The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Mon Apr 22 10:46:25 EDT 2002
[off topic] Online Horsley _Paul and Empire_ Seminar now open The structure of Gal 2:2 Gal 2:4-5 reads:4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQONKATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.An English translation takes it as follows:(It is ) because of the false brothers who …., to whom we did not…But it is not clear what would be referred to by “it”. Verse 3 simplysays that Titus was not compelled to get circumcised. What would bethe reference of this implicit pronoun “it”? From the viewpoint ofverse 4, the reference would be the situation where the issue of circumcision of the Gentile believers occurred. But verse 3 seems to saythat Titus was not compelled by the three apostles, whom Paul metprivately, to be circumcised. Therefore, it is difficult to inferthe situation which can be the referent of the implicit “it”. So, a wild guess occurred to me about the structure of the sentence. I would like get some comments. Here is a translation from this wildguess: Concerning the false brothers who came in to…., to them we did notsubmit even for a moment ….. This translation contains two crucial decisions. DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFPOUS is taken to introducethe topic. hOIS in verse 5 is taken to be a demonstrative pronoun.Another reason for the above translation is the parallelism/contrast between the beginning of 2.4-5 and and the beginning of 2.6.DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFPOUS is parallel to APO DE TWNDOKOUNTWN EINAI TI in verse 2.6. The contrast between the two groupsis indicated by ALLA TOUNANTION (but on the contrary) in verse 2.7.It is quite reasonable to translate APO DE TWN DKOUNTWN EINAI TI as”concerning those important people who are somebody”, again introducingthe topic of the sentence in 2.6- 9, whose main clause is found in verse9.Any comments?Moon Moon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
[off topic] Online Horsley _Paul and Empire_ Seminar now openThe structure of Gal 2:2
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Apr 22 11:34:39 EDT 2002
The structure of Gal 2:2 The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 At 10:46 AM -0400 4/22/02, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Gal 2:4-5 reads:> >4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON>KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]>5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU> EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.> >An English translation takes it as follows:> >(It is ) because of the false brothers who …., to whom we did not…> >But it is not clear what would be referred to by “it”. Verse 3 simply>says that Titus was not compelled to get circumcised. What would be>the reference of this implicit pronoun “it”? From the viewpoint of>verse 4, the reference would be the situation where the issue of>circumcision of the Gentile believers occurred. But verse 3 seems to say>that Titus was not compelled by the three apostles, whom Paul met>privately, to be circumcised. Therefore, it is difficult to infer>the situation which can be the referent of the implicit “it”.> >So, a wild guess occurred to me about the structure of the sentence.>I would like get some comments. Here is a translation from this wild>guess:> >Concerning the false brothers who came in to…., to them we did not>submit even for a moment …..> >This translation contains two crucial decisions.>DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFPOUS is taken to introduce>the topic. hOIS in verse 5 is taken to be a demonstrative pronoun.> >Another reason for the above translation is the parallelism/contrast>between the beginning of 2.4-5 and and the beginning of 2.6.>DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFPOUS is parallel to APO DE TWN>DOKOUNTWN EINAI TI in verse 2.6. The contrast between the two groups>is indicated by ALLA TOUNANTION (but on the contrary) in verse 2.7.>It is quite reasonable to translate APO DE TWN DKOUNTWN EINAI TI as>“concerning those important people who are somebody”, again introducing>the topic of the sentence in 2.6- 9, whose main clause is found in verse>9.> > >Any comments?Yes; I dealt first with your later question about Gal 2:2 and there notedmy view that the writing here is very loose, even conversational, ratherthan composed with careful rhetoric (in fact, at least the whole first twochapters here strike me as having been written very quickly and in aturbulent state of mind). For that reason, I think that the sequence inthese verses is better explained in terms of a grammatical anacoluthon,i.e. that Paul started writing and switched horses/grammaticalstructures–in mid-stream/mid-sentence. I think that it’s best to carryover the construction exactly or nearly exactly as it stands in theoriginal Greek: “But because of the false brothers who were sneaked in tosnoop and do espionage on our liberty (I didn’t yield to submit for amoment to them in my concern to preserve for you intact the truth of thegospel!)–but on the part of those reputed to be of some importance (itdoesn’t matter to me what they were–God doesn’t pay attention to what’s onthe surface–the reputed people didn’t lay any additional obligation uponme.” This is all very choppy; Paul voices a phrase and then comments on itparenthetically before proceeding to his next point, and in the course ofthis, his grammatical chain has been badly interrupted. This is the way wetalk, and our letters sometimes take this kind of “tack” or oblique sort ofmovement from point to point. That’s what I think is happening here.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
