprache 1 (1949): 20711, from ἔργαστρον) together with ἐργαστηριακός ‘labourer’ (Plb.), diminutive ἐργαστηρίδιον (pap.); ἔργαστρα [pl.] ‘wages’ (pap.; Chantraine 1933: 332). Desiderative ptc. ἐργασείων ‘who wants to do’ (S.).

•ETYM Dor. ϝέργον (thence regularly El. ϝάργον) is identical with Av. varǝzǝm [n.], OHG werc, ON verk [n.] ‘work’; IE *uérǵo- [n.]; with secondary o, Arm. gorc ‘id.’ (from deverbative gorcem ‘work’). Connecion with W vergo-bretus ‘highest official of the Aeduans’ is uncertain. Primary verbs from this root are ►ἔρδω and ►ῥέζω; see LIV2 s.v. 2. *u̯erǵ- ‘wirken, machen’. See further ►ὄργανον, ►ὄργια, ►ἐόργη.

Robert Beekes, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 450.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147228#Comment_1147228

MJ. Smith said:

Not that Rick needs support but

Rick Brannan (Faithlife) said:

but determining the 'form' of a given root is ... tricky.

less so if you go back to the Indo-European

Appreciate the quote, but I'm guessing your response was more to Rick than me, as I don't see energeia listed anywhere in your article.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147108#Comment_1147108

Myke, what resource is LALGNT? I plugged it into the FL search box and got no return. Also, do you have a page # for that? Thanks.

Graham Criddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147234#Comment_1147234

David Paul said:

Myke, what resource is LALGNT?

This is https://www.logos.com/product/4580/lexham-analytical-lexicon-to-the-greek-new-testament 

David Paul said:

Also, do you have a page # for that?

It doesn't have page numbers but the article is available here

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147236#Comment_1147236

Thank you, Graham. I appreciate you. I see now why I couldn't find it in my library. Instead of the quite sensible LALGNT that Myke used, the shortcut name my library has is...better pack a lunch...LXGRCANLEX. [:O] For crying out loud, what a mess!  [8o|]

I would change it to the more suitable and less ridiculous version that Myke used, but I worry that might cause it to become invisible to Logos & FL. Oh, so what...it will help me remember it. Good riddance, LXGRCANLEX! You were never missed. LALGNT it is!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147233#Comment_1147233

David Paul said:

as I don't see energeia listed anywhere in your article.

that was the point

[quote]

ταλαίπωρος [adj.] ‘enduring hardship or distress, pestered, unhappy’ (A. Pr., S., Ar., Pl., D.). «?»

• VAR Substantivized: τὸ ταλαίπωρον ‘endurance, effort’ (Hp., Ar., D. H., App.).

• COMP Bahuvrīhi ἀ-ταλαίπωρος ‘without endurance’ (Hp., Th., Ar.).

• DER ταλαιπωρ-ικός ‘persistent, hardened’ (Gal.); -ία (Ion. -ίη, often plur.) [f.] ‘effort, labor, ἐνέργεια’ (Hp.), ‘effort, hardship, suffering’ (Hdt., Att.); -έω, -έομαι [v.] ‘to make effort, toil, suffer’ (IA), the active sometimes also trans. ‘to pester, agonize’ (Isoc., D. C.), with -ησις, -ημα (late); also -ίζω = -έω (Phld., Sm.), with -ισμός (Phld.).

• ETYM The first member ταλαι- equals ►ταλα- (s.v.). For the second member, some words that are almost only transmitted by lexicographers (H., Suid.) have been compared, and connected with πῆμα, πηρός by WP 2, 8: πωρεῖν· κηδεύειν, πενθεῖν ‘to mourn, suffer’ (Elean, acc. to Suid.), πωρῆσαι· λυπῆσαι ‘to be grieved’, πωρητύς· ταλαιπωρία, πένθος ‘suffering’ (also Antim.), also πῶρος· ὁ ταλαίπωρος; however, πωρός· τυφλός, πώρωσις· τύφλωσις (Suid.) derive from πῶρος ‘stone’, πωρόω ‘to harden, strike with blindness’. Others compare the Gm. word for ‘danger’, *fēr- (older litt. in Frisk).

Robert Beekes, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 1445.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147240#Comment_1147240

MJ. Smith said:

David Paul said:

as I don't see energeia listed anywhere in your article.

that was the point

Okay...so you're saying that the various lexical aides that say that ergon and energeia are cognates are wrong, right? Usually, if you're going to zag when everyone else zigs, a bit of emphatic intentionality helps sell it. Subtlety can go unnoticed if it is totally unexpected.

Admittedly, I've been unable to shake that feeling, so I don't discount that possibility. But if there isn't a direct lexical relation, how do you account for at least four lexicons saying there is? Copycatting an erroneous assumption? 

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1147378#Comment_1147378

David Paul said:

so you're saying that the various lexical aides that say that ergon and energeia are cognates are wrong,

I very carefully said nothing but let the data speak for itself. Speaking for myself, I would note a shared root but that one is a simple word while the other is a compound -- a compound classified as Bahuvrihi. I leave it to you to say whether a word that is wholly from a root is cognate with a word which is partially from the root. It appears that several lexicons answer yes; some no.