Romans 3:23

Romans 3:23 – USTEROUNTAI Jeff Young youngman at triad.rr.com
Tue May 14 11:27:01 EDT 2002

 

1` Corinthians Commentary 1` Corinthians Commentary Hello all. A question regarding Romans 3:23.PANTES GAR HMARTON KAI USTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU QEOU(“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”)Excuse me if this is an “interpretive” question rather than a BG question(I’m not trying to raise any theological issues). I am wondering howUSTEROUNTAI should be taken here.I have come across a couple of views on this:1) USTEROUNTAI is connected with HMARTON. It is a result of all havingsinned. That is, “since all have sinned, they fall short.”2) USTEROUNTAI is a separate point. That is, “all have sinned (aorist) andare presently continuing to fall short” (Given the present tense).Is there anything, grammatically, that favors one over the other (or perhapsa third option).Thank you.Jeff Young

 

1` Corinthians Commentary1` Corinthians Commentary

Romans 3:23 – USTEROUNTAI Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue May 14 11:52:26 EDT 2002

 

1` Corinthians Commentary Question of gender At 11:27 AM -0400 5/14/02, Jeff Young wrote:>Hello all. A question regarding Romans 3:23.> >PANTES GAR hHMARTON KAI hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU QEOU> >(“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”)> >Excuse me if this is an “interpretive” question rather than a BG question>(I’m not trying to raise any theological issues). I am wondering how>hUSTEROUNTAI should be taken here.> >I have come across a couple of views on this:>1) hUSTEROUNTAI is connected with HMARTON. It is a result of all having>sinned. That is, “since all have sinned, they fall short.”> >2) hUSTEROUNTAI is a separate point. That is, “all have sinned (aorist) and>are presently continuing to fall short” (Given the present tense).> >Is there anything, grammatically, that favors one over the other (or perhaps>a third option).Spicq (TLNT) has a very nice discussion of this word and the group of Greekcognates associated with it:”In this family of words, the evolution was from a local sense tothe commoner temporal sense, then to a general idea of inferiority.1 Theadjective hUSTEROS, “coming behind, after” in space, then in time, is usedfor “the following day” as well as for “later, next4 and for posterity, adistant future;5 but it may refer to something that is merely second,subsequent. It takes on a pejorative nuance in the expression “arrive toolate” (Homer, Il. 18.320), “late, tardy” (Aristophanes, Vesp. 691), andespecially with the sense of being “inferior.” This latter meaning is wellattested in Philo, who especially loves this adjective and gives it thesame meanings as classical Greek.”The denominative verb hUSTEREW has especially the meaning “belate, arrive late, too late,” but also “let oneself be outrun, leftbehind,” hence a nuance of inferiority and even-in the Hellenisticperiod-insufficiency and inefficacy: the manna was given “withoutinsufficiency or excess.” This is the predominant meaning in the LXX(especially for the Hebrew HASER ): “lack, fail, run out.” It is also foundin Philo (Husbandry 85: lack opportunity), Josephus (Ant. 1.98; cf.15.70), Dioscorides (5.86), and especially in the papyri. “Such a personworks and tires himself out and presses on and is only more lacking” (Sir11:11; cf. 11:12); “If you are useful to the rich man he will use you, butif you have nothing he will abandon you” (13:15); a sad spectacle is thatof the “failing” warrior (26:28); “you have been weighed in the balance andfound wanting” (KAI hEUREQH hUSTEROUSA, literally, lacking weight, Dan 5:27[Theodotion]). The adverb hUSTERON, the opposite of NUN (“now”), retains inthe LXX the commonplace meanings of the adjective: next, after, finally. Itis particularly common in the papyri.”The NT completes this semantic evolution; almost all of thefifteen occurrences of the verb hUSTEREW (John 2:3 is a bad manuscriptreading) have the sense “to lack,” whether on a human or a spiritual level.The rich young man, having observed all the commandments, asks, “What do Istill lack” to be perfect (Matt 19:20; cf. Mark 10:21)? While Jesus waswith his apostles, did they lack anything (Luke 22:35)? When Paul arrivedat Corinth, he lacked everything (2Cor 11:9), but he knew how to live withabundance as well as how to go wanting.18 He thinks that he is in no waybeneath (behind, inferior to) those most eminent apostles who wish tosurpass him (2Cor 11:5; 12:11). The Corinthians lack no spiritual gift.”In terms of Spicq’s account I would understand hUSTEROUNTAI in Rom 3:23 asmeaning “they continue to lack God’s glory,” i.e. “they still fail to reachGod’s glory,” i.e. they are not entitled to life in the age-to-come.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

1` Corinthians CommentaryQuestion of gender

Romans 3:23 – USTEROUNTAI William Skinner thucy72 at yahoo.com
Tue May 14 17:44:31 EDT 2002

 

Question of gender Question of gender I’m new here, but this is such an interesting thread,I just had to jump in ;). In response to Jeff’s question as to which reading isbetter, I think you’d have to say #2. I don’t thinkyou can construe a causal link from KAI. Doesn’t KAIjust mean “and”? Another question… what do you all think DOXA meansin this passage? I thought its basic meaning was”reputation; how one seems to others”. Hence goodreputation, or glory. Yet the idea of God having areputation seems kinda funny, no? I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts.Sincerely,Will Skinner> At 11:27 AM -0400 5/14/02, Jeff Young wrote:> >Hello all. A question regarding Romans 3:23.> >> >PANTES GAR hHMARTON KAI hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU> QEOU> >> >(“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory> of God”)> >> >Excuse me if this is an “interpretive” question> rather than a BG question> >(I’m not trying to raise any theological issues). I> am wondering how> >hUSTEROUNTAI should be taken here.> >> >I have come across a couple of views on this:> >1) hUSTEROUNTAI is connected with HMARTON. It is a> result of all having> >sinned. That is, “since all have sinned, they fall> short.”> >> >2) hUSTEROUNTAI is a separate point. That is, “all> have sinned (aorist) and> >are presently continuing to fall short” (Given the> present tense).> >> >Is there anything, grammatically, that favors one> over the other (or perhaps> >a third option).__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?LAUNCH – Your Yahoo! Music Experiencehttp://launch.yahoo.com

 

Question of genderQuestion of gender

Romans 3:23 – USTEROUNTAI tmcos at canada.com tmcos at canada.com
Tue May 14 21:10:23 EDT 2002

 

Question of gender Question of gender An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed…Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20020514/bde416bd/attachment.pl

 

