[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 09:20:19 EST 2006
[] Experienced information desired [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO I’m unsure of the verse break vv Jn 7:21 & 22.Jn 7:21b hEN ERGON EPOIHSA KAI PANTES QAUMAZETEJn 7:22a DIA TOUTO MWUSHS DEDWKEN hMIN THN PERITOMENShouldn’t DIA TOUTO belong to the end of v. 21 to explain QAUMAZETE(shocked BY IT)?Oun Kwon.
[] Experienced information desired[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 2 10:13:46 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Oun Kwon wrote:> I’m unsure of the verse break vv Jn 7:21 & 22.> > Jn 7:21b hEN ERGON EPOIHSA KAI PANTES QAUMAZETE> Jn 7:22a DIA TOUTO MWUSHS DEDWKEN hMIN THN PERITOMHN> > Shouldn’t DIA TOUTO belong to the end of v. 21 to explain QAUMAZETE> (shocked BY IT)?DIA TOUTO doesn’t mean “by it” but “for this reason.” What 7:22 says is “That’s why Moses gave us circumcision … “There are 131 instances of DIA TOUTO in the GNT, all of them at the beginnning of a clause.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 11:05:23 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO On 11/2/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> > On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Oun Kwon wrote:> > > I’m unsure of the verse break vv Jn 7:21 & 22.> >> > Jn 7:21b hEN ERGON EPOIHSA KAI PANTES QAUMAZETE> > Jn 7:22a DIA TOUTO MWUSHS DEDWKEN hMIN THN PERITOMHN> >> > Shouldn’t DIA TOUTO belong to the end of v. 21 to explain QAUMAZETE> > (shocked BY IT)?> > DIA TOUTO doesn’t mean “by it” but “for this reason.” What 7:22 says> is “That’s why Moses gave us circumcision … “> There are 131 instances of DIA TOUTO in the GNT, all of them at the> beginnning of a clause.> I just found the source of my question. I am copying the footnote onDIA TOUTO here from the Translator’s New Testament (1973) by Britishand Foreign Bible Society:The literal translation is ‘on account of this’. Two differentpunctuations are found in modern translations: (1) If the full stopfollows ‘by it’, the meaning is that Jesus did a miracle on theSabbath and the Jews were shocked by it. (2) If the stop is put before’by it’ we read ‘on account of this Moses gave you the rite ofcircumcision’, which would imply that Moses did so in order that theSabbath should be broken. Since this seems unnatural, TT has adopted(1).Here I do not agree with their argument ‘in order that the Sabbathshould be broken’. The idea must be ‘to follow what Moses commandedfor circumcision rites, Sabbath may have to be broken’.What I was curious was whether there is something definite (ratherthan discretionary) to tell where to keep DIA TAUTO. In thisparticular example, the context and usage may allow to keep this atthe end of the preceding verse though I see that many instances ofthis appearing at the beginning of a clause.Oun Kwon.
