Need clarification on Galatians 6:3

[DASchoch]

Hello everyone! As my subject line indicates, I need some help clarifying what Gal. 6:3 says. According to my research, I am having difficulty in reconciling the traditional rendering in English translations - primarily with the meaning of μηδὲν. According to my resources, medeis basically means not even one, no one, nobody, or nothing; and Zodhiates has it listed in this verse as being used metaphorically meaning of no account, having no weight of character. This is how I understand the verse is to be translated:

Gal. 6:3
Because if he is of the opinion that he is nothing, of no weight of character, then he is deceiving himself.

This is the opposite of what every English translation says...but I have learned that many passages in English translations have been butchered as to their renderings, such as Hebrews 9:16-17, which is also completely different from what the Greek intended meaning is.

Can anyone demonstrate if the rendering I have given this word (and text) is correct or why it is not? Just looking for either confirmation for my rendering, or evidence as to where I am missing it.

Thank you!
Blessings
..

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

If all English translations agree on something you can safely assume they are right and you are wrong.

I don't know why you translate that way.

εἰ γὰρ
δοκεῖ τις
εἶναί τι
μηδὲν ὤν,
φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν

["literal translation"]
For if
someone thinks
to be something
while being nothing,
deceives himself

I don't know what's unclear about this. Maybe you are confused by τις and τι?

As for Hebrews, that hasn't been butchered either.

[Daniel Semler]

Hi

It's generally helpful to quote the Greek so people don't have to go find it. I don't think μηδέν is your problem here.

Gal. 6:3
Because if he is of the opinion that he is nothing, of no weight of character, then he is deceiving himself.

does not render the Greek:
Gal. 6:3 εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν.

You appear to have rendered εἶναι τι and μηδὲν ὡν as having essentially the same meaning, which they do not. I was initially wondering how you think the first three verbs relate to one another. It may still be worth considering that further, depending upon how you got to this understanding of the text.

Thx
D

[DASchoch]

If all English translations agree on something you can safely assume they are right and you are wrong.

I don't know why you translate that way.

εἰ γὰρ
δοκεῖ τις
εἶναί τι
μηδὲν ὤν,
φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν

["literal translation"]
For if
someone thinks
to be something
while being nothing,
deceives himself

I don't know what's unclear about this. Maybe you are confused by τις and τι?

As for Hebrews, that hasn't been butchered either.

Eeli, the only word that is a conundrum is μηδὲν, because as I said, which you seem to have ignored, is that the grammar being with the present particle eimi, gives the word the possible meanings of either being nothing (which you have chosen to translate it as), or, of no account, or of having no weight of character. The presence of the present particle eimi causes μηδὲν to take on a metaphorical meaning.

Therefore, if the metaphorical meaning can be either "being nothing," "of no account," or "of having no weight of character," then taking the context of the preceding two verses (as we should do when translating) does not go with "being nothing," as it is a vacuous meaning for the text taken with its context.

As for Hebrews 9:16-17, there most definitely is a problem with the majority of English translations when the author is addressing a covenant and not a 'last will and testament." But that is another issue which I am not really here to discuss. Any more thoughts?

Thanks for your reply!
.

[DASchoch]

Hi

It's generally helpful to quote the Greek so people don't have to go find it. I don't think μηδέν is your problem here.

Gal. 6:3
Because if he is of the opinion that he is nothing, of no weight of character, then he is deceiving himself.

does not render the Greek:
Gal. 6:3 εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν.

You appear to have rendered εἶναι τι and μηδὲν ὡν as having essentially the same meaning, which they do not. I was initially wondering how you think the first three verbs relate to one another. It may still be worth considering that further, depending upon how you got to this understanding of the text.

Thx
D

Firstly, about not quoting the whole text, sorry about that!

About εἶναι τι and μηδὲν ὡν as having essentially the same meaning, sorry, I should not have repeated myself. The phrase "of no weight of character" was a repeat of μηδὲν on my part because my translation is a thought-for-thought rendering, not a word-for-word. In other words, there is no confusion on my part concerning the two as far as their definitions are concerned - you are absolutely correct...they do not mean the same thing. Again, my apologies, that was my bust.

"I was initially wondering how you think the first three verbs relate to one another. It may still be worth considering that further, depending upon how you got to this understanding of the text."

This is why I come here when I am stumped...as I am not yet a Greek scholar by any means. You mention the relationship between the first three verbs - perhaps there is a rule of grammar concerning verbs and their relationships that I do not yet know or understand. Any help in that area would be appreciated greatly!

thanks for your insight!

Dave
..

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

I think I now understand your point better. But

δοκεῖ = thinks
τις = somebody
εἶναί = to be
τι = something
μηδὲν = nothing
ὤν = being

is structured like this:

δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι = somebody thinks he is something
μηδὲν ὤν = while/when/yet/but being nothing

While I don't recommend using an interlinear for regular reading, sometimes it's good to check if you have parsed the words correctly. I'm not a scholar, either, and sometimes I make stupid mistakes because I haven't taken time to learn morphology by heart. When I can be sure, it's easier to see how the words relate to each other.