Question of genderQuestion of gender

Romans 3:23 – USTEROUNTAI William Skinner thucy72 at yahoo.com
Wed May 15 15:49:33 EDT 2002

 

Carlton’s grief Lexical Semantics Methods — tmcos at canada.com wrote:> On Tue, 14 May 2002, William Skinner wrote:> > > > > I’m new here, but this is such an interesting> thread,> > I just had to jump in ;). > > > > In response to Jeff’s question as to which reading> is> > better, I think you’d have to say #2. I don’t> think> > you can construe a causal link from KAI. Doesn’t> KAI> > just mean “and”? > > Hi William,> > While the conjunction KAI can mean and most often> does mean “and”, it can also mean “also”, “though”,> “although”, “albeit”, “even”,”as” and “about”,> according to the Liddell and Scott Greek-English> Lexicon.None of which are causal, but I see your point andstand corrected. > > Another question… what do you all think DOXA> means> > in this passage? I thought its basic meaning was> > “reputation; how one seems to others”. Hence good> > reputation, or glory. Yet the idea of God having> a> > reputation seems kinda funny, no?> > Not really, this comes out more fully in the OT with> the emphasis on the Name (Ha SHeM) of God. The idea> of one’s name carries with it one’s reputation much> like one would say “You gave me a bad name” or “You> smeared my name with that scandal”. All of these> refer to one’s reputation. The Hebrew equivalent of> the Greek DOXA is KaVoD and carries with it the idea> of heaviness, and hence worth and therefore it is> associated with “glory”. Hope this helps.> > Tony Costa Your connections to Hebrew are very interesting. Istill don’t see what the DOXH/A of God is. Using DOXHto mean “reputation” or “name” implies a speaker,presumably a human one. Yet to say that the DOXH ofGod, if DOXH also means glory of God, depends in anyway on mortals seems untenable. Can anyone explainthis to me?Sincerely, Will __________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?LAUNCH – Your Yahoo! Music Experiencehttp://launch.yahoo.com

 

Carlton’s griefLexical Semantics Methods

Roman 3:23 Chong-Huah Lo clo at TELCORDIA.COM
Tue Jul 2 11:01:29 EDT 2002

 

Ignatius to the Trallians Ignatius to the Trallians … kai hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU QEOS.hUSTEROUNTAI is present indicative passive or middle voice.Roman 3:23 says :All come short the glory of God. or God’s glory is fallen short C.H. Lo

 

Ignatius to the TralliansIgnatius to the Trallians

Roman 3:23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 2 13:40:51 EDT 2002

 

Hunches and Concerns Hunches and Concerns At 11:01 AM -0400 7/2/02, Chong-Huah Lo wrote:>… kai hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU QEOS.> >hUSTEROUNTAI is present indicative passive or middle voice.> >Roman 3:23 says :>All come short the glory of God. or God’s glory is fallen shortNo, rather: “all fall short of God’s glory” hUSTEROUNTAI is surely middlevoice.The verb hUSTEREW appears 16x in the GNT, 8x in active forms, 8x in MPforms, including one QH participle which is indeed middle rather thanpassive in meaning. There doesn’t really appear to be any difference insense between the active and middle: all the forms are intransitive insense.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Hunches and ConcernsHunches and Concerns

Roman 3:23 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jul 2 17:36:15 EDT 2002

 

Hunches and Concerns Roman 3:23 > The verb hUSTEREW appears 16x in the GNT, 8x in active forms, 8x in MP> forms, including one QH participle which is indeed middle rather than> passive in meaning. There doesn’t really appear to be any difference in> sense between the active and middle: all the forms are intransitive in> sense.>> > Carl W. ConradI am curious if there might be a slight difference of meaning between theactive and middle. Looking at these 16 instances in the GNT, I am proposinga hypothesis which may be just speculation.Would it be possible to think of the active forms as “lacking completely”and the middle forms as “falling short”?It would correspond to two nuances of the statement: “I lack money”:a) I don’t have any money at allb) I have a little money but not enough, i.e. I am short of money(Such a minor distinction would probably be neutralized in a negativeexpression like “I am not lacking anything”)I looked up in BAGD, but found nothing useful in terms of trying todistinguish the active forms from what they call the passive (what is bettercalled middle or MP).By the way, Carl, I hope you over there will soon adopt the metric systemand join ranks with the rest of us -:)Iver LarsenDenmark

 

Hunches and ConcernsRoman 3:23

Roman 3:23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 2 17:46:34 EDT 2002

 

Roman 3:23 Roman 3:23 At 11:36 PM +0200 7/2/02, Iver Larsen wrote:>> The verb hUSTEREW appears 16x in the GNT, 8x in active forms, 8x in MP>> forms, including one QH participle which is indeed middle rather than>> passive in meaning. There doesn’t really appear to be any difference in>> sense between the active and middle: all the forms are intransitive in>> sense.>>>> >> Carl W. Conrad> >I am curious if there might be a slight difference of meaning between the>active and middle. Looking at these 16 instances in the GNT, I am proposing>a hypothesis which may be just speculation.>Would it be possible to think of the active forms as “lacking completely”>and the middle forms as “falling short”?>It would correspond to two nuances of the statement: “I lack money”:>a) I don’t have any money at all>b) I have a little money but not enough, i.e. I am short of money> >(Such a minor distinction would probably be neutralized in a negative>expression like “I am not lacking anything”)> >I looked up in BAGD, but found nothing useful in terms of trying to>distinguish the active forms from what they call the passive (what is better>called middle or MP).I don’t think so, Iver, but I wouldn’t want to be dogmatic about this. I donote that Paul’s letters all have the middle voice (and, as I’ve said, I’dconsider the -QH- form middle rather than passive. My sense is that theverb is in flux, in process of becoming middle. I note that in LXX the verbappears 19x, 16x active, 3x middle. I’ll take a closer look at theindividual cases before coming down against what you’re arguing: you maywell be right.>By the way, Carl, I hope you over there will soon adopt the metric system>and join ranks with the rest of us -:)Frankly I do too! But I am not very confident of it as something that willhappen in my lifetime. I feel a considerable sense of fulfillment havinglived to see the publication of BDAG; my next hoped-for consummation(this-worldly) is publication of the new grammar of Hellenistic Greek tosupplant BDF (or BDR for European users).– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Roman 3:23Roman 3:23

Roman 3:23 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jul 3 03:28:27 EDT 2002

 

