Parsing of Gal 3:11
moon at sogang.ac.kr
Mon Oct 1 22:03:51 EDT 2001
> >hOTI DE EN NOMWi OUDEIS DIKAIOUNTAI PARA TWi QEWi DHLON, hOTI
> >hO DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.
> >hOTI DE EN NOMWi OUDEIS DIKAIOUTAI PARA TWi QEWi, DHLON hOTI
> >hO DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI,
> > >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 DHLON 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: CRISTOS hHMAS EXHGORASEN EK THS
> KARARAS TOU NOMOU GENOMENOS hUPER hHMWN KATARA, and then the justification
> for that assertion is offered from scripture: hOTI GEGRAPTAI, "EPIKATARATOS
> PAS hO KREMAMENOS EPI XULOU." Vs. 12 is slightly different but has the same
> order: the false assertion is negated and contrasted (through ALLA) with
> the scriptural basis: "hO POIHSAS AUTA ZHSETAI EN AUTOIS."
A convincing explanation! Thanks. But even if it is not a
structure, can we say the same thing? That is, can we say that the reason
usually comes after the assertion clause? I mean ".... because ...."
rather than "because ...., ....".
Moon R. Jung
> 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/
More information about the B-Greek