Junia Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com Wed May 12 15:26:28 EDT 2004  re: mamonas  re: mamonas-wilcox Dear ,Someone asked me a long time ago to post information about Dan Wallace’s paper on Junia (Rom 16:7). I’m fairly sure the information has already been posted, but I did not post…
TLG Lookup on APOSTOLOS: addendum Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net Fri Jul 9 15:15:52 EDT 1999 TLG Lookup on APOSTOLOS Revelation and Tabernacles Here’s the data regarding instances of APOSTOLOS in what the TLG termsvaria(workswhose constituent elements come from a variety of dates) and incerta(works the dateof which is uncertain). This time I…
Romans 1:16 Glen L Naftaniel glensmail at juno.com Thu Apr 4 22:17:01 EST 2002 why miniscule? why miniscule? Hello all,I am trying to better understand Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO EUANGELION DUNAMIS GAR THEOU ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO TE PROTON KAI hELLENI.”I have always thought that EUANGELION was the subject.…
 Genitives in Rom. 2:4 Byron & Linetta Knutson byronk at open.org Thu Feb 6 03:14:29 EST 2003  number of AW, EW, and OO verbs in NT  Genitives in Rom. 2:4 I was wondering why the string of genitives in this verse rather than accusatives (excluding THS CRHSTOTHTOS)? Is there a simple…
Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com Tue Nov 27 14:30:41 EST 2001 SU as part of a vocative? Use of MH Hi!I am near the completion of an essay on Paul and natural theology, but have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in Romans 1:…
Romans 1:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com Mon Aug 5 18:25:57 EDT 2002 IOKOBOS to JAMES Romans 1:17 This verse has been oft discussed on . Go to Feb. and following in 1996 for a good string.What follows is a good posting from Edward Hobbs.[Since the meaning of Romans 1:17 has come up…
The relevant text: καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην,
My question concerns the last prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην, The first prepositional phrase used the same construction, the preposition eis with the articular infinitive. The first phrase would seem to express the purpose of God in making Abraham the father of all who believe. Should the second phrase be understood as purpose or result, or is there some overlap in the two? Should the second phrase be applied to all those who believe, or should it be construed as the first phrase with the purpose of God. If the former, unbelievers would want to believe (one supposes) for the purpose of being imputed righteousness, but the fact that they do believe indicates that as a result they are imputed righteousness.
Thanks in advance,
Statistics: Posted by ronsnider1 — July 16th, 2014, 12:04 pm
The synoptic parallel provides one an opportunity to do that.
Matthew 15:34 wrote:Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Πόσους ἄρτους ἔχετε;
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — September 22nd, 2017, 3:07 pm
Msindisi wrote: ↑June 27th, 2017, 4:33 amAs the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify ‘upon which’ rather than ‘upon whom’ for three major reasons.
1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition.
2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding.
3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not.
A. One man sins.
B. Sin came into the world.
C. Death came into the world through sin.
B’. Death spread to all men.
A’. In Adam all sinned.
Rather A- B’ show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B’ is a consequence of C that A’ is also a consequence of B’. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2.
Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner.
Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting.
Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin.
Talk about resurrection, this is quite an old thread. Please note that on B-Greek we focus on on issues of grammar and syntax, understanding the Greek as Greek, and not issues of theology. In this case of Romans 5:12, what tips it for me is not the theological content, but that the phrase is really a stock phrase used adverbially elsewhere, and particularly in the plural, ἐφ οἷς, but not unknown in the singular. Now, whether it’s consecutive or causal is a matter of some debate in the history of interpretation. This article by Cranfield is supposed to be quite exhaustive on the subject:
“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41
But I can’t comment further since the Scottish Journal of Theology is not accessible through JSTOR (the first time I’ve been let down on that regard).
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 29th, 2017, 11:02 am
It seems agreed that we distinguish “semantics” and “(discourse) functions” of a word, and
we should not transfer the functions of the word derived from context to the semantics of the word.
In connection with ἱνα I would pose a hypothesis that
ἱνα introduces a non-indicative (modal) content
that is potential, contingent, etc in contrast to the content introduced by a ὁτι clase, which is actual.
That is the semantics of ἱνα. More than that, e.g. wish, intention, purpose, obligation, command, etc
is derived from context.
I think that this is the minimum that Sim proposes after all things that look like over-interpretation are filtered out.
To support this hypothesis, let me cite two more examples in additionn to the one already given.
(1) The original example,
εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.
Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα ὁτιμετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.
Here the ὁτι clause and the ὁτι clause correspond to each well.
The only difference seems that the one describes an indicative content, whereas
the other a non-indicative content. The more specific content is derived from the context and the
nature of the main verb.
LXX Exo 6:11.
εισελθε λαλησον Φαρθω βασιλεῖ Αιγυπτου ̔ινα εξαποστειλῃ τους υἱους Ισραελ εκ τῆς αυτοῦ.
KJV: Go in, speak unto Pharaho king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Here ̔the ινα clause specifies the content of the request. To think about “a purposed result”
seems to be an over-interpretation.