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Nov 4 02:40:33 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO —– Original Message —– From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>> On 11/2/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:>> >> On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Oun Kwon wrote:>> >> > I’m unsure of the verse break vv Jn 7:21 & 22.>> >>> > Jn 7:21b hEN ERGON EPOIHSA KAI PANTES QAUMAZETE>> > Jn 7:22a DIA TOUTO MWUSHS DEDWKEN hMIN THN PERITOMHN>> >>> > Shouldn’t DIA TOUTO belong to the end of v. 21 to explain QAUMAZETE>> > (shocked BY IT)?>> >> DIA TOUTO doesn’t mean “by it” but “for this reason.” What 7:22 says>> is “That’s why Moses gave us circumcision … “>> There are 131 instances of DIA TOUTO in the GNT, all of them at the>> beginning of a clause.>> > > I just found the source of my question. I am copying the footnote on> DIA TOUTO here from the Translator’s New Testament (1973) by British> and Foreign Bible Society:> > The literal translation is ‘on account of this’. Two different> punctuations are found in modern translations: (1) If the full stop> follows ‘by it’, the meaning is that Jesus did a miracle on the> Sabbath and the Jews were shocked by it. (2) If the stop is put before> ‘by it’ we read ‘on account of this Moses gave you the rite of> circumcision’, which would imply that Moses did so in order that the> Sabbath should be broken. Since this seems unnatural, TT has adopted> (1).> > Here I do not agree with their argument ‘in order that the Sabbath> should be broken’. The idea must be ‘to follow what Moses commanded> for circumcision rites, Sabbath may have to be broken’.> > What I was curious was whether there is something definite (rather> than discretionary) to tell where to keep DIA TOUTO. In this> particular example, the context and usage may allow to keep this at> the end of the preceding verse though I see that many instances of> this appearing at the beginning of a clause.> > Oun Kwon.This is an excellent question, and there is no quick and easy answer. Louw and Nida offers no help,and there is not much discussion of it in BAGD.Looking at all the 64 instances of DIA TOUTO in the GNT, I have come up with three different usages.(I did not research the 350 instances in LXX).1. With the meaning “therefore, that is why, the reason for B is A” we find it as a logicalconnector between two clauses or sentences. It indicates that the previous clause (A) gives thereason for the following clause (B). The two common possibilities are reason-purpose andreason-result. In my analysis, this applies to 32 of the 64. It may come after the coordinatingconjunction KAI as in Matthew 14:2, but John often uses it without, possibly because he prefersasyndeton.2. With the same meaning it is used cataphorically to highlight a reason that is given later in thesentence (“the reason for A is that/because B”). The reason clause is often introduced by hOTI. Ifound 11 such examples, and John is the main user of them. John also commonly uses the correspondinganaphoric EN TOUTWi, especially in 1 John. The first example is Matt 13:13:DIA TOUTO EN PARABOLAIS AUTOIS LALW hOTI BLEPONTES OU BLEPOUSIN KAI AKOUONTES OUK AKOUOUSIN(The reason I speak to them in parables is that they see but don’t get it and they hear but don’tobey)3. The third meaning is as a discourse connector that has no equivalent in English, so some Englishversions simply don’t translate the words, whereas many of them somewhat misleadingly translate itby “wherefore”, “therefore” or “for this reason”.In this usage, it does not link two clauses or sentences in terms of one being the reason for theother. Rather it introduces a new and important thought that is loosely based on the theme of thewhole preceding paragraph. I would describe the meaning as “Based on the foregoing, I want to tellyou somethingimportant:”This third meaning is not covered in a traditional dictionary like BAGD, because it can only bedescribed from the vantage point of discourse analysis. It often starts a new paragraph. Thedifference between traditional grammar and discourse (or text) linguistics is that traditionalgrammar deals with the hierarchy from morpheme to sentence, whereas text linguistics focuses on thehierarchy form sentence to text, i.e. how sentences are built into paragraphs and how paragraphs arebuilt into texts. It discusses tense, demonstratives etc. from a whole text perspective and DIATOUTO it is able to explain things that cannot be explained in traditional “low-level” grammar.I found 19 examples of this usage of DIA TOUTO, or about 30%. (I realize that in some casesalternative analyses can be suggested, and there is not always a clear demarcation between 1. and3.) One of many examples is inMat 12:31:RSV: 30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 DIATOUTO I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spiritwill not be forgiven. For some reason this usage is most common in Matthew, but is also found inLuke and Paul. There are no examples in John’s gospel or letters of option 3, although he is themost prolific user of option 1 and 2.Now, returning to Jn 7:22, I found that neither of the three options fit here. Option 1 is out,because it cannot be a logical connector between the two sentences “I did one work, and you allmarvel” and that is why(?) “Moses gave you the circumcision”. 