Roman 3:23 Roman 3:23 > > >I am curious if there might be a slight difference of meaning between the> >active and middle. Looking at these 16 instances in the GNT, I> am proposing> >a hypothesis which may be just speculation.> >Would it be possible to think of the active forms as “lacking completely”> >and the middle forms as “falling short”?> >It would correspond to two nuances of the statement: “I lack money”:> >a) I don’t have any money at all> >b) I have a little money but not enough, i.e. I am short of money> >> > I don’t think so, Iver, but I wouldn’t want to be dogmatic about> this. I do note that Paul’s letters all have the middle voice (and, asI’ve said, I’d> consider the -QH- form middle rather than passive. My sense is that the> verb is in flux, in process of becoming middle. I note that in> LXX the verb appears 19x, 16x active, 3x middle. I’ll take a closer lookat the> individual cases before coming down against what you’re arguing: you may> well be right.> I am not sure about Paul’s letters. I found one MP in 2 Cor 11:9 and twoactives in 2 Cor (a perfect in 11:5 and an aorist in 12:11.) Hebrews has twoactives and one middle. The gospels have one active each and one middle inLuke 15:14. It is difficult to deduce anything from this kind ofdistribution.If it is a matter of language change, it would be interesting to comparewith ClassicalGreek and maybe also Modern Greek. Do both active and MP forms occur? And ifso, is there any noticeable difference in meaning?For the LXX, I found one middle in Songs 7:3 and two in Sir 11:11, 51:24.

 

Roman 3:23Roman 3:23

Roman 3:23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 4 10:16:41 EDT 2002

 

Roman 3:23 learning stems Iver, I’ve been exploring this further and I’m afraid that am wholly unableeither to confirm or disprove your suggestion that active forms of hUSTEREWmight mean “lack completely” while middle forms might mean “fall short” Yousaid,>> >It would correspond to two nuances of the statement: “I lack money”:>> >a) I don’t have any money at all>> >b) I have a little money but not enough, i.e. I am short of moneyI’ve looked at L&N, LSJ, BDAG, and also at a very nice discussion of theverb (but not of any distinction between active and middle usage) inSpicq’s _Theological Lexicon of the New Testament_.I acknowledge, as you have noted, that Paul uses the active 2x in 2 Cor11:5 and 12:11, both times with reference to hOI hUPERLIAN APOSTOLOI towhom he claims he is not inferior; elsewhere (6x) he does use themiddle-voice forms of the verb (earlier I had mistakenly said that Pauluses only middle-voice forms).BDAG (I no longer have the older BGAD, so can’t speculate on what itoffered) has:————(1) to miss out on something, through one’s own fault, to miss, fail toreach, act. (cp. ‘come too late’ Phlegon: 257 fgm. 36, 1, 3 Jac.) abs. Hb4:1 APO TINOS be excluded from something (sim. constr. but difft senseAesop. Fab. 97 P.-134 H of a kid lagging behind the rest of the flock andpursued by a wolf ERIFOS hUSTERHSAS APO POIMNHS) 12.15.(2) to be in short supply, fail, give out, lack, act. (Socrat., Ep. 14, 9[p. 258 Malherbe]; Diosc. 5, 75, 13 hUSTEROUSHS POLLAKIS SPODOU; Is 51.14[marginal note in the Cod. Marchal.] KAI OU MH hUSTERHSHi hO ARTOS AUTOU;PCairZen 311, 5 [250 BC] hINA MH hUSTERHSHi TO MELI; BGU 1074, 7 [III AD]MHTE hUSTEREIN TI hUMIN) hUSTERHSANTOS OINOU J 2:3. — In a striking use w.acc. hEN SE hUSTEREI (lit. ‘one thing puts you later’, ‘laterizes you’,i.e. jeopardizes your securing the inheritance) in your case just one thingis missing Mk 10:21 (cp. the construction 4 below; acc. as Ps. 22:1 OUDENSE hUSTEREI).(3) to be in need, be needy, lack— (a) act. w. gen. TINOS someth. (Demosth. 19, 332 POLLWN; Phalaris, Ep.20 H; PsSol 18:2; Jos., Bell. 2,617, Ant. 2,7; PEdg45 [=Sb6751], 5 [251/250BC] XULWN Lk 22:35. Abs. be in need, be poor D 11:12. (b) pass. in act. sense: hUSTEROUMENOIHb 11:37 (TestJob 9:5)unless this belongs in 5 below. Subst. hOI hUSTEROUMENOI those who are pooror needy Hv 3, 9, 2; 4; 6; m 2:4. W. CHRAI s 9, 27, 2. W. widow(s) andorphan(s) Hm 8:10; s 5, 3, 7.(4) to be lower in status,be less than, inferior to, act. w. gen. ofcomparison (Pla. Rep. 7, 5393 EMPEIRIAi TWN ALLWN) TINOS be inferior tosomeone 2 Cor 11:5; 12:11. –Abs. 1 Cor 12:24 v.l. (s. under 5b).