Regarding Gal 2:20 reply to Carlton Winbery

JDChaplain at aol.com JDChaplain at aol.com
Fri Apr 9 19:23:42 EDT 1999


My original post began:
>Regarding the use of THi in "EN PISTEI ZW THi TOU hUIOU TOU QEOU.  Perhaps 
>the first point is that Greek articles are not simply definite articles.  
They have >demonstrative use as well, often pressing us in English to use a 
relative pronoun; e.g., >SAULOS, hO KAI PAULOS; "Saul, who is also [known as] 
Paul,"  Act 13:9.  Or more >strictly as demonstratives in MEN...DE 
constructions as in Gal 4:23 or standing alone >as in Gal 5:24 
hOI...ESTAURWSAN.

Carlton responded:
>This is like comparing apples and oranges. SAULOS, hO KAI PAULOS is a
>construction in which hO KAI PAULOS is in apposition to SAULOS, "Saul also
>called Paul."  Gal 2:20 involves the article that indicates grammatical 
relationship of a
>structure that otherwise could not indicate case relationship, hence,
">faith of the Son."

My reply: 
Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I understood the original question to mean 
	a. Why is THi, an article, being used in a place where a 
demonstrative or relative pronoun might normally occur?
	b. Why is it dative?
In my original post, I simply intended to make it clear that this use of an 
article was not unusual, though to some it might seem to be.  Most of us, 
when we were beginning Greek, would have expected AUTHi, EKEINHi or TAUTHi, 
or I think we would have liked to have seen the relative pronoun in the place 
of THi.  This would be informative to some subscribers to B-Greek who are 
beginning their study.  Regardless, this was not intended as a comparison of 
Gal 2:20.  I apologize for the confusion.

I originally wrote: 
>BGD (2nd ed.) showed several possibilities [for ways to use an article]...In 
the section >on hO, hH, TO in paragraph II. 5. the discussion regards the use 
of the article with >prepositional phrases, though in our passage the article 
follows the preposition.

Carlton wrote:
>I would not say it follows the preposition but it follows the verb.

My reply: 
Whether it followed the verb or preposition was not the point.  The point was 
that the article doesn't proceed the preposition.  The examples in BGD show 
the article always proceeding the preposition.  If one saw a possible 
connection here, one would have to make the argument that the article could 
function with a prepositional phrase (as described in II.5) even if the 
article followed the preposition.  This might be an avenue worth following, 
though it held the weakest, of the three possible connections I mentioned, 
with our passage.  THi is related to the prepositional phrase, yet not 
strictly as BGD defined its usage in II.5.

I originally  wrote:
>In [BGD] II. 6. the discussion is regarding adverbial ideas (which a 
prepositional >phrase is or which may refer to the verbal notion inherent in 
PISTIS).  The discussion >in II. 7. is regarding the use of the article with 
the genitive when it shows "kinship, >ownership, dependence."  II.7. seems to 
describe our passage the best.  This would >yield a translation something 
like, "in a faith I live, [which is] [dependent upon]
>the Son of God."

Carlton wrote:
>None of these egs. apply to Gal 2:20. THi TOU hUIOU is not adverbial but
>adjectival, modifying PISTEI.

My reply: 
As you stated, THi clearly modifies PISTEI; however PISTEI is clearly also 
the heart of the adverbial thought EN PISTEI.  Prepositional phrases are 
adverbial; therefore, I think it's reasonable to see THi, not only as 
connected to PISTEI in an adjectival sense, but also to see THi as resuming 
the adverbial thought of EN PISTEI.  That THi is resuming the adverbial idea 
EN PISTEI, and therefore that II.6. of BGD would apply, should not be 
rejected out of hand.  I address II.7. below.

I originally wrote:
>I think we can note that the dative use fits well, not just because THi 
modifies the >object of EN, but rather as the dative concept of THi and the 
genitive concept of TOU >hUIOU TOU QEOU apply to ZW.

Carlton wrote:
>It's the dative concept of PISTEI that relates to ZW. The article relates 
the genitive >TOU UIOU to the noun.

My reply: 
(1) TOU UIOU relates to the adverbial idea EN PISTEI which relates to the 
verb, ZW.  I'm uncomfortable describing the thought (sentence) the way it 
seems you are describing it.  I see this sentence as an adverbial phrase, a 
verb, a connecting pronoun (article), and two genitive noun phrases: the 
first of which is linked to the adverbial phrase by the pronoun, the second 
genitive modifying the first.  It seems to me that you place cognitive 
distance between ZW and TOU UIOU that I just don't see.  The thought seems 
more seamless than what I understand you to be saying.  This may only be a 
difference in interpretive style, or perhaps we're using different words to 
describe the same thing.  If so it is probably because I see THi as resuming 
the adverbial idea EN PISTEI and you would be uncomfortable seeing it that 
way.  I'm not sure that based on this alone that we would come up with 
different translations.

(2) I also understand you to mean that THi has no dative influence over TOU 
UIOU, that it's dative only because it's antecedent is dative, and the 
antecedent is dative only because EN requires the dative for its object.  
That may be true, but it seems that we are ignoring the fact that PISTEI is 
dative because of its relationship to ZW and not "just because" it follows 
the preposition.  The case of a preposition's object still gains its case 
because of the object's relationship to the verb.  I may have made too much 
of this, however, in my original comments because I was working with the idea 
that THi represented a "relative pronoun-like" use of the article.  I cover 
this further in (4) below.  

(3) BGD's discussion in II. 7. is quite clear, and persuasive, on the point 
that an article that proceeds a genitive can show a relationship of "kinship, 
ownership, dependence." For example, hH TOU OURIOU, "the wife of Uriah," Mt 
1:6, shows kinship or perhaps ownership.  EN TOIS TOU PATROS MOU in Luke 
2:49.  "in my Father's house."  This seems to be the equivalent of saying, 
"in the house that belongs to my Father" and shows ownership.  This clearly 
makes room for a translation of Gal 2:20 that assumes this, too.  "In faith I 
live one [belonging to, related to, owned by] the Son of God."

(4) A question still remains in my mind about the kind of pronoun THi is.  
It's an article, yes, but it's functioning as a pronoun.  If articles used in 
this fashion require the case of the antecedent, then THi being dative may 
have less to say about TOU UIOU because it would be dative by grammatical 
necessity.  The same if it is demonstrative-like and following the rules for 
AUTHi, EKEINHi or TAUTHi.  The question I'm asking is whether an article used 
in this fashion on occasion is "relative pronoun-like" in its rules.  If 
there are occasions where this is true, then it only requires gender and 
number from its antecedent and its case describes its syntactical place in 
the sentence.  It was this "relative-pronoun-possibility-line of thinking" 
that raised some of my curiosity about this passage.  This led me to consider 
a stronger dative meaning of THi as it appears before TOU UIOU.  That is, if 
articles could be "relative pronoun-like" then Paul could have chosen THS 
instead of THi and that would have made a difference in my mind about what 
Paul was trying to say.  ("Kinship, ownership, dependence," however, would 
still have to be discussed.)

I hope this clears up, if nothing else, the line of reasoning behind my 
original comments.  I must agree with some the other comments.  We got a lot 
of gum for a quarter.

Jim Denley
Virginia Beach, VA



More information about the B-Greek mailing list