Galatians 1:7

To resolve the issue raised in this thread, I googled and hit the following book: The Greek Article: A functional grammar of o-items in the Greek New Testament by Ronald D Peters et al. There are some interesting quotes: p. 3: The article functions as a reduced form of the relative pronoun. p. 4: Both parts of speech are used by the speaker to indicate that information is being provided that the recipient is to use FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFICATION. .. This stands in contrast to the English definte article and demonstratives, which indicate that the recipient posseses the information necessary for identification or direct the recipient to the information respectively. p. 77: The article functions as a form similar to that of the relative pronoun because it is demonstrable that the article is used to produce structures that fill the same slot as relative clauses. This represents a system of choice, whereby a Greek speaker may choose one form or the other. With regard to the production of text, both structures will the same slot, and thus perform the same function. However, with regard to the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, the choice of one structure over the other reflects a difference in meaning. -------- Very interesting viewpoint! It seems quite convincing. It answers to my long-held question: the article + long participial clause looks almost the same as the relative pronoun + finite clause. The participial clause which can have all compoments of the finite clause, does not seem to so different from the finite clause structurally speaking. My question in Gal 1:7 disappears if it is treated as a reduced form of a relative clause, The same applies to Jude 4. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 16th, 2014, 1:07 am

---

I think you ask a very good question, which I hope others will address. I'm not sure I like the terminology of calling οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς a "relative clause" even though it is commonly translated into English as such, because there is no relative pronoun or finite verb in the Greek. Whatever you call it, this is the way that translations understand it. As for your question about a definite (participial) expression in apposition to an indefinite, there is a tolerably clear example of such in Jude 4:

Jude 4 wrote: παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, ...

But I don't think this what's going in Gal 1:7. Rather, οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς κτλ. seems to limit τινες, rather than merely giving more information about the indefinite. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — June 14th, 2014, 3:35 am

---

Gal 1:7 hO OUK ESTIN ALLO EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS. The question is about TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS. If hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS were a relative clause, we can take the sentence to mean "there are some who.....". But in the present case, hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS seems an apposition to TINES, so the literal translation would be "there are some, those disturbing you". But there is something akward in this translation. how can the definite expression hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS be an apposition to the indefinite expression TINES? Moon Statistics: Posted by moon — June 13th, 2014, 4:49 pm

---

Hi Moon,

I can see that you have been gone for a few years. We no longer write using English characters. We are all to actually write in Greek now. Of course most just cut and paste a text I suppose. Welcome back.

Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — June 13th, 2014, 9:00 am

---

This topic was recently discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=2075#p12053

Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — June 13th, 2014, 5:31 am

---

Gal 1:7

hO OUK ESTIN ALLO EI MH TINES EISIN hOI TARASSONTES hUMAS.

Which is the most literal translation of this sentence?

(1) which is not another, except some are the one disturbing you.
(2) which is not another, except there are some the one disturbing you

(3) which is not another, except there are some who disturb you.


Moon


there are some who disturb you

Statistics: Posted by moon — June 13th, 2014, 3:52 am

---