(5) to experience deficiency in someth., advantageous or desirable, lack,be lacking, go without, come short of– (a) act. TI ETI hUSTERW; What do I still lack? in what respect do Istill fall short? Mt 19:20 (cp. the construction in 2 above) (Phillips:’What is still missing in my life?’; cp. Ps. 38:5. (b) pass. w. gen. of thing (Diod. S. 18, 71, 5 ApcMos 26; Jos. Ant.15, 200) Ro 3:23; Dg 5:13 (opp. PERISSEUEIN) 1Eph 5:2. Also EN TINI 1 Cor1:7, Abs. (sir 11:11) Lk 15:14; 1 Cor 8:8 (opp. PERISS.); B 10:3. Ptc. 1Cor 12:24. DELG s.v. hUSTEROS M-M, TW Spicq.——————-It seems to me that Danker (or an earlier editor?) found definitions (3)and (5) sufficiently similar to hedge his placement of Heb 11:37; at anyrate he notes “deponent” (i.e. what I’d call Middle) usage in both (3) and(5). I still find his distinctions (if any) between active and M/P forms insenses (3) a & b and (5) a & b less than clearly intelligible.Yet another hypothesis (and it is no more than that) has come to my mind:Might there conceivably be some confusion between this verb hUSTEREW, adenominative verb clearly derivative from the adjective hUSTEROS and theverb STEREW/STEREOMAI (“deprive (of), be wanting/lacking”)? The verb STEREWdoes not at all appear in the GNT, but it appears 19x in the LXX, 9xactive, 10x. My “hunch/guess–no more than that–” is that hUSTEREW as anintransitive verb commonly took “active” form in earlier Greek and that inKoine it was being influenced be STEREOMAI.LSJ offers the following for STEREW:——————stereô , 3sg. imper. stereitô Pl.Lg.958e ; otherwise pres. occurs only inform steriskô and compd. apo-sterô: fut. sterêsô S.Ant. 574 , sterôA.Pr.862 : aor. esterêsa E.Andr.1213 (lyr.), Pl.Lg.873e, PCair.Zen.93.13(iii B.C.); inf. steresai Od.13.262 ; esteresen IG12 (8).600.15 (Thasos),v.l. in LXX Nu.24.11, al.; steresas IG14.902 (Capri); esterisenib.12(9).293 (Eretria, iv/iii B.C.), AP11.335.4, prob. for esterêsenib.124.2 (Nicarch.): pf. esterêka ( [ap-] ) Th.7.6, Plb.31.19.7,etc.:–Pass., pres. (apart from apo-stereomai) found in early writers onlyin forms steromai, steriskomai (steroito X.Cyr.7.3.14 , steroumenousAn.1.9.13 , stereisthai E.Supp.793 (lyr.), perh. ff. ll.); part.steroumenos Ph.Fr.29H. , J.AJ2.7.3, Gal.18(2).19; imper. stereisthôOGI483.173 (Pergam., prob. ii B.C., but inscribed in ii A.D.); steresthôib.176, 179; 3pl. stereisthôn IG12(9).207.44 (Eretria, iii B.C.): fut.sterêthêsomai D.C.41.7 , etc., v.l. in Isoc.6.28, cf. 7.34, but in the bestcodd. sterêsomai, as in S.El.1210, Th. 3.2, X.An.1.4.8, 4.5.28, Mem.1.1.8:aor. esterêthên (v. infr.): poet. aor. 2 part. stereis E.Alc.622 , Hec.623,Hel.95, El.736 (lyr.): pf. esterêmai (v. infr.); esteresmai An.Ox.1.394 :plpf. esterêto Th.2.65 :– deprive, bereave, rob of anything, c. acc. pers.et gen. rei, houneka me steresai tês lêïdos êthele Od.13.262 ; andr’hekaston aiônos sterei A. Pr.862 , cf. S.Ant.574, E.Heracl.807, etc.; s.tina tês sôtêrias, psuchês, etc., Th.7.71, Pl.Lg.873e, etc.; hosa trophênhê gê pephuken boulesthai pherein, mê stereitô ton zônth’ hêmônib.958e:–Pass., to be deprived or robbed of anything, c. gen., sterêtheishoplôn Pi.N.8.27 ; tôn ommatôn, tês opsios sterêthênai, Hdt.6.117, 9.93;phrontidos sterêtheis A.Ag.1530 (lyr.); tês basilêïês esterêmai Hdt.3.65 ,cf. 5.84; toi paidos esterêmenos Id.1.46 ; gaias patrôias A.Eu.755 ;metoikias tês anô S.Ant.890 ; philôn Id.Fr.863 ; tês poleôs Antipho 2.2.9(as v.l.), X.Mem.1.1.8; agathôn And 3.8, cf. Isoc.5.133, Pl.Phlb.66e, etc.:abs., to esterêsthai state of negation or privation, Arist.Cat.12a35.II. rarely c. acc. rei, take away, misthon AP9.174.12 (Pall.): –Pass., tohave taken from one, ploutou . . ktêsin esterêmenêi S.El. 960 (though theacc. may be construed with stenein); phasganôi bion stereis E.Hel.95 .——————At 9:28 AM +0200 7/3/02, Iver Larsen wrote:> [omitted paragraphs]>If it is a matter of language change, it would be interesting to compare>with Classical>Greek and maybe also Modern Greek. Do both active and MP forms occur? And if>so, is there any noticeable difference in meaning?I have no access to a good (or even an indifferent) Modern Greekdictionary; I’m cc’ing Manolis on this in hopes that he can help us onwhether there’s a modern Greek verb equivalent to hUSTEREW/hUSTEREOMAI andwhether or not it’s middle (passive) in form. If any one else has access toan unabridged Modern Greek dictionary, please assist us. The APORHMA maynot be earth-shaking in importance, but it’s an interesting one.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Roman 3:23learning stems

