Gal. 4:13-14

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Andrew Chapman »

bewell wrote:I'm unclear what "even" would mean. I was thinking more of "namely." Could you clarify in terms of meaning? Perhaps with another example of such a usage, be it NT or hypothetical. Thanks!
I am mulling a law that says that the shorter the word, the greater the difficulty. The article tops the list, followed by little conjunctions. The problem is that we use them so unconsciously, that it is really hard (for me, anyway) to see exactly what purpose they serve and what function they fulfill.

My 'even' is quite similar to your 'namely', and I see that the OED gives it as an equivalent:
'even, adv.' ... 8 a. Prefixed to a subject, object, or predicate, or to the expression of a qualifying circumstance, to emphasize its identity. Obs. exc. arch. Also in 16–17th c. (hence still arch. after Bible use) serving to introduce an epexegesis; = ‘namely’, ‘that is to say’.
As in the NIV's rendering of Galatians 6.16:

καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

With this translation (which I doubt is correct, but it is not impossible grammatically), 'even' is explaining that those who follow this rule are indeed the Israel of God.

I prefer 'even' to 'namely', I think, because it feels a bit closer to καί, whose purpose I think is to add something. If it is adding another item, as it were, (which I think it is probably doing in Galatians 6.16), then we would say 'and'. If it is adding an explanation or clarification of what has gone before, then we need to express it differently. 'Namely' feels to me too much like sticking a colon there, with a pause, whereas I think καί tends to run things together more than that.

Andrew
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4237
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Here's Meyer responding to Lachman and Lange on this passage:
Meyer wrote:Galatians 4:14. Still dependent on ὅτι, as is logically required by the contrast to οὐδέν με ἠδικ., which is introduced by οἴδατε δὲ, ὅτι.

τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου κ.τ.λ.] As to the reading ὑμῶν, see the critical notes. The sense is: that ye were put to the proof as respected my bodily weakness (namely, as to your receiving and accepting my announcements, demands, etc., notwithstanding this my suffering and impotent appearance; see the antithesis, ἀλλʼ ὡς κ.τ.λ.); this proof ye have not rejected with disdain and aversion, but on the contrary have submitted yourselves to it so excellently, that ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. The καί is not and yet (Koppe, Winer, Matthies), but the simple and, continuing the address (οἴδατε, ὅτι κ.τ.λ.).

ἑν τῇ σαρκί μου] is the more precise definition of τὸν πειρασμ. ὑμῶν, specifying wherein the readers had to undergo a trial,—namely, in the fact of Paul’s having then preached to them in such bodily weakness. Comp. Plat. Phil. p. 21 A: ἐν σοὶ πειρώμεθα, upon thee we would make the trial. Hom. Il. xix. 384, πειρήθη … ἐν ἔντεσι. Comp. also βασανίζεσθαι ἐν, Plat. Pol. vi. p. 503 A. Hence ἐν τῇ σαρκί did not require the connecting article, as it is in reality blended with τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν so as to form one idea. See on Galatians 3:26. And the definition of the sense of ἐν τῇ σαρκι μου is derived from διʼ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός in Galatians 4:13. Fritzsche, l.c. p. 245, objects to the sense which is given by the reading ὑμῶν: 1. sententiam ab h. l. abhorrere. But how aptly does the negative assertion, that the Galatians, when they were put to the trial by the apostle’s sickness, did not despise and reject this trial, correspond with the positive idea, that, on the contrary, they have received him as an angel of God! And how suitable are the two ideas together to the previous οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε! 2. Sententiam verbis parum aptis conceptam esse; expectaras καλῶς ὑπεμείνατε. But this καλῶς ὑπεμείνατε is in fact most exhaustively represented by the negative and positive testimony taken together; the negative testimony expresses the acceptance, and the positive the standing, of the πειρασμός. 3. The sense does not suit the following ἀλλʼ … ἐδέξασθέ με. But even with the adoption of the reading ὑμῶν the rejection of the apostle is in point of fact negatived; hence τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν … ἐξεπτύσατε cannot be inappropriate to the ἐδέξασθέ με which follows. Lachmann (comp. Buttmann in Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 379) makes καὶ τὸν πειρασμ. ὑμ. ἐν τ. σ. μ. dependent on οἴδατε (placing a colon after ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου), whereby the flow of the discourse is quite unnecessarily broken.
But Lange clearly disagrees with this:
Lange wrote:Gal 4:14. With the reading πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν it appears best to set a period after ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, and to connect the words with οἴδατε Gal 4:13=you know how you, through my bodily infirmity, and the hampering of my evangelical activity in consequence of it, were put on proof=experienced the temptation to think unfavorably of me. Unquestionably the connection is somewhat difficult. But plainly the connection with what follows is wholly inadmissible, although MEYER accepts it=you have not despised your trial in my flesh. But what is meant by despising the trial, &c.? Who could understand it at all? MEYER himself has to alter the expression somewhat, so as to mean : contemptuously repel. And besides what would be signified by the climatic expression with two words: ἐξουθενήσατε and ἐξεπτύσατε. This, however, manifestly constitutes the antithesis to the strong affirmative expression ἀλλ̓ ὡς ἅγγελον κ. τ. λ. The one as well as the other therefore refers to himself. He praises this in them, that they did not reject and even spit out him, as there was room to apprehend, but—the exact opposite—received him as an angel, nay, as Christ. [The reading ὑμῶν must be adopted, but this by no means compels us to follow the punctuation and connection just indicated. MEYER, ALFORD, ELLICOTT, WORDSWORTH, LIGHTFOOT and most editors reject Lachmann’s punctuation, which makes the latter part of the verse intolerably harsh and abrupt, and does little to remove the difficulty of the former part. As WORDSWORTH intimates “the teacher’s infirmity is the people’s trial.” Paul’s infirmity, whatever it was, put them on trial, was the thing which tried them (πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν), and yet they did not despise and loathe him on account of this infirmity, but received him, etc.—R.]
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Jonathan, I don't know how to retain your formatting, so:

[ οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι

--- [ διʼ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον ],

--- καὶ

---- [ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου·

-------- [ οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ]

-------- [ ἀλλὰ ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.] ] ]

Would you not have to remove the ἄνω τελεία (if that's the right term for it) after μου, if you are going to make everything governed by οἴδατε? (I assume that's the implication of having everything indented apart from οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι).

The Expositor's Greek Testament understanding is interesting. They seem to be keeping to the usual punctuation. Adding their rendition of verse 13 gives: 'You know that it was owing to illness that I had preached to you up to that time (τὸ πρότερον)' [and] 'As for the temptation to you in my flesh, you did not despise or reject, but received me as a messenger of God'. But who would read this as some sort of accusative of respect?

The difficulty, of course, is that it's far easier to think of despising or rejecting a person, than a temptation or test. When you say 'They didn't give into that temptation', I have to ask where you get 'give in to' from?

Let's try it without any punctuation, since I admit I have got used to the punctuation adopted by Nestle-Aland, Tischendorf, SBLGNT, and Hodges-Farstad, to name those that I have to hand (Hodges-Farstad put a full stop after πρότερον):

οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε ἀλλ’ ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.

Well, I have to say that it seems to me that you have an accusative 'looking for' a verb to be the object of, and a couple of verbs (ἐξουθενήσατε and ἐξεπτύσατε) that look like they need an object. I have just now seen your quotations from Lange and Meyer. I find it hard to read it with a stop after μου, and τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν as the object of οἴδατε. I feel that Paul would have repeated οἴδατε (or another verb) after καί.

Andrew
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Lachmann, Novum Testamentum, 1850. Downloadable from: http://dbooks.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/books/P ... 082822.pdf Galatians 4.13-4 is at page 448, Vol. 2 (Acts-Revelation):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0gFZC ... sp=sharing

Andrew
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by cwconrad »

bewell wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:"pendent accusative"
I looked up "pendent accusative" and learned that, among other things, it is another way of saying that syntactically speaking, it is a poorly constructed sentence.
I love that comment; it's probably an apt comment about other "pendent" case-forms as well. "Pendent" after all, is just another word for "dangling."
Andrew Chapman wrote:
bewell wrote:I'm unclear what "even" would mean. I was thinking more of "namely." Could you clarify in terms of meaning? Perhaps with another example of such a usage, be it NT or hypothetical. Thanks!
I am mulling a law that says that the shorter the word, the greater the difficulty. The article tops the list, followed by little conjunctions. The problem is that we use them so unconsciously, that it is really hard (for me, anyway) to see exactly what purpose they serve and what function they fulfill.

My 'even' is quite similar to your 'namely', and I see that the OED gives it as an equivalent
There may be something to this; English "to", "too" and "two" must baffle learners of English; then there's "that". On the other hand, there's the caution against the polysyllabic Latinate word as opposed to the shorter Anglo-Saxon word.

The obiter dicta in some of these threads are often informative -- or at least amusing.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4237
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Jonathan Robie »

cwconrad wrote:
bewell wrote:
Jonathan Robie wrote:"pendent accusative"
I looked up "pendent accusative" and learned that, among other things, it is another way of saying that syntactically speaking, it is a poorly constructed sentence.
I love that comment; it's probably an apt comment about other "pendent" case-forms as well. "Pendent" after all, is just another word for "dangling."
Yes, but good writers do dangle.