The structure of Gal 2:2The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Apr 22 13:49:35 EDT 2002
hWS EX ERGWN Romans 8:29,30 In a message dated 4/22/02 10:39:41 AM Central Daylight Time, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> >Gal 2:4-5 reads:> >> >4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON> >KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]> >5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU> > EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.> >> >An English translation takes it as follows:> >> >(It is ) because of the false brothers who …., to whom we did not…> >> >But it is not clear what would be referred to by “it”. Verse 3 simply> >says that Titus was not compelled to get circumcised. What would be> >the reference of this implicit pronoun “it”? From the viewpoint of> >verse 4, the reference would be the situation where the issue of> >circumcision of the Gentile believers occurred. But verse 3 seems to say> >that Titus was not compelled by the three apostles, whom Paul met> >privately, to be circumcised. Therefore, it is difficult to infer> >the situation which can be the referent of the implicit “it”.> >> >So, a wild guess occurred to me about the structure of the sentence.> >I would like get some comments. Here is a translation from this wild> >guess:> >> >Concerning the false brothers who came in to…., to them we did not> >submit even for a moment …..> >> >This translation contains two crucial decisions.> >DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFPOUS is taken to introduce> >the topic. hOIS in verse 5 is taken to be a demonstrative pronoun.> >> >Another reason for the above translation is the parallelism/contrast> >between the beginning of 2.4-5 and and the beginning of 2.6.> >DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFPOUS is parallel to APO DE TWN> >DOKOUNTWN EINAI TI in verse 2.6. The contrast between the two groups> >is indicated by ALLA TOUNANTION (but on the contrary) in verse 2.7.> >It is quite reasonable to translate APO DE TWN DKOUNTWN EINAI TI as> >”concerning those important people who are somebody”, again introducing> >the topic of the sentence in 2.6- 9, whose main clause is found in verse> >9.> >> >> >Any comments?> > Yes; I dealt first with your later question about Gal 2:2 and there noted> my view that the writing here is very loose, even conversational, rather> than composed with careful rhetoric (in fact, at least the whole first two> chapters here strike me as having been written very quickly and in a> turbulent state of mind). For that reason, I think that the sequence in> these verses is better explained in terms of a grammatical anacoluthon,> i.e. that Paul started writing and switched horses/grammatical> structures–in mid-stream/mid-sentence. I think that it’s best to carry> over the construction exactly or nearly exactly as it stands in the> original Greek: “But because of the false brothers who were sneaked in to> snoop and do espionage on our liberty (I didn’t yield to submit for a> moment to them in my concern to preserve for you intact the truth of the> gospel!)–but on the part of those reputed to be of some importance (it> doesn’t matter to me what they were–God doesn’t pay attention to what’s on> the surface–the reputed people didn’t lay any additional obligation upon> me.” This is all very choppy; Paul voices a phrase and then comments on it> parenthetically before proceeding to his next point, and in the course of> this, his grammatical chain has been badly interrupted. This is the way we> talk, and our letters sometimes take this kind of “tack” or oblique sort of> movement from point to point. That’s what I think is happening here.> — A number of commentators argue that the DIA DE . . .at the beginning of verse 4 indicates that, in fact, Titus did wind up circumcised. Was it E.D. Burton who said, “Who can doubt that it was the knife that circumcised Titus that butchered the syntax of this account.” Me thinks Paul was a bit upset.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College
hWS EX ERGWNRomans 8:29,30
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 moon-ryul jung moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr
Tue Apr 23 01:14:36 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Moon-Ryul JungSogang Univ, Seoul, KoreaServe God and Be Cheerful.> >Gal 2:4-5 reads:> >> >4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON> >KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]> >5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU> > EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.[Carl]> Yes; I dealt first with your later question about Gal 2:2 and there noted> my view that the writing here is very loose, even conversational, rather> than composed with careful rhetoric (in fact, at least the whole first two> chapters here strike me as having been written very quickly and in a> turbulent state of mind). For that reason, I think that the sequence in> these verses is better explained in terms of a grammatical anacoluthon,> i.e. that Paul started writing and switched horses/grammatical> structures–in mid-stream/mid-sentence. I think that it’s best to carry> over the construction exactly or nearly exactly as it stands in the> original Greek: “But because of the false brothers who were sneaked in to> snoop and do espionage on our liberty (I didn’t yield to submit for a> moment to them in my concern to preserve for you intact the truth of the> gospel!)