Romans 7: 23 Amy C. Jobes ajobes at midsouth.rr.com
Thu Jul 4 19:26:38 EDT 2002

 

ANEMOS/PNEUMA learning stems I am wondering if anyone has any comments on this verse. In particular Iam interested in the word, “MELESIN.” especially as it relates to Paul’smeaning in the context. Paul is careful to distinguish between body andflesh. and the flesh has to do with our wilful desire. and is notconnecte with body. in this verse he seem to be saying that sin resides ithe body, thus creating a sort of dualism that he usualy avoid. Thewhole verse reads “But I see a different law [NOMOS]in my members whichwars against the law [NOMOS of my mind and captures my members [MELESIN].”Any comments? A Jobes

 

ANEMOS/PNEUMAlearning stems

Roman 3:23 Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Fri Jul 5 12:17:17 EDT 2002

 

learning stems Roman 3:23 Dear Carl and ers,On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:16:41 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> > Yet another hypothesis (and it is no more than that) has come to my > mind:> Might there conceivably be some confusion between this verb > hUSTEREW, a> denominative verb clearly derivative from the adjective hUSTEROS and > the> verb STEREW/STEREOMAI (“deprive (of), be wanting/lacking”)? The verb > STEREW> does not at all appear in the GNT, but it appears 19x in the LXX, 9x> active, 10x. My “hunch/guess–no more than that–” is that hUSTEREW > as an> intransitive verb commonly took “active” form in earlier Greek and > that in> Koine it was being influenced be STEREOMAI.[snip]> I have no access to a good (or even an indifferent) Modern Greek> dictionary; I’m cc’ing Manolis on this in hopes that he can help us > on> whether there’s a modern Greek verb equivalent to > hUSTEREW/hUSTEREOMAI and> whether or not it’s middle (passive) in form. If any one else has > access to> an unabridged Modern Greek dictionary, please assist us. The APORHMA > may> not be earth-shaking in importance, but it’s an interesting one.>> Here are the entries for USTERW and STERW from D. N. Stavropoulos’ OxfordGreek-English Learner’s Dictionary, 1988:USTERW vi 1) be inferior to sb, not be good enough, fall short of: ~EITOU ADELFOU TOU SE EUFUIA, he is inferior to his brother in intelligence,he is not so intelligent as his brother. ~EI STA MAQHMATIKA, he’s weak inmaths, he is not very good at maths. H EPIDOSH SOU ~EI, DEN EINAI AUTOPOU PERIMENAME, your performance falls short of our expectations. DEN ~WOUDENOS*, I’m second to none. 2) be lacking/wanting in, lack, not have:~EI SE EUGENEIA, he’s lacking in courtesy. ~EI SE PEIRA, he lacksexperience, he has no experience. 3) (KAQUSTERW) lag behind, be late. 4)deprive (BL. L. UPOLEIPOMAI, STERW)STERW vt 1) deprive [sb of sth], bereave, deny, dispossess, strip, stint,take away, go/do without, miss [out on sth], go short [of sth]: TOUSTERHSAN OLA TOU TA DIKAIWMATA, they deprived him of all his rights.~HQHKE TO FWS TOU, he was deprived of his eyesight. O POLEMOS TOU STERHSETON PATERA, the war bereft him of his father. DE ~EI THN OIKOGENEIATOU/TON EAUTO TOU APO TIPOTA, he denies his family/himself nothing. OIEUGENEIS ~HQHKAN THN PERIOUSIA TOUS/OLOUS TOUS TITLOUS TOUS, the nobleswere dispossessed of their property/were stripped of all their titles.~OUMOUN EGW TO FAI GIA NA ‘COUN TA PAIDIA, I stinted myself of food sothat the children would have enough. AN SOU ~HSOUME THN ADEIAERGASIAS/ODHGHSEWS, if we take your work permit/your driving-licence awayfrom you…. DEN MPORW NA ~HQW TIS DIAKOPES MOU, I can’t to without aholiday. OLA TA PRAGMATA POU ~HQHKA STH ZWH MOU, all the things I had todo without/to go without in my life… ~EITAI TO GLUKO MHPWS KAI PACUNEI,she does without all sweet/she misses out on the sweet for fear ofputting on weight. QA ~HQEIS MIA SPANIA EMPEIRIA AN DEN PAS, you’ll missout on a rare experience if you don’t go. ~HQHKA THN AGAPH SOU, I missedyour love. DE QELW NA ~HQEIS EXAITIAS MOU, I don’t want you to go shorton my account. ~OUMAI TA PANTA GIA TA PAIDIA MOU, pinch and scrape forone’s children. 2) (STEROUMAI) lack, want, be without, fml bedestitute/devoid of: ~EITAI QARROUS, he lacks courage, he’slacking/wanting in courage. DE QA ~HQOUN TIPOTA, they’ll want fornothing. DE QA S’ AFHSW NA ~HQEIS STA GERATIA SOU, I won’t let you wantin your old age. ~OUMAI EIDHSEWN TOU, I have no news from him, I haven’theard from him. ~OUMAI TA ANAGKAIA KEFALAIA, be without the necessaryfunds. ~EITAI KOINHS LOGIKHS, he is destitute/devoid of common sense.I cannot evaluate how helpful they are in answering your question. FWIW,here are 3 MG versions of Rom 3:23:MPAMPAS, 19th cent.: EPEIDH PANTES hHMARTON, KAI hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHSTOU QEOU.BELLAS, 1967: DIOTI hOLOI hAMARTHSAN KAI STEROUNTAI THS QEIAS DOXHS.IWANNIDHS, 1994: GIATI OLOI AMARTHSAN KAI BRISKONTAI MAKRIA APO TH DOXATOU QEOU.The last version chooses to depart from a more literal rendering as beingless comprehensible to modern thought. I english it thus:because all have sinned and find themselves far from God’s glory.I think this captures the essential thought without having to determinewhether sinners have a measure of God’s glory (but not quite enough) orwhether they are devoid of it altogether.AUTOU CARITI SOS,Richard Ghilardi — qodeshlayhvh at juno.comNew Haven, CT USANibai kaurno hwaiteis gadriusando in airtha gaswiltith,silbo ainata aflifnith: ith jabai gaswiltith, manag akran bairith.

 

learning stemsRoman 3:23

Roman 3:23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 5 19:39:17 EDT 2002

 

