[B-Greek] Jn 7:22 DIA TOUTO

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Nov 4 11:05:25 EST 2006


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. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/





More information about the B-Greek mailing list