–but on the part of those reputed to be of some importance (it> doesn’t matter to me what they were–God doesn’t pay attention to what’s on> the surface–the reputed people didn’t lay any additional obligation upon> me.”[Moon]But switching horses/grammatical structures in mid-stream/mid-sentence would often make perfect sense. I had a professor who very often restartedhis sentences. He spoke very fast and was very anxious to deliver his message.I had no problem with him. But in this case, it is almost intolerable, if your understandingis correct. After hearing “Because of the false brothers who were sneaked into snoop and do espionage on our liberty, to whom I did not yield for a momentin my concern to preserve for you intact the truth of the gospel”, the hearerwould expect to hear what happened because of that. But he goes on tothose reputed immediately. Did he mean to say that “because of them, I had some trouble”, but he did not? MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea This is all very choppy; Paul voices a phrase and then comments on it> parenthetically before proceeding to his next point, and in the course of> this, his grammatical chain has been badly interrupted. This is the way we> talk, and our letters sometimes take this kind of “tack” or oblique sort of> movement from point to point. That’s what I think is happening here.> — > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > > >
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Apr 23 02:38:18 EDT 2002
Romans 8:29,30 The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 > Gal 2:4-5 reads:> > 4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON> KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]> 5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU> EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.> > An English translation takes it as follows:> > (It is ) because of the false brothers who …., to whom we did not…> > But it is not clear what would be referred to by “it”. Verse 3 simply> says that Titus was not compelled to get circumcised. What would be> the reference of this implicit pronoun “it”? From the viewpoint of> verse 4, the reference would be the situation where the issue of> circumcision of the Gentile believers occurred. But verse 3 seems to say> that Titus was not compelled by the three apostles, whom Paul met> privately, to be circumcised. Therefore, it is difficult to infer> the situation which can be the referent of the implicit “it”.It may be helpful to look at the wider context and also consider thefunction of DE in verse 4 and 6 from a discourse perspective.Paul seems to re-iterate in Gal 2:1-10 what is described in Acts 15. Acts15:1 tells us about some people from Judea who came to Antioch and requiredthe Gentile believers to be circumcised. These people are referred to in Gal2:4 as false believers who sneaked in to destroy the freedom in Christ andbring the Gentile believers into Jewish slavery to the Law. Acts 15:2 tellsabout the dispute between Paul (and Barnabas) and these Jews. Gal 2:5 tellsus that Paul and Barnabas did not bow to their request for circumcision ofthe Gentile believers. Acts 15:2 also tells us that a group of people weresent from Antioch to Jerusalem to discuss the crisis with the churchauthorities there. Gal 2:1 tells us that this group consisted of at least ofPaul, Barnabas and Titus.When Paul is re-iterating the Acts 15 incident in Gal 2:1-10, he firstintroduced the journey to Jerusalem in v.1, and then in v. 2 the propheticbacking for the visit and the purpose of the visit, that his preaching ofthe gospel should not be in vain, which it would be if the false brotherssucceeded in their quest to have the Gentile believers conform to Jewishpractice and tradition. V. 3 briefly foreshadows the success of the mission,namely that the leaders agreed that circumcision of the Gentile believerswas not needed. Titus was a proof case in that he was not forced to undergocircumcision.v. 4-5 is in my analysis a flashback that gives the background for why thejourney and consultation was needed in the first place. DE is the normalGreek connector indicating flashback and background comment, and totranslate it with English BUT is very misleading. Therefore, I see thestructure as dependent upon an implicit ESTIN as Moon suggested – (It is)because… The implied subject “it” would refer to the whole of v. 1-2, thatis the journey and the purpose for it. The DIA indicates the reason oroccasion for the dispute and the journey. It happened as a result of thesefalse believers coming to destroy our freedom. V. 5 continues to say thatPaul did not yield to them during the dispute in Antioch, not even for amoment. The dispute in 4-5 did not take place in Jerusalem, but in Antioch.(All of this of course relates to the Galatian situation in that the same orsimilar false believers had now arrived in Galatia as they did before inAntioch with the same request for circumcision of Gentile believers.)The DE in v. 6 would then bring us back to the storyline from the flashback.It continues the thread from v. 2-3 about the details of the discussion withthe apostles in Jerusalem. The function of DE from a discourse perspectiveis to introduce change, and that change may be a shift from storyline tobackground and back again.Iver Larsen
