From: Carl W. Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 06:04:07 EDT
At 10:03 PM -0400 10/1/01, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>> >hOTI DE EN NOMWi OUDEIS DIKAIOUNTAI PARA TWi QEWi DHLON, hOTI
>> >hO DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.
>> >hOTI DE EN NOMWi OUDEIS DIKAIOUTAI PARA TWi QEWi, DHLON hOTI
>> >hO DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI,
>> > >One of the fundamental principles of writing is "
>> >the subject and its predicate should be as close as possible".
>> >(2) satisfies this principle better than (1). In (2), the
>> >predicate DHLON is immediately followed by its subject,
>> >the hOTI clause.
>> >Is there any reason for most translations prefer (1) to (2)?
>> Yes. That is to say: that final
>> clause is not a conclusion to be deduced but the premiss upon which the
>> assertion in the first clause is based. It has to be recognized that Hab.
>> 2:4 is being cited in the last clause as a reason why the proposition in
>> the first clause is valid. Note that in vs. 13 the same structure is
>> evident: the proposition is first stated: CRISTOS hHMAS EXHGORASEN EK THS
>> KARARAS TOU NOMOU GENOMENOS hUPER hHMWN KATARA, and then the justification
>> for that assertion is offered from scripture: hOTI GEGRAPTAI, "EPIKATARATOS
>> PAS hO KREMAMENOS EPI XULOU." Vs. 12 is slightly different but has the same
>> order: the false assertion is negated and contrasted (through ALLA) with
>> the scriptural basis: "hO POIHSAS AUTA ZHSETAI EN AUTOIS."
>A convincing explanation! Thanks. But even if it is not a
>structure, can we say the same thing? That is, can we say that the reason
>usually comes after the assertion clause? I mean ".... because ...."
>rather than "because ...., ....".
No, at least I'm not inclined to think this is necessarily the more common
pattern, although it's clearly the pattern here. I think this argumentation
is a matter of rhetoric rather than typical clause-structures; I think that
one could just as well state one's scriptural model first and then follow
it with a "Therefore you ought not to ... (DIO OU CRH TAUTA POIEIN ...)" or
a clause beginning with DIA TOUTO or with DIA TAUTA may indicate a
conclusion drawn from the argument just previously stated. I'm sure there's
a significant literature on the rhetoric of Pauline argumentation, but I'm
not up on it.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:37:08 EDT