Romans 5:15

Romans 5:15 Alan Wong awong at ma.ultranet.com
Mon Sep 6 21:13:19 EDT 1999

 

Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAI Romans 5:15 Here is a question from a little-Greeker,How do you construe the syntax in the apodosis of Romans 5:15? ..POLLOWi MALLON hH CARIS TOU QEOU KAI hH DWREA EN CARITI THi TOUhENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU CRISTOU EIS TOUS POLLOUS EPERISSEUSEN.I am particularly puzzled by the article THi. It may go withCARITI. But it is after CARITI and I do not recall ever seeingthe article follow the noun in a prepositional phrase. Whatam I missing?-Alan WongM.Div. candidateGordon-Conwell Seminary

 

Rev 11:15 hH BASILEIA / hAI BASILEIAIRomans 5:15

Romans 5:15 Nichael Cramer nichael at sover.net
Mon Sep 6 21:27:06 EDT 1999

 

Romans 5:15 Romans 5:15 Alan Wong wrote:Please don’t post attachments to mailing lists.Thank youNichael–Nichael Cramer Gather the folks, tell the storiesnichael at sover.net break the bread. — John Sheahttp://www.sover.net/~nichael/

 

Romans 5:15Romans 5:15

Romans 5:15 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 6 22:07:29 EDT 1999

 

Romans 5:15 Rahlfs’ LXX At 9:13 PM -0400 9/6/99, Alan Wong wrote:>Here is a question from a little-Greeker,>How do you construe the syntax in the apodosis of Romans 5:15? ..> >POLLOWi MALLON hH CARIS TOU QEOU KAI hH DWREA EN CARITI THi TOU>hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU CRISTOU EIS TOUS POLLOUS EPERISSEUSEN.> >I am particularly puzzled by the article THi. It may go with>CARITI. But it is after CARITI and I do not recall ever seeing>the article follow the noun in a prepositional phrase. What>am I missing?While it isn’t that common, it isn’t altogether uncommon either that anattributive expression, be it an adjective or a genitive substantive,FOLLOWS its noun, in which case an article agreeing in number, gender andcase with the noun must precede the attributive expression. You’re used toseeing expressions such as hO AGAQOS ANHR or hO ANHR hO AGAQOS–butalthough it is less commonly seen, ANHR hO AGAQOS has exactly the samemeaning as the other two formulations. And so, in Rom 5:15, CARITI THi TOUhENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU CRISTOU is no different in meaning from THi CARITI THiTOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU CRISTOU or, what might seem rather awkward becauseof the length of the enclosed attributive expression, THi TOU hENOSANQRWPOU IHSOU CRISTOU CARITI–but even this last formulation would beequivalent in meaning to the other two.What you need to check out on this is any grammar that offers a gooddiscussion of the difference between predicate and attributive positions ofthe article.I hope this helps.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Romans 5:15Rahlfs’ LXX

Romans 5:15 Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Tue Sep 7 20:55:53 EDT 1999

 

OLD Teubner Brenton’s LXX Alan, Of course, all that Carl said regarding the positioning of thearticle is correct. Does that go without saying? However, I wonder whether that was what you were asking? You seemto have been asking whether the article can come after its substantive:the answer is “no, it cannot.” The “difficulty” with this passage, IMO,is not the placement of THi, but the absence of a substantive after thearticle. In other words, this article does not “go with” CARITI, butbegins an attributive phrase which modifies CARITI. What you have here,is a third attributive position (noun-article-adjective), camouflaged bythe omission of the adjectival. When my students encounter this passage, I suggest to them that theyimagine a participle (probably something like WN or ERCOMENWN) occurringafter THi; thus, they can translate the phrase along the lines of “bygrace WHICH IS / WHICH CAME through the one man…”. Of course, oncethey understand the thought, I have to convince them to remove thatparticiple, and not be tempted to actually pencil it into their texts 🙂 And, certainly, if Carl’s post answered what your true question was,I apologize for muddying the waters :)–Daniel L. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan StreetPortland, OR 97220(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu

