Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Sun Nov 11 16:45:22 EST 2001
SBL paper posted (Adapting Technology to Teach Koine Greek) APIEI One of my coworkers is currently revising the translation of Galatians andasked me yesterday to help him determine the meaning of hOTI DI’ in Gal.4:13. English versions are divided as to whether these particles indicatethe cause of Paul’s preaching to them the first time or a circumstantialcondition of his preaching to them the first time. Do you all on this listfeel there is any way that we can tell from the Greek here which of thesesemantic options is more likely?Thanks,Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm
SBL paper posted (Adapting Technology to Teach Koine Greek)APIEI
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Steven R. Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sun Nov 11 17:53:09 EST 2001
APIEI APIEI on 11/11/01 3:45 PM, Wayne Leman at wayne_leman at sil.org wrote:> One of my coworkers is currently revising the translation of Galatians and> asked me yesterday to help him determine the meaning of hOTI DI’ in Gal.> 4:13. English versions are divided as to whether these particles indicate> the cause of Paul’s preaching to them the first time or a circumstantial> condition of his preaching to them the first time. Do you all on this list> feel there is any way that we can tell from the Greek here which of these> semantic options is more likely?Wayne, I don’t think hOTI and DI’ should be construed together as a phraseor an idiom. In light of the fact that the main verb is OIDATE, a verb ofperception, I think it is better to take hOTI as a marker of indirectstatement, i.e., introducing the content of the Galatians’ knowledge. I alsothink the most natural way to take the preposition DI’ is in a causal sense.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
APIEIAPIEI
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Sun Nov 11 18:28:13 EST 2001
APIEI Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ > on 11/11/01 3:45 PM, Wayne Leman at wayne_leman at sil.org wrote:> > > One of my coworkers is currently revising the translation of Galatiansand> > asked me yesterday to help him determine the meaning of hOTI DI’ in Gal.> > 4:13. English versions are divided as to whether these particlesindicate> > the cause of Paul’s preaching to them the first time or a circumstantial> > condition of his preaching to them the first time. Do you all on thislist> > feel there is any way that we can tell from the Greek here which ofthese> > semantic options is more likely?> > Wayne, I don’t think hOTI and DI’ should be construed together as a phrase> or an idiom.And, for the record, I didn’t consider them either, Steven, and I hope mymessage didn’t give that impression. I just recognized that they enter intothe semantics of what follows.> In light of the fact that the main verb is OIDATE, a verb of> perception, I think it is better to take hOTI as a marker of indirect> statement, i.e., introducing the content of the Galatians’ knowledge. Ialso> think the most natural way to take the preposition DI’ is in a causalsense.Can you state the evidence you use to conclude that? That evidence will helpmy coworker who is quite competent in Greek. He used to teach at MIT.Thanks,Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm
APIEIGal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Nov 11 18:30:46 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ At 4:53 PM -0600 11/11/01, Steven R. Lo Vullo wrote:>on 11/11/01 3:45 PM, Wayne Leman at wayne_leman at sil.org wrote:> >> One of my coworkers is currently revising the translation of Galatians and>> asked me yesterday to help him determine the meaning of hOTI DI’ in Gal.>> 4:13. English versions are divided as to whether these particles indicate>> the cause of Paul’s preaching to them the first time or a circumstantial>> condition of his preaching to them the first time. Do you all on this list>> feel there is any way that we can tell from the Greek here which of these>> semantic options is more likely?> >Wayne, I don’t think hOTI and DI’ should be construed together as a phrase>or an idiom. In light of the fact that the main verb is OIDATE, a verb of>perception, I think it is better to take hOTI as a marker of indirect>statement, i.e., introducing the content of the Galatians’ knowledge. I also>think the most natural way to take the preposition DI’ is in a causal sense.FWIW (i.e. one more vote when what’s right on a matter like this can’t bedetermined by votes–even if translation committees decide probabilitiesthat way!), I think Steven is right on target.– 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/
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Sun Nov 11 19:08:31 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Luke 8:9 Wayne:> >> One of my coworkers is currently revising the translation of Galatiansand> >> asked me yesterday to help him determine the meaning of hOTI DI’ inGal.> >> 4:13. English versions are divided as to whether these particlesindicate> >> the cause of Paul’s preaching to them the first time or acircumstantial> >> condition of his preaching to them the first time. Do you all on thislist> >> feel there is any way that we can tell from the Greek here which ofthese> >> semantic options is more likely?> >Steven:> >Wayne, I don’t think hOTI and DI’ should be construed together as aphrase> >or an idiom. In light of the fact that the main verb is OIDATE, a verb of> >perception, I think it is better to take hOTI as a marker of indirect> >statement, i.e., introducing the content of the Galatians’ knowledge. Ialso> >think the most natural way to take the preposition DI’ is in a causalsense.