2 is also out, because there isnothing later that it could connect to. 3 is also out, because there is no paragraph preceding, onlyone short sentence.And even in 3, there must be some logical basis in the preceding text, even though it is a moreloose connection. There is no such basis to be found in the first sentence.It is not a good solution to suggest a fourth usage of DIA TOUTO just to cover this instance. It ismuch better to analyse these two words, not as a clause, sentence or discourse connector, but as asimple prepositional phrase where TOUTO refers back to ERGON (or the whole sentence). This is whatwas suggested above and what is found in RSV: “I did one deed, and you all marvel at it. 22 Mosesgave you circumcision…” CEV has “I worked one miracle, and it amazed you.” God’s Word: “Iperformed one miracle, and all of you are surprised by it.” JBP: “I have done one thing and you areall amazed at it.” JB: “One work I did, and you are all surprised by it.” NJB: “One work I did, andyou are all amazed at it.” (Why they say “at it” rather than “because of it” I don’t know.)If we had the Greek text before us without punctuation, my guess is that many more translators wouldhave taken it to mean “and you all marvel because of this (deed).” The words have beenmisunderstood, because it is so common to have them together as a connector in the beginning of asentence, and it is rare to have them as a prepositional phrase. But if we look at a DIA phraseindicating reason at the end of a clause or sentence, that is quite common in John. (To continue mygood-humoured disagreement with Carl, there is no emphasis signalled by the clause-final position.)Let me quote some examples:4:41: EPISTEUSAN DIA TON LOGON AUTOU.6:57a ZW DIA TON PATERA.6:57b ZHSEI DI’ EME.7:13 DIA TON FOBON TWN IOUDAIWN.7:43 SCISMA OUN EGENETO EN TWi OCLWi DI’ AUTON.10:19 SCISMA PALIN EGENETO EN TOIS IOUDAIOIS DIA TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS.11:15 CAIRW DI’ hUMAS,12:9 HLQON OU DIA TON IHSOUN MONON,12:30 ALLA [GEGONEN] DI’ hUMAS.I need to go back and revise my translations of John, because I didn’t know this until today when Iresearched it.Iver Larsen
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Nov 4 07:14:36 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO I confess that I didn’t find the conventional usage of DIA TOUTO as “For this reason … ” or “That’s why … ” works very well at the beginning of of 7:22 — and in that respect, I agree with Iver’s concerns. But I find the suggestion that DIA TOUTO belongs at the end of Jn 7:21b unconvincing also. The examples cited by Iver (way down below — I prefer here to respond above the cited prior correspondence) all involve DIA and an accusative object — but NONE OF THEM involves TOUTO. What I find most problematic about the suggestion that DIA TOUTO stands at the end of 7:21b and means simply “for that reason” is that TOUTO is a demonstrative pronoun, and it seems odd to me that a demonstrative pronoun should be the final element in a clause, particularly if, as Iver notes in an aside at the end of his discussion below, this DIA TOUTO in final position is not at all emphatic.I don’t know what an adequate explanation for DIA TOUTO may be (evidently there’s no real textual problem here) might be (perhaps, “And for that matter …”? — but I’m not sure we could find similar usage in other instances of DIA TOUTO) but I still find it difficult to believe that a demonstrative (hOUTOS/hAUTH/TOUTO is a demonstrative, isn’t it?) should be situated at the very end of a clause and still not be at all emphatic.On Nov 4, 2006, at 2:40 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> —– Original Message —–> From: “Oun Kwon” <kwonbbl at gmail.com>> > >> On 11/2/06, Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:>>> >>> On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Oun Kwon wrote:>>> >>>> I’m unsure of the verse break vv Jn 7:21 & 22.