The three verbs relate like this: δοκεῖ εἶναί = thinks to be (thinks he is); ὤν = background event for the combination of the two previous verbs, i.e. while/when/yet/but(/or whatever) being. The point being that somebody is actually nothing, yet thinks he is something.

So the problem isn't really the meaning of μηδὲν but the three verbs and how the whole sentence is structured.

And for what is worth, in my opinion this is completely fitting in the larger textual context of chapter 6.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

You mention the relationship between the first three verbs - perhaps there is a rule of grammar concerning verbs and their relationships that I do not yet know or understand. Any help in that area would be appreciated greatly!

Actually I think this is the most crucial question. This is where reading texts instead of just translating words comes in. I can't even say if there's a "rule" for this exact case which you could find in some grammar textbook. Semantics and syntax of the participle is of course very important to grasp, it's a workhorse of Koine. But the best way to internalize syntax is to read, read and read original texts without grammar books or interlinears. Also reading outside the New Testament is recommended. "Reader's Editions" are good if vocabulary is a hindrance.

[DASchoch]

OK...so it seems like part of my problem comes from τις...and perhaps I am missing something.

From my understanding, when τις is joined with a substantive or adjective taken as a substantive, the meaning is morphed into "a certain person," "a certain thing," "someone," or "something." And that is where I see mistranslation in my head, because while τις does have the substantive in verse one, in the first appearance of τις in verse three there is no substantive...unless I am missing it. Therefore, with no presence of a substantive, τις does not take on the meaning of something, but rather, "one," "someone," or "a certain one."

Do you guys see a substantive joined to the first appearance of τις in verse 3, because I might be missing it...

εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν, ἑαυτόν φρεναπατᾷ.

Thanks again, you guys are helping me sort this thing out!

Dave
.

[Daniel Semler]

The conversation has moved on a bit but as I drafted this earlier I'll post it, but Eeli has covered the same ground.

You appear to have rendered εἶναι τι and μηδὲν ὡν as having essentially the same meaning, which they do not. I was initially wondering how you think the first three verbs relate to one another. It may still be worth considering that further, depending upon how you got to this understanding of the text.

About εἶναι τι and μηδὲν ὡν as having essentially the same meaning, sorry, I should not have repeated myself. The phrase "of no weight of character" was a repeat of μηδὲν on my part because my translation is a thought-for-thought rendering, not a word-for-word. In other words, there is no confusion on my part concerning the two as far as their definitions are concerned - you are absolutely correct...they do not mean the same thing. Again, my apologies, that was my bust.

Ok, at this point them I am wondering what happened to the thought conveyed by εἶναι τι, in your rendering. Because of the repetition I mistook that as a confusion over these clauses.

Regarding the verbs then. I am no grammarian of either Greek or any other language - just a self-taught from books for the most part hobbyist as it were. But looking at the Greek here you have an indicative, an infinitive, and a participle. I was wondering what had happened to the infinitive in your English version. What was being thought appears to have gone missing, or rather been replaced by that expressed in the participle clause. δοκεῖ needs something to complete the thought and the infinitive provides that in this case. The participle is basically circumstantial here rather than completing the δοκεῖ as your rendering appears to suggest.

Thx
D

[Daniel Semler]

OK...so it seems like part of my problem comes from τις...and perhaps I am missing something.

From my understanding, when τις is joined with a substantive or adjective taken as a substantive, the meaning is morphed into "a certain person," "a certain thing," "someone," or "something." And that is where I see mistranslation in my head, because while τις does have the substantive in verse one, in the first appearance of τις in verse three there is no substantive...unless I am missing it. Therefore, with no presence of a substantive, τις does not take on the meaning of something, but rather, "one," "someone," or "a certain one."

Do you guys see a substantive joined to the first appearance of τις in verse 3, because I might be missing it...

εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν, ἑαυτόν φρεναπατᾷ.

Thanks again, you guys are helping me sort this thing out!

Dave
.

τις here is really just the overt subject of δοκεῖ. There is no other substantive, actually in the whole verse. There is no need to suppose one either. δοκεῖ τις is fine on it's own. τι is neuter so something rather than someone. These are both indefinite pronouns and can stand on their own. The whole proposition is very general so there is no specific substantive required. The case in 6.1 τινι παραπτώματι "some trangression" is required by context to be specific and without the substantive would be vague or incomplete. It is interesting to me though that the implication of these indefinite pronouns in both English and Greek in 6.3 (and a lot of other cases) is curiously similar. We are happy to assume in both languages that the something is something good, or substantial among people, a person of standing and likewise with μηδέν in the opposite sense.

Thx
D