 

OLD TeubnerBrenton’s LXX

Romans 5:15 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 8 07:00:03 EDT 1999

 

Greek Concordances and Lexicons AIDIOS At 5:55 PM -0700 9/7/99, Daniel L Christiansen wrote:>Alan,> > Of course, all that Carl said regarding the positioning of the>article is correct. Does that go without saying?> > However, I wonder whether that was what you were asking? You seem>to have been asking whether the article can come after its substantive:>the answer is “no, it cannot.” The “difficulty” with this passage, IMO,>is not the placement of THi, but the absence of a substantive after the>article. In other words, this article does not “go with” CARITI, but>begins an attributive phrase which modifies CARITI. What you have here,>is a third attributive position (noun-article-adjective), camouflaged by>the omission of the adjectival.> When my students encounter this passage, I suggest to them that they>imagine a participle (probably something like WN or ERCOMENWN) occurring>after THi; thus, they can translate the phrase along the lines of “by>grace WHICH IS / WHICH CAME through the one man…”. Of course, once>they understand the thought, I have to convince them to remove that>participle, and not be tempted to actually pencil it into their texts 🙂> > And, certainly, if Carl’s post answered what your true question was,>I apologize for muddying the waters 🙂If we’re going to muddy the waters, let’s carry the matter yet a bitfurther. I don’t really disagree with what Dan is suggesting here, but Ithink that the same thing can be said slightly differently, perhaps moreclearly (but that’s why I fear muddying of the waters!).Our original text in Rom 5:15 was: POLLWi MALLON hH CARIS TOU QEOU KAI hHDWREA EN CARITI THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU CRISTOU EIS TOUS POLLOUSEPERISSEUSEN.I agree that we have an attributive phrase in THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOUCRISTOU, an attributive phrase that is intended to I think that thedistinctive force of the article in this kind of attributive phrase isintensely demonstrative and practically substantival (I don’t think ithurts to remember that hO/hH/TO was originally a demonstrative and in somefunctions in later Greek continues to be one) and the phrase is like anappositive: “grace–THAT (grace) of the one man Jesus Christ …”Now, perhaps those waters can be rendered as nearly translucent as possibleby noting that what Dan is saying is really equivalent to what I’m saying,however different its phrasing: if one postulates an imaginary participleto construe with that “post-positive” article that is in agreement with itsnoun, one is in fact recognizing that the article is functioning in therole of a demonstrative pronoun; Dan makes it a relative pronoun, and Ithink it’s okay to see it that way too, but there’s a distinctive forcewhen the article comes in this position without there having been anarticle preceding the noun: the attributive phrase is far more emphaticthan it would be had Paul written: EN THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU CRISTOUCARITI; and even though it’s also true that that’s a mouthful of words tofit between the article and noun, one does see that large an attributivephrase “sandwiched” between article and noun frequently enough.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Greek Concordances and LexiconsAIDIOS

Romans 5:15 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 8 09:15:50 EDT 1999

 

Brenton’s LXX Greek Concordances and Lexicons I just looked at this monster that I dispatched to the list a couple hoursago and am shocked by the whopper of an anacoluthon in the paragraph citedbelow:>Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:00:03 -0500>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>From: “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>>Subject: Re: Romans 5:15> >I agree that we have an attributive phrase in THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOU>CRISTOU, an attributive phrase that is intended to I think that the>distinctive force of the article in this kind of attributive phrase is>intensely demonstrative and practically substantival (I don’t think it>hurts to remember that hO/hH/TO was originally a demonstrative and in some>functions in later Greek continues to be one) and the phrase is like an>appositive: “grace–THAT (grace) of the one man Jesus Christ …”“that is intended to …” –I think that I deleted something vital there,but maybe I simply plunged into a new sentence without finishing the old.If I were allowed to complete the opening sentence, it would be “… thatis intended to pinpoint the precise nature of the grace to which he isreferring.”I have a feeling that I do this much too often; apologies. My wife likes tosay (with some justification in my case) that it’s not so much thatprofessors tend to be absent-minded as that absent-minded persons tend tobecome professors.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

