From: Glenn Blank (glennblank@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Apr 01 2002 - 16:50:09 EST
I had written
>>> changing EAN MH to ALLA makes the text say something different than
>>> what it does
Steven Lo Vullo answered,
>Glenn, I wasn't suggesting substituting ALLA for EAN MH, since I think EAN
>MH makes perfect sense as is.
I knew you were not, Steven. I was responding to a suggestion by Manolis
Nikolaou that the writer should have either said ALLA instead of EAN MH or
left out EX ERGWN, and also to the original question of the thread, as to
whether EAN MH should be understood as a concessive or as an adversative.
My position is that the syntax makes perfect sense as it is written (as
opposed to Manolis' position that the writer somehow clumsily combined two
different propositions into one sentence), and secondly that EAN MH cannot
be understood as an adversative, although when you add the information in
the surrounding context, DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU adds up to being
exclusively adverse to EX ERGWN NOMOU. That is to say, the syntax of
OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU, EAN MH PISTEWS KHSOU CRISTOU
can be construed only to say that faith in Christ is necessary for
justification, but leaves ambiguous whether or not, given faith in Christ,
the works of the law are also necessary. It is only the surrounding context
that adds the information that works of the law are not only insufficient,
but also unnecessary.
BTW, Iver, I'm not sure what the difference is between <if not A then not B>
and <only if A then B>. Logically, they are equivalent. But how are they
different linguistically?
>I would like to support what Steven says here, that EAN MH is different
(and
>maybe stronger) than ALLA and it affirms that righteousness is obtained
>exclusively through faith. It appears that EAN MH may have two slightly
>different functions in different contexts. One corresponds to "if not A
then
>not B" and the other to "only if A then B". (This is linguistic logic
rather
than mathematical logic)
My quibble (and it truly is a quibble, since I agree with you on what the
bottom line ends up being) is what you are trying to do to the syntax in
order to make it seem to fit the context (I say "seem" because I think the
straightforward parsing fits the context nicely enough). I agree
whole-heartedly that one should not let ones presuppositions about syntax
override the clear indications of context, but on the other side, I would
warn against letting one's expectation about how a particular syntactical
unit fits into the context lead him to distort the clear structure of that
unit. I think this kind of distortion happens, Steven, when you propose
that
A) The scope of EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU is not OU DIKAIOUTAI
ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU but OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS
and when you propose that
B) if we concede that there is an ellipsis that
> needs to be filled (and I'm not sure there is), there is more than one way
> to understand how and where it should be filled. The following makes more
> sense in the context:
>
1) OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU
>
2) [OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS] EAN MH DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU
(you subsequently clarified that "DIKAIOUTAI must also be understood in the
conditional clause (EAN MH [DIKAIOUTAI] DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU)."
This insertion of DIKAIOUTAI into the conditional clause was the ellipsis to
which I referred, necessary syntactically for the conditional clause to be a
clause. However, the additional insertion of [OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS] which
you propose is in effect adding an entirely new matrix clause. As it is
written in 2:16, OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS EX ERGWN NOMOU is the matrix clause.
There is no syntactical indication that the second [OU DIKAIOUTAI ANQRWPOS]
has been ellided (my definition of "ellision" is an element which the
syntactical structure indicates has been left out, not simply semantic
information which might be added from the surrounding context). What you
are doing by adding the second matrix clause is in essence the same thing
Manolis suggested . . . that the writer is saying two different things in
that same clause complex (1 and 2 above) even though there is only one
clause complex.
Similarly, if you propose (A) above, then what role does EX ERGWN play in
the clause complex, if it is not there as part of the apodisis?
I agree with you, completely, Steven, that "the idea, in context, is . . .
stronger than could be expressed by ALLA." But the pivotal phrase is "in
context." I do not agree that
"[EAN MH] not only rules out DIKAIWSIS by
ERGWN NOMOU, but emphasizes that DIKAIWSIS is exclusively DIA PISTEWS IHSOU
CRISTOU."
I do agree that the EAN MH clause rules out DIKAIWSIS by ERGWN NOMOU, but I
do not agree that it emphasizes that DIKAIWSIS is exclusively DIA PISTEWS
IHSOU. The reason it is a stronger expression of this latter truth "than
could be expressed by ALLA" is precisely because it leaves this latter
proposition unstated (in suspense, if you will), and adds punch by filling
in that gap later, in hOTI EX ERGWN NOMOU OU DIKAIWQHSETAI PASA SARX at the
end of the verse. I think it is a mistake to try to construe the syntax of
the MH EAN protasis/apodosis complex *in and of itself* to mean DIA PISTEWS
as both a necessary *and sufficient* cause of DIKAIOUTAI.
glenn blank
Pensacola FL
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:23 EDT