A few examples in English:
William Shakespeare, Hamlet wrote: . . . sleeping in mine orchard, a serpent stung me
Jane Austen, Mansfield Park wrote: . . . wanting to be alone with his family, the presence of a stranger superior to Mr. Yates must have been irksome.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4237
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Andrew Chapman wrote:Jonathan, I don't know how to retain your formatting
What you did is perfectly understandable, but if you just hit the [ quote] button, you'll see the code I used for it. If you surround something with a [ code] tag, whitespace is retained. You can also modify my indenting to create an alternate interpretation.
Andrew Chapman wrote:Would you not have to remove the ἄνω τελεία (if that's the right term for it) after μου, if you are going to make everything governed by οἴδατε? (I assume that's the implication of having everything indented apart from οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι).
Yes, sorry for that. I cut and pasted from SBLGNT, without looking at the punctuation. I changed the punctuation now.
Andrew Chapman wrote:The Expositor's Greek Testament understanding is interesting. They seem to be keeping to the usual punctuation. Adding their rendition of verse 13 gives: 'You know that it was owing to illness that I had preached to you up to that time (τὸ πρότερον)' [and] 'As for the temptation to you in my flesh, you did not despise or reject, but received me as a messenger of God'. But who would read this as some sort of accusative of respect?
Actually, when I first read it in this thread, I thought it was "some sort of accusative of respect". That still makes the most sense to me.
Andrew Chapman wrote:Well, I have to say that it seems to me that you have an accusative 'looking for' a verb to be the object of, and a couple of verbs (ἐξουθενήσατε and ἐξεπτύσατε) that look like they need an object. I have just now seen your quotations from Lange and Meyer. I find it hard to read it with a stop after μου, and τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν as the object of οἴδατε. I feel that Paul would have repeated οἴδατε (or another verb) after καί.
I also find it hard to read with a stop after μου. I also don't want to stretch καί too much. But the accusative of respect makes sense to me. Incidentally, BDAG has some interesting references on the meaning of πιερασμός in this passage, which could affect interpretation. Where is Jeffrey Gibson when you need him?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by cwconrad »

cwconrad wrote:
bewell wrote: I looked up "pendent accusative" and learned that, among other things, it is another way of saying that syntactically speaking, it is a poorly constructed sentence.
I love that comment; it's probably an apt comment about other "pendent" case-forms as well. "Pendent" after all, is just another word for "dangling."
Jonathan Robie wrote:Yes, but good writers do dangle.

A few examples in English:
William Shakespeare, Hamlet wrote: . . . sleeping in mine orchard, a serpent stung me
Jane Austen, Mansfield Park wrote: . . . wanting to be alone with his family, the presence of a stranger superior to Mr. Yates must have been irksome.
Yes, but some authors who are admired by some more than others, seem to twist and turn in the wind.

A couple examples in the GNT, that some might consider "tortured":
1 John 1:1 Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς _ 2 καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν _ 3 ὃ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν καὶ ὑμῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν. καὶ ἡ κοινωνία δὲ ἡ ἡμετέρα μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 4 καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.
Eph 1:3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ, 4 καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, 5 προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, 6 εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ. 7 Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων, κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ 8 ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει, 9 γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ 10 εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν αὐτῷ. 11 Ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ 12 εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ. 13 Ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ, 14 ὅ ἐστιν ἀρραβὼν τῆς κληρονομίας ἡμῶν, εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως, εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4237
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Jonathan Robie »

And now for something completely different .... Jeffrey Gibson pointed out this article, which offers an interpretation none of us are considering ....
Troy W. Martin wrote:Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Galatians 4.13-14)

Abstract

This article investigates the phrases 'weakness of the flesh' and 'temptation in my flesh' in Gal. 4.13-14. After evaluating the prevailing illness and persecution interpretations, this article concludes that these phrases refer neither to illness nor to persecution. Instead, 'weakness of the flesh' refers to the Galatians' pre-gospel condition. This condition and not illness or persecution caused Paul to evangelize them. When he came to them with his gospel, Paul's circumcised flesh provided a temptation for them to reject and despise him, as well as his message about Jesus Christ. However, they ignored his circumcision and received the gospel Paul announced. Paul summons them to return to their original attitude toward circumcision since circumcision is of no consequence for the gospel. If they ignore circumcision, there is no reason the Galatians should continue in their apostasy to paganism but should rather return to their original commitment to Paul and his gospel.
I haven't read this article yet, I have no idea how plausible an argument he makes for this interpretation.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Andrew Chapman
Posts: 265
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:04 am
Location: Oxford, England
Contact:

Re: Gal. 4:13-14

Post by Andrew Chapman »

Jonathan Robie wrote:BDAG has some interesting references on the meaning of πιερασμός in this passage, which could affect interpretation
and if one follows the trail to ἐξουθενέω one finds the suggestion that it is a temporal accusative: 'during your time of trial with respect to my physical disability'.

Andrew
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”