>>>> >>>> Jn 7:21b hEN ERGON EPOIHSA KAI PANTES QAUMAZETE>>>> Jn 7:22a DIA TOUTO MWUSHS DEDWKEN hMIN THN PERITOMHN>>>> >>>> Shouldn’t DIA TOUTO belong to the end of v. 21 to explain QAUMAZETE>>>> (shocked BY IT)?>>> >>> DIA TOUTO doesn’t mean “by it” but “for this reason.” What 7:22 says>>> is “That’s why Moses gave us circumcision … “>>> There are 131 instances of DIA TOUTO in the GNT, all of them at the>>> beginning of a clause.>>> >> >> I just found the source of my question. I am copying the footnote on>> DIA TOUTO here from the Translator’s New Testament (1973) by British>> and Foreign Bible Society:>> >> The literal translation is ‘on account of this’. Two different>> punctuations are found in modern translations: (1) If the full stop>> follows ‘by it’, the meaning is that Jesus did a miracle on the>> Sabbath and the Jews were shocked by it. (2) If the stop is put >> before>> ‘by it’ we read ‘on account of this Moses gave you the rite of>> circumcision’, which would imply that Moses did so in order that the>> Sabbath should be broken. Since this seems unnatural, TT has adopted>> (1).>> >> Here I do not agree with their argument ‘in order that the Sabbath>> should be broken’. The idea must be ‘to follow what Moses commanded>> for circumcision rites, Sabbath may have to be broken’.>> >> What I was curious was whether there is something definite (rather>> than discretionary) to tell where to keep DIA TOUTO. In this>> particular example, the context and usage may allow to keep this at>> the end of the preceding verse though I see that many instances of>> this appearing at the beginning of a clause.>> >> Oun Kwon.> > This is an excellent question, and there is no quick and easy > answer. Louw and Nida offers no help,> and there is not much discussion of it in BAGD.> > Looking at all the 64 instances of DIA TOUTO in the GNT, I have > come up with three different usages.> (I did not research the 350 instances in LXX).> > 1. With the meaning “therefore, that is why, the reason for B is A” > we find it as a logical> connector between two clauses or sentences. It indicates that the > previous clause (A) gives the> reason for the following clause (B). The two common possibilities > are reason-purpose and> reason-result. In my analysis, this applies to 32 of the 64. It may > come after the coordinating> conjunction KAI as in Matthew 14:2, but John often uses it without, > possibly because he prefers> asyndeton.> > 2. With the same meaning it is used cataphorically to highlight a > reason that is given later in the> sentence (“the reason for A is that/because B”). The reason clause > is often introduced by hOTI. I> found 11 such examples, and John is the main user of them. John > also commonly uses the corresponding> anaphoric EN TOUTWi, especially in 1 John. The first example is > Matt 13:13:> DIA TOUTO EN PARABOLAIS AUTOIS LALW hOTI BLEPONTES OU BLEPOUSIN KAI > AKOUONTES OUK AKOUOUSIN> (The reason I speak to them in parables is that they see but don’t > get it and they hear but don’t> obey)> > 3. The third meaning is as a discourse connector that has no > equivalent in English, so some English> versions simply don’t translate the words, whereas many of them > somewhat misleadingly translate it> by “wherefore”, “therefore” or “for this reason”.> In this usage, it does not link two clauses or sentences in terms > of one being the reason for the> other. Rather it introduces a new and important thought that is > loosely based on the theme of the> whole preceding paragraph. I would describe the meaning as “Based > on the foregoing, I want to tell> you somethingimportant:”> This third meaning is not covered in a traditional dictionary like > BAGD, because it can only be> described from the vantage point of discourse analysis. It often > starts a new paragraph. The> difference between traditional grammar and discourse (or text) > linguistics is that traditional> grammar deals with the hierarchy from morpheme to sentence, whereas > text linguistics focuses on the> hierarchy form sentence to text, i.e. how sentences are built into > paragraphs and how paragraphs are> built into texts. It discusses tense, demonstratives etc. from a > whole text perspective and DIA> TOUTO it is able to explain things that cannot be explained in > traditional “low-level” grammar.> I found 19 examples of this usage of DIA TOUTO, or about 30%. (I > realize that in some cases> alternative analyses can be suggested, and there is not always a > clear demarcation between 1. and> 3.) One of many examples is in> Mat 12:31:> RSV: 30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not > gather with me scatters. 