Romans 8:29,30The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 moon-ryul jung moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr
Tue Apr 23 03:10:01 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Greek Fonts Dear Iver, perfect analysis. It makes sense at last. ThanksMoonMoon-Ryul JungSogang Univ, Seoul, KoreaServe God and Be Cheerful.—– Original Message —– From: “Iver Larsen” <iver_larsen at sil.org>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.metalab.unc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:38 PMSubject: [] RE: The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6> > Gal 2:4-5 reads:> >> > 4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON> > KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]> > 5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU> > EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.> >> > An English translation takes it as follows:> >> > (It is ) because of the false brothers who …., to whom we did not…> >> > But it is not clear what would be referred to by “it”. Verse 3 simply> > says that Titus was not compelled to get circumcised. What would be> > the reference of this implicit pronoun “it”? From the viewpoint of> > verse 4, the reference would be the situation where the issue of> > circumcision of the Gentile believers occurred. But verse 3 seems to say> > that Titus was not compelled by the three apostles, whom Paul met> > privately, to be circumcised. Therefore, it is difficult to infer> > the situation which can be the referent of the implicit “it”.> > It may be helpful to look at the wider context and also consider the> function of DE in verse 4 and 6 from a discourse perspective.> > Paul seems to re-iterate in Gal 2:1-10 what is described in Acts 15. Acts> 15:1 tells us about some people from Judea who came to Antioch and required> the Gentile believers to be circumcised. These people are referred to in Gal> 2:4 as false believers who sneaked in to destroy the freedom in Christ and> bring the Gentile believers into Jewish slavery to the Law. Acts 15:2 tells> about the dispute between Paul (and Barnabas) and these Jews. Gal 2:5 tells> us that Paul and Barnabas did not bow to their request for circumcision of> the Gentile believers. Acts 15:2 also tells us that a group of people were> sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to discuss the crisis with the church> authorities there. Gal 2:1 tells us that this group consisted of at least of> Paul, Barnabas and Titus.> > When Paul is re-iterating the Acts 15 incident in Gal 2:1-10, he first> introduced the journey to Jerusalem in v.1, and then in v. 2 the prophetic> backing for the visit and the purpose of the visit, that his preaching of> the gospel should not be in vain, which it would be if the false brothers> succeeded in their quest to have the Gentile believers conform to Jewish> practice and tradition. V. 3 briefly foreshadows the success of the mission,> namely that the leaders agreed that circumcision of the Gentile believers> was not needed. Titus was a proof case in that he was not forced to undergo> circumcision.> v. 4-5 is in my analysis a flashback that gives the background for why the> journey and consultation was needed in the first place. DE is the normal> Greek connector indicating flashback and background comment, and to> translate it with English BUT is very misleading. Therefore, I see the> structure as dependent upon an implicit ESTIN as Moon suggested – (It is)> because… The implied subject “it” would refer to the whole of v. 1-2, that> is the journey and the purpose for it. The DIA indicates the reason or> occasion for the dispute and the journey. It happened as a result of these> false believers coming to destroy our freedom. V. 5 continues to say that> Paul did not yield to them during the dispute in Antioch, not even for a> moment. The dispute in 4-5 did not take place in Jerusalem, but in Antioch.> (All of this of course relates to the Galatian situation in that the same or> similar false believers had now arrived in Galatia as they did before in> Antioch with the same request for circumcision of Gentile believers.)> > The DE in v. 6 would then bring us back to the storyline from the flashback.> It continues the thread from v. 2-3 about the details of the discussion with> the apostles in Jerusalem. The function of DE from a discourse perspective> is to introduce change, and that change may be a shift from storyline to> background and back again.> > Iver Larsen> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [moon at sogang.ac.kr]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave–81830Q at franklin.oit.unc.edu> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > > > >
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6Greek Fonts
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 23 06:55:40 EDT 2002
