From: Bill Ross (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jan 05 2000 - 10:18:29 EST
>The words EF hW are commonly translated "because." I personally object to
this. In the same sentence Paul uses DIA for that purpose.
In fact, however, DIA is not used so simply; DIA is used with TOUTO...
I was thinking more of KAI DIA THS hAMARTIAS hO QANATOS where there is a
cause and effect relationship. Here Paul says:
"DIA THS hAMRATIAS hO QANATOS"
and does not use that construction later.
Carl, are you saying that:
* DIA by itself is never used to say "because"?
* EF hW means the same as DIA TOUTO but not the same as DIA?
* EF hW cannot/will not translate to "upon which"?
* there is a grammatical reason why hW in Acts 7:53 refers back to TOPOS but
hW in Romans 5:12 cannot refer back to QANATOS (or more properly, EIS PANTAS
ANQROWPOUS hO QANATOS DIHLQEN)? (Paul follows this statement with a
strikingly relevant subject:
Romans 5:14 ALLA EBASILEUSEN O QANATOS APO ADAM MECRI MWUSEWS KAI EPI TOUS
***MH AMARTHSANTAS EPI TW OMOIWMATI THS PARABASEWS ADAM*** OS ESTIN TUPOS
Paul specifically tells us in the immediate context that death reigned on
those who *did not transgress* as per Adam.)
* EF hW intrinsically must mean "because" and cannot mean anything else?
* that any difference between EF hW and DIA is imaginary?
>The words are literally "upon which" as in Acts 7:33:
>Acts 7:33 EIPEN DE AUTWi hO KURIOS: LUSON TO hUPODHMA TWN PODWN SOU, hO
>GAR >TOPOS EF' hWi hESTHKAS GH hAGIA ESTI
EF' hWi here is only superficially comparable to the adverbial conjunctive
phrase EF' hWi; here EPI is the preposition used with a locative dative
"upon" and the hWi is in this instance a relative pronoun referring back to
the antecedent TOPOS.
Is there any difference in the words? Why can't Paul be saying,
figuratively, that PANTA were [standing] EP hWS [occurrence] when they
We agree that the subject is PANTA and the verb is hHMARTON is the verb.
Does EF hW answer the question "why?" or "how?" or "when?" or (as I hold)
"what precipitated it?" Or even, "What were the prevailing conditions?"
>This leads me to the conclusion that, to Paul, the first phrase is the
>antecedent of the second, not the result. That is "all died, upon which [EF
>W] all sinned" not "all died, because [DIA] all sinned"
Here are the four GNT texts wherein EF' hWi appears, in every one of which
the prepositional phrase EF' hWi may legitimately be translated "because"
Rom 5:12 DIA TOUTO hWSPER DI' hENOS ANQRWPOU hH hAMARTIA EIS TON KOSMON
EISHLQEN KAI DIA THS hAMAARTIAS hO QANATOS, KAI hOUTWS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS
hO QANATOS DIHLQEN, EF' hWi PANTES hHMARTON ("... because/since they have
"they have all sinned?" Or "all sinned?" Your translation of the aorist
slants the reading of the text to require it to read in the past but that
isn't the way I would understand the translation of the aorist.
This verse can only be understood as "because all sinned" if, in addition to
a specious idiom, we accept very strange incongruous interpretations:
* participation of all men in Adam's sin/transgression?? Then why must death
"pass through" from Adam to them?
* death only to those of mankind who subsequently sin?? But death is
attributed to Adam's **transgression** [PARAPTWMA], not to a multitude of
2 COR 5:4 KAI GAR hOI ONTES EN TWi SKHNEI STENAZOMEN BAROUMENOI, EF' HWi OU
QELOMEN EKDUSASQAI ALL' EPENDUSASQAI, hINA KATAPOQHi TO QNHTON hUPO THS
ZWHS. ("... because/since we don't want to strip naked but rather to put on
new clothes ...")
You would read that "..we groan because/since we don't want to strip naked"?
I don't find that reasonable at all.
I prefer "We know that...we have an eternal house...we groan under our
burdens. But upon this we do not desire to be unclothed, but rather to be
The UPON THIS refers back to what we know and what we have and provides the
reason for the subsequent action - just as in Romans 5:12. Of course there
is overlap in the sense with because, but UPON THIS is more precise in this
context. We might find a meeting ground on some sense like "since this
premise is true..." or "given this prerequisite" but not on "because" or
Phil 3:12 OUC' hOTI HDH ELABON H HDH TETELEIWMAI, DIWKW DE EI KAI KATALABW,
EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPO CRISTOU [IHSOU]. ("... because/since I too
have been gripped firmly by Christ [Jesus].")
Might it not be:
"..I might also lay hold, on [account of] which also, I have been gripped by
If so, then the sentence is one consistent thought instead of two joined by
a pun. Paul is Christ's "slave" and "prisoner" and the phrase is a synonoum
for DIA TOUTO as used here:
1 Tim 1:16 Howbeit **for this cause** [DIA TOUTO] I obtained mercy, that in
me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to
them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
1 Timothy 1:16 ALLA **DIA TOUTO** HLEHQHN INA EN EMOI PRWTW ENDEIXHTAI
CRISTOS IHSOUS THN APASAN MAKROQUMIAN PROS UPOTUPWSIN TWN MELLONTWN
PISTEUEIN EP AUTW EIS ZWHN AIWNION
Phil 4:12 ECARHN DE EN KURIWi MEGALWS hOTI HDH POTE ANEQALETE TO hUPER EMOU
FRONEIN, EF' hWi KAI EFRONEITE, HKAIREISQE DE. ("... because/since you were
indeed anxious (about me) but your timing was bad.")
"upon which also you were thinking, but you were lacking opportunity"
"on [account of] which you were thinking..."
In sum, there's all the difference in the world between DIA TOUTO and EF'
hWi; the former means "for this reason" or "because of this" or "therefore",
while the latter means "because" or "since" and functions as an adverbial
conjunction introducing the clause explaining the reason for what was just
Are you setting out to show:
* EF hW has a "meaning" of "because" that must dictate the usage, or only
that your notion is "plausible?"
* EF hW must always be read idiomatically as "because" or that it can be
* EF hW is "defined" by four occurences where "it may be legitimately
translated" as "since," (while on closer inspection, such a translation is
really not as good as the literal "upon which", or the idiom "on account of
Do you even concede that it could be legitimately translated any other way?
Is this "idiom" of "because" an established "fact" or just a hasty theory
subject to investigation?
I think we would all benefit from a dip into the classic literature for
examples of the phrase. Have you a tool that could supply examples?
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:53 EDT