31 DIA> TOUTO I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but > the blasphemy against the Spirit> will not be forgiven. For some reason this usage is most common in > Matthew, but is also found in> Luke and Paul. There are no examples in John’s gospel or letters of > option 3, although he is the> most prolific user of option 1 and 2.> > Now, returning to Jn 7:22, I found that neither of the three > options fit here. Option 1 is out,> because it cannot be a logical connector between the two sentences > “I did one work, and you all> marvel” and that is why(?) “Moses gave you the circumcision”. 2 is > also out, because there is> nothing later that it could connect to. 3 is also out, because > there is no paragraph preceding, only> one short sentence.> And even in 3, there must be some logical basis in the preceding > text, even though it is a more> loose connection. There is no such basis to be found in the first > sentence.> It is not a good solution to suggest a fourth usage of DIA TOUTO > just to cover this instance. It is> much better to analyse these two words, not as a clause, sentence > or discourse connector, but as a> simple prepositional phrase where TOUTO refers back to ERGON (or > the whole sentence). This is what> was suggested above and what is found in RSV: “I did one deed, and > you all marvel at it. 22 Moses> gave you circumcision…” CEV has “I worked one miracle, and it > amazed you.” God’s Word: “I> performed one miracle, and all of you are surprised by it.” JBP: “I > have done one thing and you are> all amazed at it.” JB: “One work I did, and you are all surprised > by it.” NJB: “One work I did, and> you are all amazed at it.” (Why they say “at it” rather than > “because of it” I don’t know.)> If we had the Greek text before us without punctuation, my guess is > that many more translators would> have taken it to mean “and you all marvel because of this (deed).” > The words have been> misunderstood, because it is so common to have them together as a > connector in the beginning of a> sentence, and it is rare to have them as a prepositional phrase. > But if we look at a DIA phrase> indicating reason at the end of a clause or sentence, that is quite > common in John. (To continue my> good-humoured disagreement with Carl, there is no emphasis > signalled by the clause-final position.)> Let me quote some examples:> > 4:41: EPISTEUSAN DIA TON LOGON AUTOU.> 6:57a ZW DIA TON PATERA.> 6:57b ZHSEI DI’ EME.> 7:13 DIA TON FOBON TWN IOUDAIWN.> 7:43 SCISMA OUN EGENETO EN TWi OCLWi DI’ AUTON.> 10:19 SCISMA PALIN EGENETO EN TOIS IOUDAIOIS DIA TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS.> 11:15 CAIRW DI’ hUMAS,> 12:9 HLQON OU DIA TON IHSOUN MONON,> 12:30 ALLA [GEGONEN] DI’ hUMAS.> > I need to go back and revise my translations of John, because I > didn’t know this until today when I> researched it.> > Iver Larsen> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Nov 4 11:05:25 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO On Nov 4, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:>> From Iver Larsen> > —– Original Message —–> From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>> > >> I confess that I didn’t find the conventional usage of DIA TOUTO >> as “For this reason … ” or>> “That’s why … ” works very well at the beginning of of 7:22 — >> and in that respect, I agree with>> Iver’s concerns. But I find the suggestion that DIA TOUTO belongs >> at the end of Jn 7:21b>> unconvincing also. The examples cited by Iver (way down below — >> I prefer here to respond above>> the cited prior correspondence) all involve DIA and an accusative >> object — but NONE OF THEM>> involves TOUTO. What I find most problematic about the suggestion >> that DIA TOUTO stands at the end>> of 7:21b and means simply “for that reason” is that TOUTO is a >> demonstrative pronoun, and it>> seems odd to me that a demonstrative pronoun should be the final >> element in a clause, particularly>> if, as Iver notes in an aside at the end of his discussion below, >> this DIA TOUTO in final position>> is not at all emphatic.> > So (DIA TOUTO no. 3), I understand your main concern to be the > demonstrative nature of TOUTO. I> assume you mean TOUTO used substantively since one of the examples > did involve hOUTOS. Let me then> add some more examples and delete the old stuff:> > John 10:19 SCISMA PALIN EGENETO EN TOIS IOUDAIOIS DIA TOUS LOGOUS > TOUTOUS.> John 12:27 DIA TOUTO HLQON EIS THN hWRAN TAUTHN.