Greek Fonts The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 At 8:38 AM +0200 4/23/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>> Gal 2:4-5 reads:>> >> 4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON>> KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]>> 5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU>> EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.>> >> An English translation takes it as follows:>> >> (It is ) because of the false brothers who …., to whom we did not…>> >> But it is not clear what would be referred to by “it”. Verse 3 simply>> says that Titus was not compelled to get circumcised. What would be>> the reference of this implicit pronoun “it”? From the viewpoint of>> verse 4, the reference would be the situation where the issue of>> circumcision of the Gentile believers occurred. But verse 3 seems to say>> that Titus was not compelled by the three apostles, whom Paul met>> privately, to be circumcised. Therefore, it is difficult to infer>> the situation which can be the referent of the implicit “it”.> >It may be helpful to look at the wider context and also consider the>function of DE in verse 4 and 6 from a discourse perspective.> >Paul seems to re-iterate in Gal 2:1-10 what is described in Acts 15. Acts>15:1 tells us about some people from Judea who came to Antioch and required>the Gentile believers to be circumcised. These people are referred to in Gal>2:4 as false believers who sneaked in to destroy the freedom in Christ and>bring the Gentile believers into Jewish slavery to the Law. Acts 15:2 tells>about the dispute between Paul (and Barnabas) and these Jews. Gal 2:5 tells>us that Paul and Barnabas did not bow to their request for circumcision of>the Gentile believers. Acts 15:2 also tells us that a group of people were>sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to discuss the crisis with the church>authorities there. Gal 2:1 tells us that this group consisted of at least of>Paul, Barnabas and Titus.> >When Paul is re-iterating the Acts 15 incident in Gal 2:1-10, he first>introduced the journey to Jerusalem in v.1, and then in v. 2 the prophetic>backing for the visit and the purpose of the visit, that his preaching of>the gospel should not be in vain, which it would be if the false brothers>succeeded in their quest to have the Gentile believers conform to Jewish>practice and tradition. V. 3 briefly foreshadows the success of the mission,>namely that the leaders agreed that circumcision of the Gentile believers>was not needed. Titus was a proof case in that he was not forced to undergo>circumcision.>v. 4-5 is in my analysis a flashback that gives the background for why the>journey and consultation was needed in the first place. DE is the normal>Greek connector indicating flashback and background comment, and to>translate it with English BUT is very misleading. Therefore, I see the>structure as dependent upon an implicit ESTIN as Moon suggested – (It is)>because… The implied subject “it” would refer to the whole of v. 1-2, that>is the journey and the purpose for it. The DIA indicates the reason or>occasion for the dispute and the journey. It happened as a result of these>false believers coming to destroy our freedom. V. 5 continues to say that>Paul did not yield to them during the dispute in Antioch, not even for a>moment. The dispute in 4-5 did not take place in Jerusalem, but in Antioch.>(All of this of course relates to the Galatian situation in that the same or>similar false believers had now arrived in Galatia as they did before in>Antioch with the same request for circumcision of Gentile believers.)> >The DE in v. 6 would then bring us back to the storyline from the flashback.>It continues the thread from v. 2-3 about the details of the discussion with>the apostles in Jerusalem. The function of DE from a discourse perspective>is to introduce change, and that change may be a shift from storyline to>background and back again.Quite apart from the business about Acts 15 as a basis for understandingGal 2 (about which reams have, I think, been written–and this is not theproper forum {I’d suggest Corpus Paulinum} for discussion of therelationship between the Pauline letters, whether authentic or disputed,and the chronology and narrative of Acts), I find the notion of anunexpressed/implicit ESTI at the outset of v. 2 far more intolerable thanassuming an anacoluthon. I think this is stretching a supposed “discoursefunction of DE” pretty far. I could understand something like TOUTO DE DIATOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS …– “That is because of …” I continue tofind it easier to believe that Paul never completed the sentence begun withDIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS, that he got carried away emotionallyby anger at their “espionage”, states emphatically that he did not give wayto them and why, and then abruptly halts the sentence as if havingforgotten what he originally intended to say. Otherwise it seems to me thatverses 4-5 are out of their proper place in the text. Moon assumed thatimplicit ESTI at the outset and Iver finds it quite satisfactory. I find itdifficult to believe that the Greek works that way, and if there areserious problems with verses 5-6, I don’t think they are solved by thisexplanation.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Greek FontsThe structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Tue Apr 23 10:27:23 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 [Carl]>I continue to find it easier to believe that Paul never completed thesentence >begun with DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS, that he gotcarried away >emotionally> by anger at their “espionage”, states emphatically that he did not give way> to them and why, and then abruptly halts the sentence as if having> forgotten what he originally intended to say. [Moon]Let me ask two questions.(1) Is it reasonable to believe that Paul did not review what he wrote.He wrote an official letter. How come he did not review it? Even afterhe proof-read it, did he leave it unedited?