 

Brenton’s LXXGreek Concordances and Lexicons

Romans 5:15 Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Wed Sep 8 11:31:27 EDT 1999

 

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN Brenton’s LXX Carl W. Conrad said:> I agree that we have an attributive phrase in THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU> IHSOU CRISTOU, an attributive phrase that is intended to pinpoint the> precise nature of the grace to which he is referring. I think that> the distinctive force of the article in this kind of attributive> phrase is intensely demonstrative and practically substantival> (I don’t think it hurts to remember that hO/hH/TO was originally> a demonstrative and in some functions in later Greek continues to> be one) and the phrase is like an appositive: “grace–THAT (grace)> of the one man Jesus Christ …”At the risk of being a little child playing in this muddy puddle, I’dlike to ask a question. I’ll state what I’m thinking before askingwhether it makes any sense in the hopes that those who are playingin this puddle with me will point out any murkiness in my thinking.I’m trying to clarify my understanding of hO/hH/TO.Rom. 5:15 starts with: ALL’ OUC hWS TO PARAPTWMA, hOUTWS KAI TO CARISMA;This appears to me to be setting in place the topic which Paul isabout to elucidate. He seems to be saying, “I’m going to talk abouttwo things, on the one side ‘sin’ on the other side ‘grace’ and theseare related by stark contrast.Then we have: EI GAR TWi TOU hENOS PARAPTWMATI hOI POLLOI APEQANON,where the TWi appears to me to be a demonstrative pronoun as opposedto thinking that TWi TOU hENOS PARAPTWMATI is an attributive phrase.I note TWi is in the dative so I’d like to think of this as somethinglike “‘To’ or ‘for’ this one” where ‘one’ refers back to PARAPTWMAat the beginning of the verse. I would render it into English as “For if in reference to this sin, this single sin, the many perished”.I understand that it appears more natural to think of the TWi…PARAPTWMATI as an attributive phrase, but if we think of TWi asreferring back to the earlier PARATWMA we have set up a somewhateasy explanation for the next clause where the ‘article’, ‘article’,’phrase’ construction is used again. POLLWi MALLON hH CARIS TOU QEOU KAI hH DWREA EN CARITI THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOUU XRISTOU EIS TOUS POLLOUS EPERISSEUSEN.Here, in the context of CARITI we have this THi. Instead of tryingto think of this as an attributive phrase, why can’t we say thatTHi refers back to CARISMA as a demonstrative pronoun–just as I’veexplained above with TWi. Rendering into English I have, “much more the grace of God and the gift by grace; in reference to this grace, this grace of the single man Jesus Christ, it abounded unto the many.”Also, as Paul gets further away from the statement of his topic, heuses constructions to keep in force the structure of his argument.Namely, he uses TO MEN…, TO DE in verse 16; so we do have in thiscontext the notion of “the one…, the other…”It appears to me that the strongest argument against what I’vesaid is that THi is feminine and CARISMA is neuter. Could I arguegender attraction to CARITI so Paul would be clear and still keepTHi referring back to CARISMA? Does that make sense?Well, I’m done playing in the mud puddle. I suppose, at best, thismight be just another way of explaining the grammar to get the samesemantics, but others will know better than I.So, my questions are: Can these articles (demonstratives) perform like this? Does this explanation hold any water? Does my rubber ducky float?– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.usLancaster, Pa. There is no ‘do’ in faith, everywhere present within it is ‘done’.