> 1 Cor 10:28 MH ESQIETE DI’ EKEINON TON MHNUSANTA> > The general principle for the demonstrative is that if it follows > the head noun, it is not emphatic,> but indicates a back reference, meaning “the aforementioned”. If > the demonstrative precedes the head> noun, it is indeed emphatic. If it is used substantively, only the > context can tell whether it is> meant to be emphatic or just a back reference. In John 10:19, the > focus is on LOGOUS rather than> TOUTOUS (because of what he had said). I cited 12:27 because it has > a final TAUTHN. Again the focus> is on hWRA rather than TAUTHN. In 1 Cor 10:28 we have a different > demonstrative which is basically a> back reference (because of the one who mentioned it).> > When the focus is on the reason, then it is natural that DIA TOUTO > should come first in the sentence> as it normally does. It is indeed rare to have DIA TOUTO at the end > of a sentence, but it is not> that rare to have a form of hOUTOS at or near the end of a > sentence, nor to have a DIA something,> e.g.> Mat 10:22, 13:5, 21, 58; 15:3,6, 19:12, 24:9; 27:29….> John 2:24, 3:29, 4:39, 41, (confer the ones I listed earlier).> > In the case of John 7:22, I am not suggesting that DIA TOUTO simply > means “for that reason”. Let me> repeat the text:> Jn 7:21 hEN ERGON EPOIHSA, KAI PANTES QAUMAZETE DIA TOUTO. MWUSHS > DEDWKEN hMIN THN PERITOMEN.> > The DIA TOUTO here does not mean “for that reason”, but simply > “because of it” or rather “because of> what I did”, since the neuter pronoun probably refers to the event > as such. There is much more> relative focus on PANTES and QAUMAZETE than on DIA TOUTO. Again, I > find it easiest to get a feel for> the meaning if I use stress in English: You are ALL SURPRISED > because of it. These two elements are> fronted before DIA TOUTO, because Jesus is implying that NONE of > them ought to be surprised. He goes> on to tell them why they should not be surprised. It is no big deal > to do a healing miracle on a> Sabbath, since they themselves “break” the Sabbath law for a much > less important reason, namely to> do the circumcision exactly 7 days after birth. Couldn’t that wait > one day? No one would get hurt.> But this poor man needed to be healed, the sooner the better. All > of this is related to the> accusation that Jesus levelled at the Jewish religious leaders, > namely that they were more concerned> with the minutia of the law than with showing mercy. Jesus was the > opposite.> > Now, the main reason (DIA TOUTO 2) that I prefer this analysis for > the other one, is that I cannot> make DIA TOUTO in the beginning of the next sentence make any sense > at all.That’s actually a pretty good reason to deem this solution plausible. I thank you for the further clarification, and I find this much more persuasive than I did previously.I wonder, however, why you object to “for that reason” as English for DIA TOUTO here: what’s wrong with “I’ve done one thing — and for that you all marvel.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Nov 4 12:52:00 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO >From Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>I confess that I didn’t find the conventional usage of DIA TOUTO as “For this reason … ” or >“That’s why … ” works very well at the beginning of of 7:22 — and in that respect, I agree with >Iver’s concerns. But I find the suggestion that DIA TOUTO belongs at the end of Jn 7:21b >unconvincing also. The examples cited by Iver (way down below — I prefer here to respond above >the cited prior correspondence) all involve DIA and an accusative object — but NONE OF THEM >involves TOUTO. What I find most problematic about the suggestion that DIA TOUTO stands at the end >of 7:21b and means simply “for that reason” is that TOUTO is a demonstrative pronoun, and it >seems odd to me that a demonstrative pronoun should be the final element in a clause, particularly >if, as Iver notes in an aside at the end of his discussion below, this DIA TOUTO in final position >is not at all emphatic.So (DIA TOUTO no. 3), I understand your main concern to be the demonstrative nature of TOUTO. I assume you mean TOUTO used substantively since one of the examples did involve hOUTOS. Let me then add some more examples and delete the old stuff:John 10:19 SCISMA PALIN EGENETO EN TOIS IOUDAIOIS DIA TOUS LOGOUS TOUTOUS.John 12:27 DIA TOUTO HLQON EIS THN hWRAN TAUTHN.1 Cor 10:28 MH ESQIETE DI’ EKEINON TON MHNUSANTAThe general principle for the demonstrative is that if it follows the head noun, it is not emphatic, but indicates a back reference, meaning “the aforementioned”. If the demonstrative precedes the head noun, it is indeed emphatic. If it is used substantively, only the context can tell whether it is meant to be emphatic or just a back reference. In John 10:19, the focus is on LOGOUS rather than TOUTOUS (because of what he had said). I cited 12:27 because it has a final TAUTHN. Again the focus is on hWRA rather than TAUTHN. In 1 Cor 10:28 we have a different