(2) If he did not complete the sentence begun with DIA DE TOUSPAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS, would he have meant to say something like”There were somedebate on the issue of Gentile believers’ circumcision”?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Tue Apr 23 10:42:08 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 > > Gal 2:4-5 reads:> >> > 4 DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS hOITINES PAREISHLQON> > KATASKOPHSAI THN ELEUQERIAN hHMWN […]> > 5 hOIS OUDE PROS hWRAN EIXAMEN THi hUTOTAGHi hINA hH ALHQEIA TOU> > EUAGGELIOU DIAMEINHi PROS hUMAS.> >>> Paul seems to re-iterate in Gal 2:1-10 what is described in Acts 15.Acts> 15:1 tells us about some people from Judea who came to Antioch and required> the Gentile believers to be circumcised. [Moon] The difficulty with this interpretation is that the meetingdescribedat Acts 15 is a public conference, while the meeting described in Gal 2 isa private one. > v. 4-5 is in my analysis a flashback that gives the background for why the> journey and consultation was needed in the first place. DE is the normal> Greek connector indicating flashback and background comment, and to> translate it with English BUT is very misleading. [Moon] The function of DE as the indicator to flashback and backgroundcommentis what I never paid sufficient attention to. But “flashback andbackgroundcomment” seems to be too strong. I thought that DE describes simplydifferent aspects to the theme being developed by the preceding discourse.> The DE in v. 6 would then bring us back to the storyline from the flashback.> It continues the thread from v. 2-3 about the details of the discussion with> the apostles in Jerusalem. The function of DE from a discourse perspective> is to introduce change, and that change may be a shift from storyline to> background and back again.> [Moon]Again the function of DE as the indicator to returning to the mainlineseemsto be too strong. Is there any evidence to this use of DE? MEN … DE …is used to describe related but different aspects of a given situation. Isn’t DE alone a weaker form of MEN … DE in that the preceding discourseplays the role of the clause introduced by MEN?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea> Iver Larsen
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Apr 23 15:54:27 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 > [Moon] The difficulty with this interpretation is that the meeting> described at Acts 15 is a public conference, while the meeting describedin Gal 2 is> a private one.I see no problem or discrepancy. Gal 2:2 talks about a meeting with therecognized leaders which would be the apostles and elders of the church.Acts 15:6 says that Paul and Barnabas met with the apostles and elders todiscuss the matter, after the initial meeting in a larger circle. It isquite understandable that the initial meeting in Jerusalem involved awelcome by a larger circle and a report to them (v. 4). During that largermeeting, the question about circumcision was again raised by some Phariseesin Jerusalem (v. 5). The leaders decided that the issue was too hot todiscuss in the large meeting, so they met privately, as v. 6 tells us.> [Moon] The function of DE as the indicator to flashback and background> comment> is what I never paid sufficient attention to. But “flashback and> background> comment” seems to be too strong. I thought that DE describes simply> different aspects to the theme being developed by the preceding discourse.No, DE has a number of different discourse functions, all somehow related tothe function of indicating a shift or change. If you have Levinsohn’s bookon Greek discourse, several sections deal with DE. Section 5.4.1 is aboutbackground material introduced by DE. (I could also send you one of my ownlittle discourse studies on this.)> [Moon]> Again the function of DE as the indicator to returning to the mainline> seems> to be too strong. Is there any evidence to this use of DE? MEN … DE …> is used to describe related but different aspects of a given situation.> Isn’t DE alone a weaker form of MEN … DE in that the preceding discourse> plays the role of the clause introduced by MEN?No, DE is not a weaker form of MEN … DE. DE has its own functions,completely apart from MEN, and one of its many change functions is to changeback to storyline.Iver Larsen
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Apr 23 15:54:31 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 > > Quite apart from the business about Acts 15 as a basis for understanding> Gal 2 (about which reams have, I think, been written–and this is not the> proper forum {I’d suggest Corpus Paulinum} for discussion of the> relationship between the Pauline letters, whether authentic or disputed,> and the chronology and narrative of Acts), I find the notion of an> unexpressed/implicit ESTI at the outset of v. 2 far more intolerable than> assuming an anacoluthon. I think this is stretching a supposed “discourse> function of DE” pretty far. I could understand something like TOUTO DE DIA> TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS …– “That is because of …”I am quite happy to accept “That is because of…” or “That came aboutbecause of…”I am sure reams have been written about Acts 15 and Gal 2. The only thing Imight like to clarify is that the incident in Gal 2:11-21 probably happenedbefore the incident in Gal 2:1-10. This is based on careful discoursestudies, so I won’t go into details.Iver Larsen
