Parsing of Gal 3:11 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at sogang.ac.kr
Mon Oct 1 10:22:29 εδτ 2001
προστιθημι James 2:13 Dear ers, let us consider:(1)hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουνται παρα TWi QEWi δηλον, hOTIhO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται. The above, with its decision to place the comma after δηλον, is usually translated as: That in the law nobody is justified before God is obvious, because the righteous shall live by faith.If we put the comma before δηλον as:(2)hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουνται παρα TWi QEWi, δηλον hOTIhO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται,it will be translated as: Because in the law nobody is justified before God, it is obvious that the righteous shall live by faith.One of the fundamental principles of writing is “the subject and its predicate should be as close as possible”.(2) satisfies this principle better than (1). In (2), the predicate δηλον is immediately followed by its subject,the hOTI clause.Is there any reason for most translations prefer (1) to (2)?MoonMoon ρ. JungSogang Univ, Seoul, Korea?
PROSTIQHMIJames 2:13
Parsing of Gal 3:11 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 1 17:13:05 εδτ 2001
Parsing of Gal 3:11 James 2:13 ι think this is a matter of πυνξτυατιον rather than παρσινγ, butultimately, of course, one of understanding the structure of the sentence.At 10:22 αμ -0400 10/1/01, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Dear ers, let us consider:> >(1)>hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουνται παρα TWi QEWi δηλον, hOTI>hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται.> >The above, with its decision to place the comma after δηλον,>is usually translated as:> That in the law nobody is justified before God is obvious,> because the righteous shall live by faith.> >If we put the comma before δηλον as:> >(2)>hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουται παρα TWi QEWi, δηλον hOTI>hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται,> >it will be translated as:> > Because in the law nobody is justified before God, it is> obvious that the righteous shall live by faith.ι think that εν NOMWi here is instrumental: “by means of Law”.>One of the fundamental principles of writing is “>the subject and its predicate should be as close as possible”.> >(2) satisfies this principle better than (1). In (2), the>predicate δηλον is immediately followed by its subject,>the hOTI clause.> >Is there any reason for most translations prefer (1) to (2)?Yes. It is generally assumed that the first hOTI simply introduces the nounclause that is the subject of δηλον (εστιν), while the second hOTI iscausal and the clause following explains the proposition by reference to anOT citation: hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται. That is to say: that finalclause is not a conclusion to be deduced but the premiss upon which theassertion in the first clause is based. It has to be recognized that Hab.2:4 is being cited in the last clause as a reason why the proposition inthe first clause is valid. Note that in vs. 13 the same structure isevident: the proposition is first stated: ξριστοσ hHMAS εχηγορασεν εκ θσκαραρασ του νομου γενομενοσ hUPER hHMWN καταρα, and then the justificationfor that assertion is offered from scripture: hOTI γεγραπται, “επικαταρατοσπασ hO κρεμαμενοσ επι χυλου.” Vs. 12 is slightly different but has the sameorder: the false assertion is negated and contrasted (through αλλα) withthe scriptural basis: “hO ποιησασ αυτα ζησεται εν αυτοισ.”– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Parsing of Gal 3:11James 2:13
Parsing of Gal 3:11 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Mon Oct 1 15:55:59 εδτ 2001
James 2:13 Parsing of Gal 3:11 On Mon 1 Oct 2001 (10:22:29), moon at sogang.ac.kr wrote:> (1)> hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουνται παρα TWi QEWi δηλον, hOTI> hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται. > > The above, with its decision to place the comma after δηλον, > is usually translated as:> That in the law nobody is justified before God is obvious,> because the righteous shall live by faith.> > If we put the comma before δηλον as:> > (2)> hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουνται παρα TWi QEWi, δηλον hOTI> hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται,> > it will be translated as: > > Because in the law nobody is justified before God, it is> obvious that the righteous shall live by faith.> > One of the fundamental principles of writing is “> the subject and its predicate should be as close as possible”.> > (2) satisfies this principle better than (1). In (2), the > predicate δηλον is immediately followed by its subject,> the hOTI clause.> > Is there any reason for most translations prefer (1) to (2)? Dear Moon, My preference is for (1), because that preserves the integrity (if that is the right word) of the quotation from Habakkuk, αμβακουμ 2:4 λχχ hO δε δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ μου ζησεται. That said, the λχχ has the wrong personal pronoun; the Hebrew requires hO δε δικαιοσ εκ πιστεθσ *αυτου* ζησεται. What Paul gives in Galatians 3:11 and also in Romans 1:17 omits the personal pronoun; “the just shall live by [his own?] faith” implied by the context, ιμηο. But Paul also adds in Romans 1:17 the ascription καθωσ γεγραπται to introduce the citation. This would seem to me to preclude putting the comma before δηλον. ερρωσθε Ben– Revd Ben Crick, βα ξφ <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (υκ) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
James 2:13Parsing of Gal 3:11
Mon Oct 1 22:03:51 εδτ 2001