(3) Num 21:5
και κατελαλει ὁ λαος προσ τον θοεν και κατα Μωυσῆ λεγοντες ἱνα τι εξͅγαγες ἡμας εξ Αιγυπτου..
The people spoke against God and against Moes, saying “Why did you bring out out of Egypt..”
[Similarly with 2Sa 19:12]
Here ̔the ινα clause introduces a direct question, meaning that Moses shouldn’t have done that,
which is a non-indicative content.
Let me present two verses from LXX as examples where the ̔the ινα clause is the content of speech.
If I apply this idea to Rom 3:19, I could obtain:
[With reference to ] what the law says to those in the law, it (= the law) speaks that every mouth
should be stopped and all the world should be guilty before God.
[ It is difficult to express the subtle nuance of Greek subjunctive in English. So, the use of “should” should
be simply taken to indicate that it is a pointer fo the subjunctive verb in Greek. ]
Here I took ὁσα ὁ νομος λεγει τοῖς εν τῷ νομῳ to be an instance of the accusative of reference.
A similar construction is found in Rom 10:5:
Μωυσῆ γαρ γραφει την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ νομου ὁτι ὁ ποιησας αυτα ανθρωποσ ζησεται εν αυτοις.
Moses writes with reference to the righteousness from the law that the person who does them shall live in them.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 29th, 2014, 7:34 am
I don’t know if you would find this helpful, but a really technical analysis of Ancient Greek participles and their relation to the main verb is found here in a article by Dag Haug and Corien Bary: http://semprag.org/article/download/sp.4.8/pdf_1 A poster of their views in brief can be found here: http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/rese … poster.pdf
The participles you point out would be considered “elaborations” and their function is to provide more information about the main verb. They are not intended to interact with the time of the context (just that of the main verb) or to introduce a new event time into the discourse. In Wallace’s terms, they would be classified as a circumstance participle of manner or something like that.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 14th, 2014, 4:31 pm
Hi, I found an answer to my question, while scanning the thick grammar book by A. T. Robertson, p. 1184.
Sometimes a word is repeated with DE for special emphasis, as DIKAISUNH in Ro 3:22( cf. 9:30).
EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN KATELABEN DIKAISUNHN, DIKAISUNHN DE THN EK PISTEWS.
So, if DE can introduce a phrase as Rom 9:30, the answer to my question is obvious.
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 10th, 2014, 7:52 am
My question relates to how one understands and classifies the genitive string in Romans 1:23 that follows the en clause. The entire phrase relates to that which was exchanged for the glory of the incorruptible God, but I am having a little trouble identifying the type of genitives used here.
καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.
It’s pretty clear, I’d say, that εἰκόνος depends upon ὁμοιώματι and that φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν all depend upon εἰκόνος. I would think too that φθαρτοῦ, although linked directly with ἀνθρώπου, is implicitly understood also with the other genitive nouns as well. The four genitive nouns dependent on εἰκόνος all fall under the most basic category of adnominal genitives, whether you call it “possessive” or “genitive of belonging”. Categorizing the adnominal linkage of εικόνος to ὁμοιώματι is perhaps less clearcut (if it really matters — the meaning of the phrase is hardly in doubt!); I think I’d call it an “appositive” or “explanatory” genitive (cf. Smyth, §1322): “a likeness, i.e. an image of … “.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 30th, 2014, 11:08 am
Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl Sun Dec 1 04:03:27 EST 2002 Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Steven Wrote:> I submit to you that no one approaching this text without a=20> preconceived (and wrong, IMO) theological notion derived from the=20> question of the relationship between…
GlennDean » July 23rd, 2013, 9:47 am I have a question on the αἵ and the παρὰ in Romans 1:26. Here’s the text:διὰ τοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσινQuestion1: In my UBS Greek NT with Texual Notes, it mentions that “ἡ…
“hOI GAR ARCONTES OUK EISIN FOBOS TWi AGAQWi ERGWi ALLA TWi KAKWi. QELEIS DE MH FOBEISQAI THN EXOUSIAN· TO AGAQON POIEI, KAI hEXEIS EPAINON EX AUTHS” (Romans 13:3). The second part of this verse is punctuated as a statement. Is it more likely to be a statement or a question? Thankyou, Andrew J. Birch Palma…
[bible passage=”Romans 3:3″] PISTIS vs PISTOS I don’t believe there is a separate Greek word for “faithfulness” in the N.T.; at least I don’t see one. That being said, it would seem to me that if Paul or any other N.T. author intended for an existing word like PISTIS or PISTOS to be used to…
[bible passage=”Romans 16:1″] Greetings to all: I’ve been wandering recently, about the use of the word “deacon” (noun masc. sing.) in Romans 16:1-2 in reference to Phoebe who was a woman. How common of usage that was in the Biblical Greek language? Does it stand out as wrong or was it commonly applied that way?…
Stephen Carlson wrote: OK, but that does not sound like the “same viewpoint” as expressed above. Oh? Then sorry I must have interpreted Hefin’s terminology wrongly. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — January 20th, 2014, 11:17 pm David Lim wrote: Hefin J. Jones wrote:Coming back to this after a while – her Wittgenstein quote…