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 23 16:33:50 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Learning Greek At 9:54 PM +0200 4/23/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>> >> Quite apart from the business about Acts 15 as a basis for understanding>> Gal 2 (about which reams have, I think, been written–and this is not the>> proper forum {I’d suggest Corpus Paulinum} for discussion of the>> relationship between the Pauline letters, whether authentic or disputed,>> and the chronology and narrative of Acts), I find the notion of an>> unexpressed/implicit ESTI at the outset of v. 2 far more intolerable than>> assuming an anacoluthon. I think this is stretching a supposed “discourse>> function of DE” pretty far. I could understand something like TOUTO DE DIA>> TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS …– “That is because of …”> >I am quite happy to accept “That is because of…” or “That came about>because of…”Except that the text doesn’t read TOUTO DE DIA TOUS PAREISAKTOUSYEUDADELFOUS …>I am sure reams have been written about Acts 15 and Gal 2. The only thing I>might like to clarify is that the incident in Gal 2:11-21 probably happened>before the incident in Gal 2:1-10. This is based on careful discourse>studies, so I won’t go into details.I’d have to be convinced of that too, but this is not the forum for it.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6Learning Greek
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Tue Apr 23 20:44:30 EDT 2002
LSJ 9 entry Acts 17:6 use of participles > > [Moon] The difficulty with this interpretation is that the meeting> > described at Acts 15 is a public conference, while the meeting described> in Gal 2 is> > a private one.> > I see no problem or discrepancy. Gal 2:2 talks about a meeting with the> recognized leaders which would be the apostles and elders of the church.> Acts 15:6 says that Paul and Barnabas met with the apostles and elders to> discuss the matter, after the initial meeting in a larger circle. It is> quite understandable that the initial meeting in Jerusalem involved a> welcome by a larger circle and a report to them (v. 4). During that larger> meeting, the question about circumcision was again raised by some Pharisees> in Jerusalem (v. 5). The leaders decided that the issue was too hot to> discuss in the large meeting, so they met privately, as v. 6 tells us.> [Moon]I thought that Acts 15:6-21 describes a public meeting. In verse 15:12, itsays:ESIGHSEN DE PAN TO PLHQOS, which RSV renders as “the whole assembly keptsilent”. Doesn’t the presence of “the whole assembly” indicate that itwas a public meeting? Do you take PAN TO PLHQOS to refer to all themembersof the private discussion? > > [Moon] The function of DE as the indicator to flashback and background> > comment> > is what I never paid sufficient attention to. But “flashback and> > background> > comment” seems to be too strong. I thought that DE describes simply> > different aspects to the theme being developed by the preceding discourse.> > No, DE has a number of different discourse functions, all somehow related to> the function of indicating a shift or change. If you have Levinsohn’s book> on Greek discourse, several sections deal with DE. Section 5.4.1 is about> background material introduced by DE. (I could also send you one of my own> little discourse studies on this.)> Would you please give me a full citation of Levinsohn’s book?I would be happy to get a copy of your paper. Thanks. MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
LSJ 9 entryActs 17:6 use of participles
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 23 22:06:27 EDT 2002
Acts 17:6 use of participles LSJ 9 entry At 10:27 AM -0400 4/23/02, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>[Carl]>>I continue to find it easier to believe that Paul never completed the>sentence >begun with DIA DE TOUS PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS, that he got>carried away >emotionally>> by anger at their “espionage”, states emphatically that he did not give way>> to them and why, and then abruptly halts the sentence as if having>> forgotten what he originally intended to say.> >[Moon]> >Let me ask two questions.> >(1) Is it reasonable to believe that Paul did not review what he wrote.>He wrote an official letter. How come he did not review it? Even after>he proof-read it, did he leave it unedited?Perhaps it would be worth while imagining the process of writing a letter:do you suppose it was handwritten, typed, proofread, then copied onto a”fair copy”? I frankly don’t think that Galatians reads like a documentthat was checked and edited and then copied from papyrus to parchmentbefore sending. I very much doubt any proofreading or editing by the author.>(2) If he did not complete the sentence begun with DIA DE TOUS>PAREISAKTOUS YEUDADELFOUS, would he have meant to say something like>“There were some>debate on the issue of Gentile believers’ circumcision”?If we knew for sure what he meant to say, we wouldn’t be confronting theproblem that this text presents. Some seem to be pretty sure they knowexactly what Paul intended; I personally think rather that we have to reada lot between the lines and guess about this letter, knowing very well thatwhat we’re doing is guessing rather than working our way toward firm andsatisfactory conclusions.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Acts 17:6 use of participlesLSJ 9 entry
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Apr 24 05:37:46 EDT 2002