demonstrative which is basically a back reference (because of the one who mentioned it).When the focus is on the reason, then it is natural that DIA TOUTO should come first in the sentence as it normally does. It is indeed rare to have DIA TOUTO at the end of a sentence, but it is not that rare to have a form of hOUTOS at or near the end of a sentence, nor to have a DIA something, e.g.Mat 10:22, 13:5, 21, 58; 15:3,6, 19:12, 24:9; 27:29….John 2:24, 3:29, 4:39, 41, (confer the ones I listed earlier).In the case of John 7:22, I am not suggesting that DIA TOUTO simply means “for that reason”. Let me repeat the text:Jn 7:21 hEN ERGON EPOIHSA, KAI PANTES QAUMAZETE DIA TOUTO. MWUSHS DEDWKEN hMIN THN PERITOMEN.The DIA TOUTO here does not mean “for that reason”, but simply “because of it” or rather “because of what I did”, since the neuter pronoun probably refers to the event as such. There is much more relative focus on PANTES and QAUMAZETE than on DIA TOUTO. Again, I find it easiest to get a feel for the meaning if I use stress in English: You are ALL SURPRISED because of it. These two elements are fronted before DIA TOUTO, because Jesus is implying that NONE of them ought to be surprised. He goes on to tell them why they should not be surprised. It is no big deal to do a healing miracle on a Sabbath, since they themselves “break” the Sabbath law for a much less important reason, namely to do the circumcision exactly 7 days after birth. Couldn’t that wait one day? No one would get hurt. But this poor man needed to be healed, the sooner the better. All of this is related to the accusation that Jesus levelled at the Jewish religious leaders, namely that they were more concerned with the minutia of the law than with showing mercy. Jesus was the opposite.Now, the main reason (DIA TOUTO 2) that I prefer this analysis for the other one, is that I cannot make DIA TOUTO in the beginning of the next sentence make any sense at all.Iver Larsen
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Nov 5 03:24:28 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO >> Now, the main reason (DIA TOUTO 2) that I prefer this analysis for the other one, is that I >> cannot>> make DIA TOUTO in the beginning of the next sentence make any sense at all.> > That’s actually a pretty good reason to deem this solution plausible. I thank you for the > further clarification, and I find this much more persuasive than I did previously.> I wonder, however, why you object to “for that reason” as English for DIA TOUTO here: what’s > wrong with “I’ve done one thing — and for that you all marvel.”There is nothing wrong with the translation you suggest. In fact, I like it – precisely because English often lends itself to final position emphasis, and the emphasis in this sentence ought to be on “you all marvel” rather than the reason “and for/because of that”. Similarly in the first sentence, the focus is on “one thing/act” rather than “I’ve done.” The interesting thing from a translation point of view (excuse me for being a translator) is that very often the focus in English is best carried over by inverting the word order in relation to the Greek original. Another nail to the coffin of the “accuracy” of literal translations that strive to keep the original word order as much as possible.Iver Larsen
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO Oun Kwon kwonbbl at gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 00:16:15 EST 2006
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO [] NT Greek taught with modern greek pronunciation On 11/5/06, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> There is nothing wrong with the translation you suggest. In fact, I like it – precisely because> English often lends itself to final position emphasis, and the emphasis in this sentence ought to be> on “you all marvel” rather than the reason “and for/because of that”. Similarly in the first> sentence, the focus is on “one thing/act” rather than “I’ve done.” The interesting thing from a> translation point of view (excuse me for being a translator) is that very often the focus in English> is best carried over by inverting the word order in relation to the Greek original. Another nail to> the coffin of the “accuracy” of literal translations that strive to keep the original word order as> much as possible.> > Iver Larsen> Thanks Carl and Iver for helping me out about this phrase.Please correct me if I am wrong: Am I correct to understand in summarythat what matters is what is referred by ‘TOUTO’ rather than theposition of DIA TOUTO in the sentence?Oun Kwon.
[] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO[] NT Greek taught with modern greek pronunciation