James 2:13 παντεσ In Mt.26:27 > >(1)> >hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουνται παρα TWi QEWi δηλον, hOTI> >hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται.> >>> >(2)> >hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουται παρα TWi QEWi, δηλον hOTI> >hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται,> >> > >One of the fundamental principles of writing is “> >the subject and its predicate should be as close as possible”.> >> >(2) satisfies this principle better than (1). In (2), the> >predicate δηλον is immediately followed by its subject,> >the hOTI clause.> >> >Is there any reason for most translations prefer (1) to (2)?> > Yes. That is to say: that final> clause is not a conclusion to be deduced but the premiss upon which the> assertion in the first clause is based. It has to be recognized that Hab.> 2:4 is being cited in the last clause as a reason why the proposition in> the first clause is valid. Note that in vs. 13 the same structure is> evident: the proposition is first stated: ξριστοσ hHMAS εχηγορασεν εκ θσ> καραρασ του νομου γενομενοσ hUPER hHMWN καταρα, and then the justification> for that assertion is offered from scripture: hOTI γεγραπται, “επικαταρατοσ> πασ hO κρεμαμενοσ επι χυλου.” Vs. 12 is slightly different but has the same> order: the false assertion is negated and contrasted (through αλλα) with> the scriptural basis: “hO ποιησασ αυτα ζησεται εν αυτοισ.”> — α convincing explanation! Thanks. But even if it is not a”assertion-quotation”structure, can we say the same thing? That is, can we say that the reasonclauseusually comes after the assertion clause? ι mean “…. because ….”rather than “because …., ….”.MoonMoon ρ. JungSogang Univ,Seoul, Korea> > Carl ω. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)> Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.com> ωωω: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
James 2:13PANTES In Mt.26:27
Tue Oct 2 06:04:07 εδτ 2001
Gal 4:18 εν KALWi Multiple Subject and Verb Agreement At 10:03 πμ -0400 10/1/01, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>> >(1)>> >hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουνται παρα TWi QEWi δηλον, hOTI>> >hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται.>> >>>> >(2)>> >hOTI δε εν NOMWi ουδεισ δικαιουται παρα TWi QEWi, δηλον hOTI>> >hO δικαιοσ εκ πιστεωσ ζησεται,>> >>> > >One of the fundamental principles of writing is “>> >the subject and its predicate should be as close as possible”.>> >>> >(2) satisfies this principle better than (1). In (2), the>> >predicate δηλον is immediately followed by its subject,>> >the hOTI clause.>> >>> >Is there any reason for most translations prefer (1) to (2)?>> >> Yes. That is to say: that final>> clause is not a conclusion to be deduced but the premiss upon which the>> assertion in the first clause is based. It has to be recognized that Hab.>> 2:4 is being cited in the last clause as a reason why the proposition in>> the first clause is valid. Note that in vs. 13 the same structure is>> evident: the proposition is first stated: ξριστοσ hHMAS εχηγορασεν εκ θσ>> καραρασ του νομου γενομενοσ hUPER hHMWN καταρα, and then the justification>> for that assertion is offered from scripture: hOTI γεγραπται, “επικαταρατοσ>> πασ hO κρεμαμενοσ επι χυλου.” Vs. 12 is slightly different but has the same>> order: the false assertion is negated and contrasted (through αλλα) with>> the scriptural basis: “hO ποιησασ αυτα ζησεται εν αυτοισ.”>> —> >α convincing explanation! Thanks. But even if it is not a>“assertion-quotation”>structure, can we say the same thing? That is, can we say that the reason>clause>usually comes after the assertion clause? ι mean “…. because ….”>rather than “because …., ….”.No, at least ι‘m not inclined to think this is necessarily the more commonpattern, although it’s clearly the pattern here. ι think this argumentationis a matter of rhetoric rather than typical clause-structures; ι think thatone could just as well state one’s scriptural model first and then followit with a “Therefore you ought not to … (διο ου ξῥ ταυτα ποιειν …)” ora clause beginning with δια τουτο or with δια ταυτα may indicate aconclusion drawn from the argument just previously stated. ι‘m sure there’sa significant literature on the rhetoric of Pauline argumentation, but ι‘mnot up on it.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Gal 4:18 εν KALWiMultiple Subject and Verb Agreement
Parsing of Gal 3:11 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Oct 2 16:01:18 εδτ 2001
John 6: 40 Eph 4:9 το ανεβη Moon Jung asked:<snip>> can we say that the reason clause> usually comes after the assertion clause? ι mean “…. because ….”> rather than “because …., ….”.If we limit ourselves to hOTI with the meaning “because, for” indicating areason or grounds relationship, ι would say a definite yes to your question.ι looked up all the instanced of hOTI glossed with “because” in the GNTdatabase that ι am using. There were 366 occurrences. In 97 percent of thesethe structure is as you have said:”…. because ….”Of the few instances of the other structure “because …., ….” more thanhalf of them (seven) were in John’s gospel and two in Revelation. Theremight be a Semitic influence involved. John is particularly fond of hOTI. Ofthe 366 instances in the whole ντ, 25 % or 90 to be exact occur in John’sgospel and 48 in Revelation.When this second and unusual (marked) order occurs, it appears that there isa special emphasis on the reason. To show this we might look at all theplaces outside of John where this marked order with hOTI occurs:λυκ 19:17 hOTI εν ELACISTWi πιστοσ εγενου, ισθι εχουσιαν εξων επανω DEKAPOLEWN1 Cor 12:15 εαν EIPHi hO πουσ, hOTI ουκ ειμι ξειρ, ουκ ειμι εκ του SWMATOS1 ξορ 12:16 και εαν EIPHi το ουσ, hOTI ουκ ειμι οφθαλμοσ ουκ ειμι εκ τουσωματοσγαλ 4:6 hOTI δε εστε hUIOI εχαπεστειλεν hO θεοσ το πνευμα του hUIOU αυτουεισ τασ καρδιασ hUMWNEven in John’s Gospel and Revelation, it seems likely that the preposed hOTIclause was preposed in order to emphasize the reason. For those who wouldlike to look them up ι list the references ι found:John 1:50, 8:45, 14:19, 15:19, 16:6, 19:42, 20:29Rev. 3:10, 16Iver Larsen
John 6: 40Eph 4:9 το ανεβη