Gal. 4:13 and the canon of Apollonius Dyscolus
Posted: July 3rd, 2015, 9:00 am
οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον, καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου·
Gal. 4:13
The canon of Apollonius Dyscolus states that, "usually when a noun is modified by another noun in the genitive case, both nouns will have the article prefixed to them or neither will have the article." http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 055383.html
The phrase δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς in Galatians violates that canon. By contrast, the parallel phrase in Romans 6:19 does not violate the canon: ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν.
Troy Martin (Whose Flesh? JSNT, 1999) says that there is a possible explanation for this difference in N. Turner, 'Syntax', in J.G. Moulton, A grammar of New Testament Greek, III (1963) p. 180, but frustratingly, he does not share any explanation. I do not have access to this text. Nor do I have an explanation for the difference.
Would anyone like to comment on this problem? Is there any difference in meaning between these two parallel texts specifically related to following the canon or not?
Gal. 4:13
The canon of Apollonius Dyscolus states that, "usually when a noun is modified by another noun in the genitive case, both nouns will have the article prefixed to them or neither will have the article." http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-gr ... 055383.html
The phrase δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς in Galatians violates that canon. By contrast, the parallel phrase in Romans 6:19 does not violate the canon: ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν.
Troy Martin (Whose Flesh? JSNT, 1999) says that there is a possible explanation for this difference in N. Turner, 'Syntax', in J.G. Moulton, A grammar of New Testament Greek, III (1963) p. 180, but frustratingly, he does not share any explanation. I do not have access to this text. Nor do I have an explanation for the difference.
Would anyone like to comment on this problem? Is there any difference in meaning between these two parallel texts specifically related to following the canon or not?