LSJ 9 entry LSJ 9 entry > [Moon]> I thought that Acts 15:6-21 describes a public meeting. In verse 15:12, it> says:> ESIGHSEN DE PAN TO PLHQOS, which RSV renders as “the whole assembly kept> silent”. Doesn’t the presence of “the whole assembly” indicate that it> was a public meeting? Do you take PAN TO PLHQOS to refer to all the> members of the private discussion?I always interpret individual words on the background of their context. 15:6introduces the setting of a meeting with the apostles and elders. There isno change in setting indicated in 5:12, so the whole group (TO PLHQOS) mustrefer to the group of apostles (at least 12 I assume, missing James, brotherof John, but including James, brother of Jesus) plus the group of elders(unknown number). It was not a public meeting, but all the leaders gatheredtogether.After the leaders had reached a conclusion, they shared it with the wholechurch (15:22) and together they chose some of the leaders (probably elders)to escort Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch and confirm the decision of theleaders personally.> > Would you please give me a full citation of Levinsohn’s book?> I would be happy to get a copy of your paper. Thanks.Stephen H. Levinsohn: Information Structure and Discourse Features of NewTestament Greek. 2001. SIL, Dallas, Texas. Further info should be availableon www.sil.org.My paper was published in Notes on Translation, vol. 5.1 (1991). SIL.Dallas, Texas. I’ll send you a copy.Iver Larsen
LSJ 9 entryLSJ 9 entry
Gal 2:4-7 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Thu Apr 25 17:56:47 EDT 2002
LXX: Gn.5 AITHSHi (John 11:22) [Moon]> I thought that Acts 15:6-21 describes a public meeting. In verse 15:12, it> says:> ESIGHSEN DE PAN TO PLHQOS, which RSV renders as “the whole assembly kept> silent”. Doesn’t the presence of “the whole assembly” indicate that it> was a public meeting? Do you take PAN TO PLHQOS to refer to all the> members of the private discussion?[Iver]I always interpret individual words on the background of their context.15:6introduces the setting of a meeting with the apostles and elders. There isno change in setting indicated in 5:12, so the whole group (TO PLHQOS)mustrefer to the group of apostles (at least 12 I assume, missing James,brotherof John, but including James, brother of Jesus) plus the group of elders(unknown number). It was not a public meeting, but all the leadersgatheredtogether.[Moon]I have two questions.(1) Shouldn’t a meeting with the whole group of apostles and elders beregarded as a public meeting?(2) In Gal 2, Paul and Barnabas are described to have met only threeleading apostles, which should be regarded as a private meeting. Isthere any way to reconcile it with TO PLHQOS in Acts 15?MoonMoon R. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
LXX: Gn.5AITHSHi (John 11:22)
Gal 2:4-7 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Apr 26 08:26:54 EDT 2002
prin Abraam genesthai egw eimi prin Abraam genesthai egw eimi [Iver]> I always interpret individual words on the background of their context.> 15:6> introduces the setting of a meeting with the apostles and elders. There is> no change in setting indicated in 5:12, so the whole group (TO PLHQOS)> must> refer to the group of apostles (at least 12 I assume, missing James,> brother> of John, but including James, brother of Jesus) plus the group of elders> (unknown number). It was not a public meeting, but all the leaders> gathered together.> > [Moon]> I have two questions.> > (1) Shouldn’t a meeting with the whole group of apostles and elders be> regarded as a public meeting?To me a public meeting depends on free access for everyone, not on how bigthe group is. When the leadership of a corporation meets for discussion anddecision making about internal matters, I consider it a private meeting nomatter how big the leadership group is. When the church leaders in Antiochmet with the church leaders in Jerusalem, I consider it a private churchleadership meeting.> (2) In Gal 2, Paul and Barnabas are described to have met only three> leading apostles, which should be regarded as a private meeting. Is> there any way to reconcile it with TO PLHQOS in Acts 15?Where in Gal 2 does it say that Paul and Barnabas met only three leadingapostles? In 2:2 and 6 we hear that they met with the “seeming ones” (NRSV:the acknowledged leaders). The acknowledged leaders could well be theoverall leaders (apostles) and the local leaders in the Jerusalem church,the elders. In 2:9 the three “pillars” gave the official blue stamp to Pauland Barnabas. That only the three top leaders are mentioned by name, doesnot mean that only three leaders were present. Already among the 12 originalapostles, Peter, James and John constituted the inner circle of leaders withPeter having a special position. After James was killed, the other Jamescame into prominence and was recognized as the top leader of the church inJerusalem. In Acts 15 it was Peter who gave a major authoritative speech tothe leadership after the whole group had been debating the issue for a longtime (v. 6-7). After that the whole group of leaders listened to Paul andBarnabas. Finally, James builds on Peter’s speech, backs it with a prophecyfrom the OT and gives his verdict (EGW KRINW in v. 19). End of discussion.The rest is formality. The formal way of showing that decision was ahandshake (or whatever is meant by giving the right hand of fellowship in2:8) from the three leaders who had highest authority, representing thecollective leadership.Iver Larsen
prin Abraam genesthai egw eimiprin Abraam genesthai egw eimi