Roman 3:23 Reconnecting Thank you so much, Richard, for providing this information, not only thedefinitions of the comparable Modern Greek verbs, but also the three ModernGreek versions of Rom 3:23. And thank you even more for taking the pains totransliterate the verb phrases and the text into the conventional transliteration scheme. I know how time-consuming and effortful that isfrom having done it myself several times.My comments will follow under the relevant cited material.At 12:17 PM -0400 7/5/02, Richard Ghilardi wrote:>Dear Carl and ers,> >On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:16:41 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>> >> Yet another hypothesis (and it is no more than that) has come to my>> mind:>> Might there conceivably be some confusion between this verb>> hUSTEREW, a>> denominative verb clearly derivative from the adjective hUSTEROS and>> the>> verb STEREW/STEREOMAI (“deprive (of), be wanting/lacking”)? The verb>> STEREW>> does not at all appear in the GNT, but it appears 19x in the LXX, 9x>> active, 10x. My “hunch/guess–no more than that–” is that hUSTEREW>> as an>> intransitive verb commonly took “active” form in earlier Greek and>> that in>> Koine it was being influenced be STEREOMAI.> >[snip]> >> I have no access to a good (or even an indifferent) Modern Greek>> dictionary; I’m cc’ing Manolis on this in hopes that he can help us>> on>> whether there’s a modern Greek verb equivalent to>> hUSTEREW/hUSTEREOMAI and>> whether or not it’s middle (passive) in form. If any one else has>> access to>> an unabridged Modern Greek dictionary, please assist us. The APORHMA>> may>> not be earth-shaking in importance, but it’s an interesting one.>>>> > >Here are the entries for USTERW and STERW from D. N. Stavropoulos’ Oxford>Greek-English Learner’s Dictionary, 1988:> >USTERW vi 1) be inferior to sb, not be good enough, fall short of: ~EI>TOU ADELFOU TOU SE EUFUIA, he is inferior to his brother in intelligence,>he is not so intelligent as his brother. ~EI STA MAQHMATIKA, he’s weak in>maths, he is not very good at maths. H EPIDOSH SOU ~EI, DEN EINAI AUTO>POU PERIMENAME, your performance falls short of our expectations. DEN ~W>OUDENOS*, I’m second to none. 2) be lacking/wanting in, lack, not have:>~EI SE EUGENEIA, he’s lacking in courtesy. ~EI SE PEIRA, he lacks>experience, he has no experience. 3) (KAQUSTERW) lag behind, be late. 4)>deprive (BL. L. UPOLEIPOMAI, STERW)This is interesting indeed; it indicates that MG, like the Koine, stilluses the active form in an intransitive sense, but also indicates in sense(4) that it is used like MG STERW (Koine STEREW)–and I take it that”BL.L.” means “see in addition” = BLEPE LOIPON?>STERW vt 1) deprive [sb of sth], bereave, deny, dispossess, strip, stint,>take away, go/do without, miss [out on sth], go short [of sth]: TOU>STERHSAN OLA TOU TA DIKAIWMATA, they deprived him of all his rights.>~HQHKE TO FWS TOU, he was deprived of his eyesight. O POLEMOS TOU STERHSE>TON PATERA, the war bereft him of his father. DE ~EI THN OIKOGENEIA>TOU/TON EAUTO TOU APO TIPOTA, he denies his family/himself nothing. OI>EUGENEIS ~HQHKAN THN PERIOUSIA TOUS/OLOUS TOUS TITLOUS TOUS, the nobles>were dispossessed of their property/were stripped of all their titles.>~OUMOUN EGW TO FAI GIA NA ‘COUN TA PAIDIA, I stinted myself of food so>that the children would have enough. AN SOU ~HSOUME THN ADEIA>ERGASIAS/ODHGHSEWS, if we take your work permit/your driving-licence away>from you…. DEN MPORW NA ~HQW TIS DIAKOPES MOU, I can’t to without a>holiday. OLA TA PRAGMATA POU ~HQHKA STH ZWH MOU, all the things I had to>do without/to go without in my life… ~EITAI TO GLUKO MHPWS KAI PACUNEI,>she does without all sweet/she misses out on the sweet for fear of>putting on weight. QA ~HQEIS MIA SPANIA EMPEIRIA AN DEN PAS, you’ll miss>out on a rare experience if you don’t go. ~HQHKA THN AGAPH SOU, I missed>your love. DE QELW NA ~HQEIS EXAITIAS MOU, I don’t want you to go short>on my account. ~OUMAI TA PANTA GIA TA PAIDIA MOU, pinch and scrape for>one’s children. 2) (STEROUMAI) lack, want, be without, fml be>destitute/devoid of: ~EITAI QARROUS, he lacks courage, he’s>lacking/wanting in courage. DE QA ~HQOUN TIPOTA, they’ll want for>nothing. DE QA S’ AFHSW NA ~HQEIS STA GERATIA SOU, I won’t let you want>in your old age. ~OUMAI EIDHSEWN TOU, I have no news from him, I haven’t>heard from him. ~OUMAI TA ANAGKAIA KEFALAIA, be without the necessary>funds. ~EITAI KOINHS LOGIKHS, he is destitute/devoid of common sense.Of interest here is that the “passive” form is used in the middle sense anddoes indeed convey the same sense as Koine hUSTEROUMAI; that emerges fromyour citations OI EUGENEIS STERHQHKAN THN PERIOUSIA TOUS/OLOUS TOUS TITLOUSTOUS and STEROUMOUN EGW TO FAI GIA NA ‘COUN (= Koine ECWSIN) TA PAIDIA.It’s evident also that the old (ablatival) genitive is used with it in theMP STEREITAI KOINHS LOGIKHS.>I cannot evaluate how helpful they are in answering your question. FWIW,>here are 3 MG versions of Rom 3:23:> >MPAMPAS, 19th cent.: EPEIDH PANTES hHMARTON, KAI hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS>TOU QEOU.If this is a translation at all, it’s the old Katharevousa literarylanguage: it’s identical with the Koine Greek of Paul!>BELLAS, 1967: DIOTI hOLOI hAMARTHSAN KAI STEROUNTAI THS QEIAS DOXHS.This is Demotic: hOLOI for PANTES, old 2nd aorist into a 1st aorist, and,not altogether surprisingly, STEROUNTAI for hUSTEROUNTAI. I think thisstrengthens my hunch that the shift to MP forms of hUSTEROUMAI from olderactive forms is assisted by the shared sense of the MP forms ofSTEREOMAI/STEROUMAI. I suspect too that another factor may be some tendencyof apocope of initial vowels in verb forms of more than 3 syllables (lossof E-augment in pluperfects of more than 3 syllables or in modern Greekpast tense forms of more than 3 syllables). This is still speculation, butI’m not as fearful as I was at first that it’s really quite far-fetched.>IWANNIDHS, 1994: GIATI OLOI AMARTHSAN KAI BRISKONTAI MAKRIA APO TH DOXA>TOU QEOU.>The last version chooses to depart from a more literal rendering as being>less comprehensible to modern thought. I english it thus:> >because all have sinned and find themselves far from God’s glory.> >I think this captures the essential thought without having to determine>whether sinners have a measure of God’s glory (but not quite enough) or>whether they are devoid of it altogether.This is more solidly Demotic; BRISKONTAI is ancient hEURISKONTAI and MAKRIAis ancient MAKRA and the 1st decl. acc. has lost -N. Even in Koine the MPof hEURISKW is used in the sense of “turn out to be”–cf. Louw & Nida:13.7 hEURISKOMAI: to be in a state which has not been anticipated – ‘to befound to be, to discover to be, to turn out to be.’ MHPOTE KAI QEOUMACOIhEUREQHTE ‘that you may not be found to be fighting against God’ Ac 5:39;hEUREQH MOI hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN hAUTH EIS QANATON ‘this commandment whichwas for the purpose of life was found in my case to be one which produceddeath’ Ro 7:10.My thanks again to Richard. I’d still like to hear from a native Greek;Manolis, where are you?– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Roman 3:23Reconnecting

Roman 3:23 dlr dlrgrk at paonline.com
Mon Jul 8 12:47:52 EDT 2002

 

Some thoughts on a new NA Some thoughts on a new NA Carl wrote: snip”Greek versions of Rom 3:23. And thank you even more for taking the pains totransliterate the verb phrases and the text into the conventional transliteration scheme. I know how time-consuming and effortful that isfrom having done it myself several times.”snipSeveral Times! Has such an understatement ever occured in the history of ?I doubt it!Dave Reigle

 

Some thoughts on a new NASome thoughts on a new NA

[] hUSTEROUNTAI inRom.3:23 bertdehaan at gosympatico.ca bertdehaan at gosympatico.ca
Sat Feb 8 12:27:23 EST 2003

 