> Carl:> FWIW (i.e. one more vote when what’s right on a matter like this can’t be> determined by votes–even if translation committees decide probabilities> that way!), I think Steven is right on target.Thanks to both of you, Steven and Carl, for responding. Yes, I should nothave included hOTI in my question. I really should only have asked about DI'(DIA). I’ve gotten your two votes for the causal sense. What causes each ofyou (and many others, as well) to choose the causal sense here instead ofsome other sense? Does DIA which heads a prepositional phrase like this moreoften encode a causal sense, or is there something in the semantics of thecontext that tilts us that direction? And if we do have a causalrelationship here, do we have any idea what the implicit relationship isbetween ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS and EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN TO PROTERON that causesDIA to have the causal sense (i.e. what was there about Paul’s ASQENEIAN THSSARKOS that made it a cause for the clause that follows). I realize I’masking for another opinion about something which is outside the immediatetext, but I’d like to have the causal option make more sense to me than itdoes simply on the face of things as stated in this verse.Thanks,Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Luke 8:9
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Nov 11 21:20:58 EST 2001
Luke 8:9 Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ At 5:08 PM -0700 11/11/01, Wayne Leman wrote:>Wayne:>> >> One of my coworkers is currently revising the translation of Galatians>and>> >> asked me yesterday to help him determine the meaning of hOTI DI’ in>Gal.>> >> 4:13. English versions are divided as to whether these particles>indicate>> >> the cause of Paul’s preaching to them the first time or a>circumstantial>> >> condition of his preaching to them the first time. Do you all on this>list>> >> feel there is any way that we can tell from the Greek here which of>these>> >> semantic options is more likely?>> >> >Steven:>> >Wayne, I don’t think hOTI and DI’ should be construed together as a>phrase>> >or an idiom. In light of the fact that the main verb is OIDATE, a verb of>> >perception, I think it is better to take hOTI as a marker of indirect>> >statement, i.e., introducing the content of the Galatians’ knowledge. I>also>> >think the most natural way to take the preposition DI’ is in a causal>sense.>> > >Carl:>> FWIW (i.e. one more vote when what’s right on a matter like this can’t be>> determined by votes–even if translation committees decide probabilities>> that way!), I think Steven is right on target.> >Thanks to both of you, Steven and Carl, for responding. Yes, I should not>have included hOTI in my question. I really should only have asked about DI’>(DIA). I’ve gotten your two votes for the causal sense. What causes each of>you (and many others, as well) to choose the causal sense here instead of>some other sense? Does DIA which heads a prepositional phrase like this more>often encode a causal sense, or is there something in the semantics of the>context that tilts us that direction? And if we do have a causal>relationship here, do we have any idea what the implicit relationship is>between ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS and EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN TO PROTERON that causes>DIA to have the causal sense (i.e. what was there about Paul’s ASQENEIAN THS>SARKOS that made it a cause for the clause that follows). I realize I’m>asking for another opinion about something which is outside the immediate>text, but I’d like to have the causal option make more sense to me than it>does simply on the face of things as stated in this verse.You are indeed asking about something that lies outside the immediate text;I really have nothing to offer beyond the fact that DIA + accusative, sofar as I can tell (and this seems to be what BDAG says too) does regularlyindicate the cause or reason for whatever is predicated in the clause. What”fleshly infirmity” is meant here seems to me a relatively fruitless matterof speculation and I don’t care to speculate where I don’t have somethingto work with. Nevertheless, I just don’t see any other way of taking DI’ASQENEIAN SARKOS. It seems to me that often in Pauline letters we aretrying to read between the lines of what’s being said to get at implicitbackground information shared by writer and audience of these letters. If aviable alternative to a causal sense for DI’ ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS ispressented, I’d consider it, but at this point I don’t really see anyviable alternative. Perhaps it’s a methodical, epistemological question forme, but I simply would rather not speculate beyond what’s evident in theimmediate context. What other sense for this phrase is being suggested? Bycircumstantial condition, do you mean: (a) perhaps he stopped in Corinthbecause he was ill, physically or otherwise? (b) perhaps he’d had an attackof the notorious “thorn in the flesh”? Either of those strikes me as sheerguesswork and not anything that helps with the current phrase. Perhaps hetore a hamstring and had to stop in Corinth for a few weeks before he couldgo on. But we can’t know that.– 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/
