Date: Fri Apr 09 1999 - 19:23:42 EDT
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
>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."
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.
>I would not say it follows the preposition but it follows the verb.
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."
>None of these egs. apply to Gal 2:20. THi TOU hUIOU is not adverbial but
>adjectival, modifying PISTEI.
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.
>It's the dative concept of PISTEI that relates to ZW. The article relates
the genitive >TOU UIOU to the noun.
(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
(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.
Virginia Beach, VA
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:23 EDT