[] KAI IDOU [] hUSTEROUNTAI inRom.3:23 hUSTEROUNTAI in Rom.3:23 is usually translated active -fall short-. What is the significance of the voice in the Greek text (is it passive or middle?)Thank youBert

 

[] KAI IDOU[] hUSTEROUNTAI inRom.3:23

[] hUSTEROUNTAI inRom.3:23 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Feb 8 13:09:26 EST 2003

 

[] hUSTEROUNTAI inRom.3:23 [] Intensive Personal Pronouns At 12:27 PM -0500 2/8/03, <bertdehaan at gosympatico.ca> wrote:>hUSTEROUNTAI in Rom.3:23 is usually translated active -fall short-. What>is the significance of the voice in the Greek text (is it passive or>middle?)BDAG’s entry for this (under hUSTEREW) is:—————-5. to experience deficiency in someth. advantageous or desirable,lack, be lacking, go without, come short ofb. pass. w. gen. of thing (Diod. S. 18, 71, 5; ApcMos 26; Jos.,Ant. 15, 200) Ro 3:23; Dg 5:13 (opp. PERISSEUEIN); IEph 5:2. Also EN TINI 1Cor 1:7. Abs. (Sir 11:11) Lk 15:14; 1 Cor 8:8 (opp. periss.); 2 Cor 11:9;Phil 4:12 (opp. periss.); B 10:3. Ptc. 1 Cor 12:24.-DELG s.v. hUSTEROS.M-M. TW. Spicq.—————I think this is middle; it is being used just like DEOMAI with a genitive.Accordance lists 8 passives of hUSTEREW, only one of these is aorist(hUSTERHQEIS in 2 Cor 11:9), but I really think they’re all middle (andintransitive). It’s interesting that although there are quite a few activeswith pretty much the same sense, it seems that the use of middle for itincreases in the Koine.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] hUSTEROUNTAI inRom.3:23[] Intensive Personal Pronouns

Romans 3:23 Husterountai David A Bielby I dbielby at juno.com
Mon Mar 1 23:21:59 EST 1999

 

Learning Greek Bryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie)) Strictly on the word husterountai’s meaning, does the assertion itcontains the idea that you could have had God’s glory as a treasure, butyou don’t…..does this assertion mix theology into the meaning of theword or is it legitimately included in the meaning of this term in thisverse?Curious.Thanks guys for your input on this one.David A. Bielby IPastor Vineyard Christian Fellowship Bloomington, Illinois USAdbielby at juno.com

 

Learning GreekBryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie))

Romans 3:23 Husterountai David A Bielby I dbielby at juno.com
Mon Mar 1 23:21:59 EST 1999

 

Learning Greek Bryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie)) Strictly on the word husterountai’s meaning, does the assertion itcontains the idea that you could have had God’s glory as a treasure, butyou don’t…..does this assertion mix theology into the meaning of theword or is it legitimately included in the meaning of this term in thisverse?Curious.Thanks guys for your input on this one.David A. Bielby IPastor Vineyard Christian Fellowship Bloomington, Illinois USAdbielby at juno.com

 

Learning GreekBryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie))

Romans 3:23 Husterountai Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Mar 2 07:47:02 EST 1999

 

Bryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie)) Status of BAG 3rd Edition Bielby: “Strictly on the word husterountai’s meaning, does the assertion itcontains the idea that you could have had God’s glory as a treasure, butyou don’t…..does this assertion mix theology into the meaning of theword or is it legitimately included in the meaning of this term in thisverse?”If I understand the word and its usage rightly, I think this is one whereinthe etymology is really helpful: hUSTEREW derives from hUSTEROS which iscorrelative with PROTEROS as a comparative adjective, hUSTEROS meaningrelatively behind or later, PROTEROS relatively ahead or earlier–as in arace or in any other competitive relationship of one party to another (andcompetition, it must be understood, is the cornerstone of traditionalHellenic self-understanding and morality). hUSTEREW means “be behind,””come up short” in relationship to another party with whom one is incompetition, that other party being indicated by an ablatival genitive. Bymetaphoric extension hUSTEREW can mean “come up short” in the effort toachieve a goal or “be without something one needs.” This extendedmetaphoric sense of “be without something one needs” is not, I think, quitethe sense called for here in Rom 3:23, although I can understand how somemight want to take it that way. I rather think myself, however, that thesense “come up short in the effort to achieve one’s goal” is precisely thesense called for in Rom 3:23, the more so in that we have a middle voiceform indicating that there’s an implicit endeavor to achieve thatobjective. So, inPANTES GAR hHMARTON KAI hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU QEOUI don’t think that theology is implicit in the meaning of the verbhUSTEROUNTAI, I think rather that the verb here is used in a metaphor offailure to gain a goal striven for. If I could paraphrase the verse, I’dmake it something like: “Everybody, after all, has missed the boat andcomes up short of the goal of God’s glory.” In the context, I’d say that”catching the boat” and “reaching the goal” depend upon unwaveringobedience to the Law.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Bryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie))Status of BAG 3rd Edition
[] Romans 8:23 Mark Frost mark at buildinghishouse.org
Sun May 21 15:13:03 EDT 2006

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) [] Romans 8:23 I am looking at Romans 8:23, where is says, “the redemption of our body.” The resource that I have (Zodhiates The Complete WordStudy New Testament) shows the word “our” as a personal pronoun rather than a possessive pronoun, and it shows the word “body” as a noun with a definite article. With that in mind, why then was it translated as “our body” rather than something like “us, the body” or “we, the body”? Would “us, the body” be a valid translation from the Greek? Please keep the answer fairly simple, as I’m not a Greek scholar. Thank you very much.Mark Frost

 

[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)[] Romans 8:23

[] Romans 8:23 Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Sun May 21 15:52:09 EDT 2006

 

[] Romans 8:23 [] Romans 8:23 Mark:Are you aware that the Greek Personal Pronoun EGW inthe Genitive case hHMWN (here plural) is how you forma Possessive Pronoun? If you are not familiar withGreek, it would look like this “the redemption (of)the body (of) ours.” I think that would reduce to “theredemption of our body.”Check out here again to see if any professors answerthis; I’m a student like you.Mitch Larramore— Mark Frost <mark at buildinghishouse.org> wrote:> I am looking at Romans 8:23, where is says, “the> redemption of our body.” The resource that I have> (Zodhiates The Complete WordStudy New Testament)> shows the word “our” as a personal pronoun rather> than a possessive pronoun, and it shows the word> “body” as a noun with a definite article. With that> in mind, why then was it translated as “our body”> rather than something like “us, the body” or “we,> the body”? Would “us, the body” be a valid> translation from the Greek? Please keep the answer> fairly simple, as I’m not a Greek scholar. Thank> you very much.> > Mark Frost>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> Mitch LarramoreSugar Land, Texas__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] Romans 8:23[] Romans 8:23