Luke 8:9Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Nov 11 22:04:44 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ on 11/11/01 6:20 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> You are indeed asking about something that lies outside the immediate text;> I really have nothing to offer beyond the fact that DIA + accusative, so> far as I can tell (and this seems to be what BDAG says too) does regularly> indicate the cause or reason for whatever is predicated in the clause.{snip}>. If a> viable alternative to a causal sense for DI’ ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS is> pressented, I’d consider it, but at this point I don’t really see any> viable alternativeWayne,Lightfoot and Meyer both agree with Carl on this. Lightfoot states thatthere are instances where DIA + Acc. is used like DIA + Gen. but that theseoccur in later Greek texts and that this usage should not be read back intothe NT. Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Sun Nov 11 22:50:41 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Carl responded to my response:> You are indeed asking about something that lies outside the immediatetext;> I really have nothing to offer beyond the fact that DIA + accusative, so> far as I can tell (and this seems to be what BDAG says too) does regularly> indicate the cause or reason for whatever is predicated in the clause.That’s exactly what I needed to know, Carl.> What> “fleshly infirmity” is meant here seems to me a relatively fruitlessmatter> of speculation and I don’t care to speculate where I don’t have something> to work with.No, I wasn’t concerned with the nature of that infirmity. I was concernedabout whether or not DIA + ACC. here is best translated as cause or as somekind of circumstantial accompiment. I have found only 3 English versionswhich choose the latter reading for DIA + ACC. And I wanted to know if theirinterpretation could hold up to the most likely understanding of DIA + ACC.given what we know of Greek syntax.> Nevertheless, I just don’t see any other way of taking DI’> ASQENEIAN SARKOS. It seems to me that often in Pauline letters we are> trying to read between the lines of what’s being said to get at implicit> background information shared by writer and audience of these letters. Ifa> viable alternative to a causal sense for DI’ ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS is> pressented, I’d consider it, but at this point I don’t really see any> viable alternative. Perhaps it’s a methodical, epistemological questionfor> me, but I simply would rather not speculate beyond what’s evident in the> immediate context. What other sense for this phrase is being suggested? By> circumstantial condition, do you mean: (a) perhaps he stopped in Corinth> because he was ill, physically or otherwise? (b) perhaps he’d had anattack> of the notorious “thorn in the flesh”? Either of those strikes me as sheer> guesswork and not anything that helps with the current phrase. Perhaps he> tore a hamstring and had to stop in Corinth for a few weeks before hecould> go on. But we can’t know that.I should have been clearer in my original question: I’m not interested inspeculating about what the infirmity was. I don’t think we can have anyclear idea of what that was. Instead, I wanted to know if a causalinterpretation was required by DIA + ACC. So, instead of “because,” we have,for instance, in the God’s Word translation:”You know that the first time I brought you the Good News I was ill.”and in the New Living Translation, we have:”Surely you remember that I was sick when I first brought you the Good Newsof Christ.”and J.B. Phillips rendered the verse as:”You know how handicapped I was by illness when I first preached the gospelto you.”The thematic idea, then, moving along in the context, would be along thelines of:”I had an infirmity when I first preached to you. But you didn’t reject mebecause of that. On the contrary, you fully welcome me.”If the causal sense is best supported by Greek syntax, then I’d like to knowwhat it was about his infirmity that caused him to preached to these peoplethe first time he was with them. I don’t need to know what the actualinfirmity was but how any infirmity would be a cause for his preaching tothem the first time.I hope I’m clearer now. Thanks for taking the time to help me with this.Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Sun Nov 11 22:52:47 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Thanks, Clay. It is this kind of syntactic evidence which I have needed totilt me one direction or the other. So far, we’re batting 3/3 on forthe causal reading of DIA + ACC. in Gal. 4:13.Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm<snip>> Wayne,> > Lightfoot and Meyer both agree with Carl on this. Lightfoot states that> there are instances where DIA + Acc. is used like DIA + Gen. but thatthese> occur in later Greek texts and that this usage should not be read backinto> the NT.> > Clay