 

1 Cor 14:34 — LALEINBrenton’s LXX

Romans 5:15 Mary Pendergraft pender at wfu.edu
Wed Sep 8 12:09:23 EDT 1999

 

Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format 1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN I have a few comments on basic grammar, which may help clarify a few of your ideas,Mike.Mike Sangrey wrote:> Carl W. Conrad said:> > I agree that we have an attributive phrase in THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU> > IHSOU CRISTOU, an attributive phrase that is intended to pinpoint the> > precise nature of the grace to which he is referring. I think that> > the distinctive force of the article in this kind of attributive> > phrase is intensely demonstrative and practically substantival> > (I don’t think it hurts to remember that hO/hH/TO was originally> > a demonstrative and in some functions in later Greek continues to> > be one) and the phrase is like an appositive: “grace–THAT (grace)> > of the one man Jesus Christ …”> > At the risk of being a little child playing in this muddy puddle, I’d> like to ask a question. I’ll state what I’m thinking before asking> whether it makes any sense in the hopes that those who are playing> in this puddle with me will point out any murkiness in my thinking.> I’m trying to clarify my understanding of hO/hH/TO.> > Rom. 5:15 starts with:> ALL’ OUC hWS> TO PARAPTWMA,> hOUTWS KAI> TO CARISMA;> > This appears to me to be setting in place the topic which Paul is> about to elucidate. He seems to be saying, “I’m going to talk about> two things, on the one side ‘sin’ on the other side ‘grace’ and these> are related by stark contrast.> I just want to point out the negation at the beginning of this phrase. Paul _is_talking about sin and grace, but here, about the disproportion between them: just amoment later, of course, we get POLLWi MALLON “by much more”> > Then we have:> EI GAR TWi TOU hENOS PARAPTWMATI hOI POLLOI APEQANON,> > where the TWi appears to me to be a demonstrative pronoun as opposed> to thinking that TWi TOU hENOS PARAPTWMATI is an attributive phrase.> I note TWi is in the dative so I’d like to think of this as something> like “‘To’ or ‘for’ this one” where ‘one’ refers back to PARAPTWMA> at the beginning of the verse. I would render it into English as> > “For if in reference to this sin, this single sin, the many perished”.> Why not dative of means: “through the sin….”?and TOU hENOS is a genitive in attributive position, “through the sin of one man”> > I understand that it appears more natural to think of the TWi…> PARAPTWMATI as an attributive phrase, but if we think of TWi as> referring back to the earlier PARATWMA we have set up a somewhat> easy explanation for the next clause where the ‘article’, ‘article’,> ‘phrase’ construction is used again.> This isn’t clear to me. I do think the nouns PARAPTWMA(TI) are related in sense, butnot grammatically.> > POLLWi MALLON hH CARIS TOU QEOU KAI hH DWREA EN CARITI> THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU IHSOUU XRISTOU EIS TOUS POLLOUS EPERISSEUSEN.> > Here, in the context of CARITI we have this THi. Instead of trying> to think of this as an attributive phrase, why can’t we say that> THi refers back to CARISMA as a demonstrative pronoun–just as I’ve> explained above with TWi. Rendering into English I have,> > “much more the grace of God and the gift by grace; in reference to> this grace, this grace of the single man Jesus Christ, it abounded> unto the many.”> > Also, as Paul gets further away from the statement of his topic, he> uses constructions to keep in force the structure of his argument.> Namely, he uses TO MEN…, TO DE in verse 16; so we do have in this> context the notion of “the one…, the other…”> > It appears to me that the strongest argument against what I’ve> said is that THi is feminine and CARISMA is neuter. Could I argue> gender attraction to CARITI so Paul would be clear and still keep> THi referring back to CARISMA? Does that make sense?You’ve put your finger right on the problem: It would be only natural to understandtogether a dative feminine singular article following a dative feminine singularnoun. Again, the nouns XARIS and XARISMA are related in sense but not in grammar.> MaryMary PendergraftAssociate Professor of Classical LanguagesWake Forest University, Winston-Salem NC 27109

 

Wallace’s Grammar available in electronic book format1 Cor 14:34 — LALEIN

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]