[] Romans 8:23 Ron Fay roncfay at hotmail.com
Sun May 21 18:02:48 EDT 2006

 

[] Romans 8:23 [] Romans 8:23 >Mark:> >Are you aware that the Greek Personal Pronoun EGW in>the Genitive case hHMWN (here plural) is how you form>a Possessive Pronoun? If you are not familiar with>Greek, it would look like this “the redemption (of)>the body (of) ours.” I think that would reduce to “the>redemption of our body.”> >Check out here again to see if any professors answer>this; I’m a student like you.> >Mitch LarramoreMitch is exactly right. A personal pronoun can also be possessive, as possession (or any function of a pronoun) depends upon what case it is. The case of this pronoun is genitive, which is in fact the case used for possession.- Ron________________________________________________Ron Faywww.roncfay.comPh. D. candidate in New TestamentAn Editor of Trinity JournalInstructor of New TestamentTrinity Evangelical Divinity SchoolDeerfield, IL.roncfay at hotmail.com

 

[] Romans 8:23[] Romans 8:23

[] Romans 8:23 Craig J newsgroupstuff at gmail.com
Sun May 21 18:20:13 EDT 2006

 

[] Romans 8:23 [] Romans 8:23 > I am looking at Romans 8:23, where is says, “the redemption > of our body.” The resource that I have (Zodhiates The > Complete WordStudy New Testament) shows the word “our” as a > personal pronoun rather than a possessive pronoun, and it > shows the word “body” as a noun with a definite article. > With that in mind, why then was it translated as “our body” > rather than something like “us, the body” or “we, the body”? > Would “us, the body” be a valid translation from the Greek? > Please keep the answer fairly simple, as I’m not a Greek > scholar. Thank you very much.> > Mark FrostHere is the Greek from 8:23:hUIOQESIAN APEKDECOMENOI, THN APOLUTRWSIN TOU SWMATOS hHMWNThe TOU SWMATOS hHMWN seems quite a normal to write “of the body of us” or”of our body”.For example in Luke 1:75 we have PASAS TAS hHMERAS THS ZWHS hHMWN as “allthe days of the life of us” or “all the days of our life”. I don’t think itwould make sense here to say “all the days of the life, us”. This has thesame pattern of singular genitive noun with the article, followed by thegenitive personal pronoun.However, I find you question interesting, as I take it you are suggesting itmight mean ‘the body’ as the one corporate, collective body of Christ (=’us’) and not the many individual physical bodies of us. I wonder, how wouldthe Greek translate it if it meant the former, and would it be any differentthan in 8:23. How would the personal pronoun be put in apposition with TOUSWMATOS?Also, I wondered if there is some rule about when to use singular or pluralfor nouns in Greek. Eg what would be the difference in meaning between TOUSWMATOS hHMWN and TWN SWMATWN hHMWN?–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, AustraliaBlog Experiment: http://bloggledegook.blogspot.com/

 

[] Romans 8:23[] Romans 8:23

[] Romans 8:23 Jeffrey T. Requadt jeffreyrequadt_list at hotmail.com
Sun May 21 23:14:52 EDT 2006

 

[] Romans 8:23 [] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his) This is probably a good example of why it’s important to work directly from the Greek text when doing exegesis (if at all possible).Jeffrey T. RequadtTucson, AZ—– Original Message —– From: “Mark Frost” <mark at buildinghishouse.org>To: “Greek Mail List” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 12:13 PMSubject: [] Romans 8:23>I am looking at Romans 8:23, where is says, “the redemption of our body.” >The resource that I have (Zodhiates The Complete WordStudy New Testament) >shows the word “our” as a personal pronoun rather than a possessive >pronoun, and it shows the word “body” as a noun with a definite article. >With that in mind, why then was it translated as “our body” rather than >something like “us, the body” or “we, the body”? Would “us, the body” be a >valid translation from the Greek? Please keep the answer fairly simple, as >I’m not a Greek scholar. Thank you very much.> > Mark Frost>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

 

[] Romans 8:23[] Rev 1:1 referent of pronouns (he, his)

Romans 3:23 Husterountai Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Mar 2 07:47:02 EST 1999

 

Bryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie)) Status of BAG 3rd Edition Bielby: “Strictly on the word husterountai’s meaning, does the assertion itcontains the idea that you could have had God’s glory as a treasure, butyou don’t…..does this assertion mix theology into the meaning of theword or is it legitimately included in the meaning of this term in thisverse?”If I understand the word and its usage rightly, I think this is one whereinthe etymology is really helpful: hUSTEREW derives from hUSTEROS which iscorrelative with PROTEROS as a comparative adjective, hUSTEROS meaningrelatively behind or later, PROTEROS relatively ahead or earlier–as in arace or in any other competitive relationship of one party to another (andcompetition, it must be understood, is the cornerstone of traditionalHellenic self-understanding and morality). hUSTEREW means “be behind,””come up short” in relationship to another party with whom one is incompetition, that other party being indicated by an ablatival genitive. Bymetaphoric extension hUSTEREW can mean “come up short” in the effort toachieve a goal or “be without something one needs.” This extendedmetaphoric sense of “be without something one needs” is not, I think, quitethe sense called for here in Rom 3:23, although I can understand how somemight want to take it that way. I rather think myself, however, that thesense “come up short in the effort to achieve one’s goal” is precisely thesense called for in Rom 3:23, the more so in that we have a middle voiceform indicating that there’s an implicit endeavor to achieve thatobjective. So, inPANTES GAR hHMARTON KAI hUSTEROUNTAI THS DOXHS TOU QEOUI don’t think that theology is implicit in the meaning of the verbhUSTEROUNTAI, I think rather that the verb here is used in a metaphor offailure to gain a goal striven for. If I could paraphrase the verse, I’dmake it something like: “Everybody, after all, has missed the boat andcomes up short of the goal of God’s glory.” In the context, I’d say that”catching the boat” and “reaching the goal” depend upon unwaveringobedience to the Law.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Bryan Rocine’s Grammar (was Re: Grammars using Disc Anal (was Re: Student of Guthrie))Status of BAG 3rd Edition

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]