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Steven R. Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sun Nov 11 23:28:05 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ on 11/11/01 6:08 PM, Wayne Leman at wayne_leman at sil.org wrote:> Thanks to both of you, Steven and Carl, for responding. Yes, I should not> have included hOTI in my question. I really should only have asked about DI’> (DIA). I’ve gotten your two votes for the causal sense. What causes each of> you (and many others, as well) to choose the causal sense here instead of> some other sense? Does DIA which heads a prepositional phrase like this more> often encode a causal sense, or is there something in the semantics of the> context that tilts us that direction? And if we do have a causal> relationship here, do we have any idea what the implicit relationship is> between ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS and EUHGGELISAMHN hUMIN TO PROTERON that causes> DIA to have the causal sense (i.e. what was there about Paul’s ASQENEIAN THS> SARKOS that made it a cause for the clause that follows). I realize I’m> asking for another opinion about something which is outside the immediate> text, but I’d like to have the causal option make more sense to me than it> does simply on the face of things as stated in this verse.I opt for the causal sense of DI’ for two reasons: (1) I don’t have anystatistics at hand, but it seems to me that in the course my reading of theGNT I have noted that DIA + accusative has a causal sense in the vastmajority of instances. There are only two other senses I know of: One issimilar, that of “a marker of a participant who is benefited by an event orfor whom an event occurs ‘for the sake of, for, on behalf of, for thebenefit of'” (Louw-Nida, 90.38, using Mk 2.27 as an example). But I thinkthis is essentially causal, though a bit more nuanced because of thesemantic situation. The other is spatial, but that is exceedingly rare, anddoesn’t fit here. (2) The lexicons I’ve consulted also indicate that themost frequent sense of DIA with accusative is causal.I think this is one of those situations where we will never have an answerthat truly satisfies. When Paul said OIDATE, he could be sure the Galatiansknew the situation to which he referred without him expanding on it. Theproblem is that OU OIDAMEN, since we have no further information on thesituation and probably never will. So I think we just have to be satisfiedto render DI’ + accusative as it normally would be rendered. I think anyother translation would perhaps give people the sense that we know more thanwe really do.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sun Nov 11 23:36:51 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Wayne,Take a look at Acts 14:22 DIA POLLWN QLIYEWN to see how DIA + Gen functionsin similar semantic frame work.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Steven R. Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sun Nov 11 23:37:32 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ on 11/11/01 9:50 PM, Wayne Leman at wayne_leman at sil.org wrote:> The thematic idea, then, moving along in the context, would be along the> lines of:> > “I had an infirmity when I first preached to you. But you didn’t reject me> because of that. On the contrary, you fully welcome me.”> > If the causal sense is best supported by Greek syntax, then I’d like to know> what it was about his infirmity that caused him to preached to these people> the first time he was with them. I don’t need to know what the actual> infirmity was but how any infirmity would be a cause for his preaching to> them the first time.I think the above thematic idea still holds, since he did indeed have aninfirmity when he preached to them. But taking seriously DI’ + accusative(which I don’t think the translations you sited do) gives us the additionalcausal idea. As I mentioned before, I think we will never know *how* hishaving an infirmity led to his preaching to them *in* his infirmity.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Wayne Leman wayne_leman at sil.org
Sun Nov 11 23:42:50 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Thanks, Steven and Clay, for your additional comments. Your arguments arestrong and convincing. I, for one, never want to translate some other wayjust because that alternative makes more sense to me. :-)Thanks again,have a good week,Wayne—–Wayne LemanBible Translation discussion list:http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm<snip>> > I think the above thematic idea still holds, since he did indeed have an> infirmity when he preached to them. But taking seriously DI’ + accusative> (which I don’t think the translations you sited do) gives us theadditional> causal idea. As I mentioned before, I think we will never know *how* his> having an infirmity led to his preaching to them *in* his infirmity.> —> > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WI
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Bryant J. Williams III bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Nov 12 02:34:37 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Corrected Didache Greek Dear Wayne:I lean toward the DIA + ACC = causal for the very same reasons that Clay,Stephen and Carl have noted above. FWIW, I think that some of the answermight be as to what happen in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe and Lystrain Acts 13-14. It seems the whole tenor of those chapters in which Paul andBarnabas were persecuted, by unbelieving Jews and Gentiles (even to thepoint of being stoned to death, nearly, for Paul), that the gospel spreadto the Gentiles. I might also add that Paul, was also a little put out withJohn Mark leaving Barnabas and Paul in 13:13 when they reached Perga.En Xpistw,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —–From: Wayne Leman <wayne_leman at sil.org>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:52 PMSubject: [] Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’> Thanks, Clay. It is this kind of syntactic evidence which I have needed to> tilt me one direction or the other. So far, we’re batting 3/3 on for> the causal reading of DIA + ACC. in Gal. 4:13.> > Wayne> —–> Wayne Leman> Bible Translation discussion list:> http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/discuss.htm> > > <snip>> > > Wayne,> >> > Lightfoot and Meyer both agree with Carl on this. Lightfoot states that> > there are instances where DIA + Acc. is used like DIA + Gen. but that> these> > occur in later Greek texts and that this usage should not be read back> into> > the NT.> >> > Clay> > > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [bjwvmw at com-pair.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’Corrected Didache Greek
