Romans 5:18

I am curious as to whether or not PAS and POLUS are ever used interchangeably in the Greek New Testament.  That is to say:  Can these two words be used in such a manner that they both refer to the same referent?  This seems to be the case in Romans 5:18-19.  The Greek text is below:

Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι᾽ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς
πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα οὕτως καὶ δι᾽ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς
πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς
ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ
πολλοί οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ
πολλοί

PAS and POLUS seem to be used interchangeably between Mark 10:45 and 1 Tim. 2:6 as well:

Mark 10:45
καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν

1 Tim. 2:6

ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις

The reason I ask this is because I was recently involved in a  discussion wherein the argument was made that because ‘many’ does not mean ‘all’, then the use of POLUS in Romans 5:19 necessarily limits the scope of PAS in v. 18.

Just wanted to get some feedback from the list.

Thanks,

Sam Cripps (layman)

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

12 thoughts on “Romans 5:18

  1. James Ernest says:

    Really? Who made that rule? (Rules like this always remind me of Lucy’s
    “little-known facts.” When Charlie Brown asks her how, if they’re
    little-known, she comes to know them. “I make ’em up.”)

    v. 18.

    You could just as plausibly say that the scope of POLUS (which in a
    one-versus-many context could quite naturally imply “all”) is limited by the
    preceding PAS: “all” always has a frame of reference (all what? or all who?)
    Doesn’t the Adam/Christ discussion in Romans 5 occur in the context of a
    Jews/all-humanity discussion in the epistle as a whole?

    I don’t know what “all” means in the context of the conversation that
    prompted the initial post. If it’s an argument about universalism (in the
    sense of the salvation of every individual human), I don’t think Paul is
    addressing that question here. If you want to address it, Sam, you’ll have
    to do so in the context of a larger exegetical, hermeneutical, and
    theological project. Lexicon entries and rules about articles (especially
    bogus rules) won’t help you (or, in this case, your opponents).

    James Ernest

  2. Mario Trinchero says:

    Hi James
    do you know Max Zerwick S.I.
    and your book Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci?

    pag 344
    ad romanos 5:19
    οἱ πολλοί hic = omnes (cf 18); semitice in οἱ πολλοί non subauditur oppos.
    ad “omnes”,
    ideo “multi” intellegi possunt omnes, qui multi sunt (cf Matt 20;28)

    Mario Trinchero

    2011/1/18 James Ernest

  3. James Ernest says:

    Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
    my book!)

    For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
    here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
    opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
    who are many.

    What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
    terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
    cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
    mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.

    Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
    article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
    came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
    bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
    around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
    who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
    others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
    or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
    through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
    lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
    rex”?

    James Ernest

    On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
    wrote:

  4. Mark Lightman says:

    I had heard of the notion that POLUS for PAS is an established semiticism, but
    did not know about how the article could affect the construction. Nor did I
    know about Zerwick’s “rule.”

    I would argue that Mark 10:45 violates Zerwick’s rule, because I do think POLLWN
    does means PANTWN here. But we know that the article can be ommitted with
    prepositions where we would expect it without.

    By the way, how would one say “Context is King” is Koine?

    Mark L

    FWSFOROS MARKOS

    ________________________________
    Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 8:33:23 AM

    Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
    my book!)

    For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
    here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
    opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
    who are many.

    What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
    terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
    cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
    mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.

    Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
    article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
    came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
    bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
    around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
    who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
    others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
    or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
    through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
    lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
    rex”?

    James Ernest

    On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
    wrote:

  5. James Ernest says:

    Really? Who made that rule? (Rules like this always remind me of Lucy’s
    “little-known facts.” When Charlie Brown asks her how, if they’re
    little-known, she comes to know them. “I make ’em up.”)

    v. 18.

    You could just as plausibly say that the scope of POLUS (which in a
    one-versus-many context could quite naturally imply “all”) is limited by the
    preceding PAS: “all” always has a frame of reference (all what? or all who?)
    Doesn’t the Adam/Christ discussion in Romans 5 occur in the context of a
    Jews/all-humanity discussion in the epistle as a whole?

    I don’t know what “all” means in the context of the conversation that
    prompted the initial post. If it’s an argument about universalism (in the
    sense of the salvation of every individual human), I don’t think Paul is
    addressing that question here. If you want to address it, Sam, you’ll have
    to do so in the context of a larger exegetical, hermeneutical, and
    theological project. Lexicon entries and rules about articles (especially
    bogus rules) won’t help you (or, in this case, your opponents).

    James Ernest

  6. Mario Trinchero says:

    Hi James
    do you know Max Zerwick S.I.
    and your book Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci?

    pag 344
    ad romanos 5:19
    οἱ πολλοί hic = omnes (cf 18); semitice in οἱ πολλοί non subauditur oppos.
    ad “omnes”,
    ideo “multi” intellegi possunt omnes, qui multi sunt (cf Matt 20;28)

    Mario Trinchero

    2011/1/18 James Ernest

  7. James Ernest says:

    Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
    my book!)

    For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
    here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
    opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
    who are many.

    What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
    terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
    cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
    mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.

    Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
    article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
    came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
    bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
    around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
    who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
    others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
    or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
    through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
    lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
    rex”?

    James Ernest

    On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
    wrote:

  8. Mark Lightman says:

    I had heard of the notion that POLUS for PAS is an established semiticism, but
    did not know about how the article could affect the construction. Nor did I
    know about Zerwick’s “rule.”

    I would argue that Mark 10:45 violates Zerwick’s rule, because I do think POLLWN
    does means PANTWN here. But we know that the article can be ommitted with
    prepositions where we would expect it without.

    By the way, how would one say “Context is King” is Koine?

    Mark L

    FWSFOROS MARKOS

    ________________________________
    Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 8:33:23 AM

    Yep–Zerwick is right on. (Not sure what “your book” means–I wish it were
    my book!)

    For the Latinless, Mario is quoting Zerwick, who says, roughly: HOI POLLOI
    here = “all” (cf. 18). In semitic idiom, HOI POLLOI does not imply
    opposition to “all”; so “many” can be understood as referring to the “all,”
    who are many.

    What I was trying to suggest was that HOI POLLOI could be understood in
    terms of the preceding PAS; but further, that PAS in this Pauline context
    cannot necessarily be equated without further ado with whatever “all” may
    mean in the context of the contemporary interests of Sam’s interlocutors.

    Incidentally, Zerwick provides no support for the aforequoted rule (PAS with
    article = ALL, without article = MANY), so I still don’t know there that
    came from, but no matter. My intent wasn’t to single out Mario for a
    bashing, just to express wonder at how these things crop up and spread
    around, and to voice once again, for the benefit of any newbies on the list
    who might be misled by such a “rule,” the caveat, often raised here by
    others, that theological, hermeneutical, and exegetical problems raised by
    or touched on by particular texts are generally not subject to easy solution
    through facile rules (which are often bogus anyway) or even competent
    lexicography. Let’s see, how to say in Latin . . . would that be “Contextus
    rex”?

    James Ernest

    On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Mario Trinchero
    wrote:

  9. James Ernest says:

    Mark,
    Zerwick doesn’t give a rule! The (bogus) rule about the article comes from
    elsewhere.

    That’s tough. BASILEUEI hH AKOLOUQIA ??

    James

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.