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Nov 12 06:23:43 EST 2001
Corrected Didache Greek Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ I’m omitting much of the previous exchange and focusing on the latter part:At 8:50 PM -0700 11/11/01, Wayne Leman wrote:>I should have been clearer in my original question: I’m not interested in>speculating about what the infirmity was. I don’t think we can have any>clear idea of what that was. Instead, I wanted to know if a causal>interpretation was required by DIA + ACC. So, instead of “because,” we have,>for instance, in the God’s Word translation:> >“You know that the first time I brought you the Good News I was ill.”> >and in the New Living Translation, we have:> >“Surely you remember that I was sick when I first brought you the Good News>of Christ.”> >and J.B. Phillips rendered the verse as:> >“You know how handicapped I was by illness when I first preached the gospel>to you.”> >The thematic idea, then, moving along in the context, would be along the>lines of:> >“I had an infirmity when I first preached to you. But you didn’t reject me>because of that. On the contrary, you fully welcome me.”> >If the causal sense is best supported by Greek syntax, then I’d like to know>what it was about his infirmity that caused him to preached to these people>the first time he was with them. I don’t need to know what the actual>infirmity was but how any infirmity would be a cause for his preaching to>them the first time.> >I hope I’m clearer now. Thanks for taking the time to help me with this.Yes, that’s clearer; I’ve just looked at NET for Gal 4:13-14, which strikesme as admirable:===========4:13 But you know it was because of a physical illness that I firstproclaimed the gospel to you, 4:14 and though my physical condition put youto the test, you did not despise or reject me.18and note 18: tn Grk “your trial in my flesh you did not despise or reject.”===========The Greek of that phrase in 4:14 is: KAI TON PEIRASMON hUMWN EN THi SARKIMOU OUK EXOUQENHSATE OUDE EXEPTUSATE …I like the way NET understands TON PEIRASMON hUMWN with hUMWN as anobjective genitive: “my illness was an ordeal for you” or something likethat. What it reminds me of is the dire wound suffered by Philoctetes afterbeing bitten by a snake; it festered and stank so badly that the Greeksleft him on an island and went on and fought in vain for ten years at Troy,only to be told by an oracle that they could not take Troy without hishelp–this is the basis of the plot of Sophocles’ Philoctetes, but theimportant thing is that Philoctetes was, because of his wound, sickening tothose around him, but in order to benefit from his abilities, they had toput up with the stench of his wound. Now this is still speculation–wedon’t know what the infirmity of Paul was, but he certainly writes as if itmust have been an annoying thing to the Galatians to whom he wasproclaiming the gospel. So that’s my take on the problem of DI’ ASQENEIANhere; we don’t need to know–can’t know, in fact, what the ASQENEIA was,but it would appear that the Galatians gave him an object-lesson in AGAPHas Paul himself describes AGAPH in 1 Cor 13. Does that make sense?– 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/
Corrected Didache GreekGal. 4:13 hOTI DI’
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Nov 12 10:02:28 EST 2001
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’ emphasis > > One of my coworkers is currently revising the translation of Galatians and> asked me yesterday to help him determine the meaning of hOTI DI’ in Gal.> 4:13. English versions are divided as to whether these particles indicate> the cause of Paul’s preaching to them the first time or a circumstantial> condition of his preaching to them the first time. Do you all on this list> feel there is any way that we can tell from the Greek here which of these> semantic options is more likely?Whereas I agree the DIA plus accusative refers to a cause, I am consideringa compromise. Has anyone ever talked of “circumstantial cause”? Or should Isay “secondary cause”?What I mean is that just as I can have several different purposes in mindfor doing a particular action, so there can be several reasons for doing anaction, a primary or foundational reason and one or more secondary reasons.Paul’s primary purpose and reason for preaching the Gospel in general wasnot that he at this particular time had a physical challenge. Hisfoundational reason has always been to be “obedient to the heavenly vision”(Acts 26:19). But the specific occasion to come to that particular group andpreach the gospel there seems to be his physical challenge.As a translation of Gal 4:13 that goes beyond the literal “because” I wouldsuggest something like “You know how my physical weakness became theoccasion for my first proclaiming the gospel to you.”Iver Larsen
Gal. 4:13 hOTI DI’emphasis