Romans 1:17

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 again, and since Carlton Winbery has most kindly referenced a posting of mine in the midst of that discussion, I am re-sending it for the benefit of those who did not see it (them, actually) four months ago. Those who have already seen it should simply delete.]Dear Colleagues,Checking in from my frozen basement this late Sunday afternoon, I find a late-Saturday post on Romans 1:17 from Edgar Krentz, and then a second post each from Carl Conrad and Carlton Winbery. But a posting by me earlier on Saturday afternoon does not seem to have gone out (not even to me); so I will re-send it (attached below, to this), for your edification. Let me add a response each to Edgar and to Carl;Edgar’s suggestion that EK PISTEWS might be an example of SYNTAXISAPO KOINOU, relating to both the NP preceding and the VP following, was an absolute delight to me — for the simple reason that I had always thought that this was my personal discovery decades ago, but since I had never published on it, I lacked the right to claim it in public. Now I see that Edgar was right in there, too (and perhaps thousands of others). And since I too thought it made good sense (and so taught my students the possibility), I leap to Edgar’s support. (As though Edgar Krentz ever needed my support!)And Carl’s further post shows that I had not altogether understood his earlier posting. He seems to be right where I have found myself for lo! these 40+ years of giving seminars on Romans. So I can cease shuddering because of my disagreement with him!Carl, your former student who worked on Paul’s use of the diatribe must certainly have made use of Rudolf Bultmann’s 1910 dissertation on this exact topic. That is a work that deserves more use than it has received. And for Paul’s use of rhetoric, Hans Dieter Betz’s commentary on Galatians in the Hermeneia series gives overwhelming evidence. (When we had a celebration in NYC at the time of Dieter’s commentary being published, someone remarked thathe always KNEW that when Hermeneia finally got around to publishing acommentary WRITTEN in English, and not translated from German, it would bewritten by a German!)–Edward Hobbs

 

IOKOBOS to JAMESRomans 1:17

Romans 1:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Aug 5 18:37:06 EDT 2002

 

Romans 1:17 2 Cor. 3:14 To find several suggested translations go to:http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College

 

Romans 1:172 Cor. 3:14

Romans 1:17 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 5 20:36:11 EDT 2002

 

2 Cor. 3:14 Titus 1:6 At 6:37 PM -0400 8/5/02, Clwinbery at aol.com wrote:>To find several suggested translations go to:> >http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/.I don’t think those archives have existed for several years: they are theones which were hosted by James Tauber at entmp.org quite some time ago;no–I would suggest that one should consult our archives athttp://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/The principal threads on this topic are to be found in Feb 1996, July 1996,February 1997, and August 1999. I won’t try to specify the dates morenarrowly nor point to the other brief and sporadic discussions of thisverse and problem.– 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/

 

2 Cor. 3:14Titus 1:6

Romans 1:17 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Aug 6 18:15:25 EDT 2002

 

GEbionites and feminine participle Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTINOn Aug 5 2002 Carl Conrad wrote,>The principal threads on this topic are to be found in >Feb 1996, July 1996,February 1997, and August 1999. >I won’t try to specify the dates more narrowly nor point >to the other brief and sporadic discussions of this >verse and problem.Thanks, Carl, it has been interesting reviewing these posts. However, in respect of the phrase EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN, no firm conclusions were reached; the construction remained a mystery. One of the sporadic discussions, contributed by Wayne Leman on Oct 28 2002, cited a biref paper in ‘The Bible Translator’ which surely throws some light:Benware, W. A. ‘Romans 1:17 and Cognitive Grammar’, BT 51 (2000) 330-40.Benware has studied the construction EK noun phrase EIS noun phrase, and reports that the following points hold good ‘throughout Greek literature’:(1) NOUN PHRASE encompasses all types of nouns.(2) Anarthrous noun phrases are by far the most common, but demonstratives in anaphoric reference are not uncommon, e.g. EK TINOS EIS TI (‘from this to that’).(3) The construction occurs with different noun phrases, as well as dientical ones. And in the case where the two noun phrases areidentical,(4) The verb with which the expression occurs is always non-telic.(5) When the nouns are concrete, the verb expresses movement from one liocation to another.(6) The idom maintains ‘the exact conceptual identity’ of the two nouns.Examples include EK TOPOU EIS TOPON (‘from Place to place’), EX ALOGOU EIS ALOGON (‘from absurdity to absurdity’), and from biblical literature, EK DUNAMEWS EIS DUNAMIN (Ps 83:8 XX), EK KAKWN EIS KAKA (Jer 9:3 LXX), and EK QANATOU EIS QANATON, EK ZWHS EIS ZWHN (2 Cor 2:16).Arguing from Cognitive Grammar (he says the principles Of this field relating to prepositions are generally agreed among practitioners; I won’t try tosummarize his reasoning here), he argues that‘‘the idiom simply underscores immutability, unchangeableness’. He argues quite persuasively that Rom 1:17 should Be translated along these lines:’In the gospel, right relationship with God is being revealed: It is a path which begins in faith and ends in faith.’ Any comments would be much appreciated; this is Very significant for my work on 2 Corinthians! Paul ToselandBristol

 

GEbionites and feminine participleRomans 1:17

Romans 1:17 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at attbi.com
Tue Aug 6 18:43:30 EDT 2002

 

Romans 1:17 Titus 1:6 Paul Toseland wrote:> He argues quite persuasively that Rom 1:17 should> Be translated along these lines:> > ‘In the gospel, right relationship with God is being> revealed: It is a path which begins in faith and ends> in faith.’> > Any comments would be much appreciated; this is> Very significant for my work on 2 Corinthians!This might work, but only of one assumes that what Paul is speaking of here is how toget right with God instead of God’s covenant faitfulness to Israel.For a discussion of this, see Dunn.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Floor 1Chicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at attbi.com jgibson000 at hotmail.com

 

Romans 1:17Titus 1:6

Romans 1:17 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 6 23:55:15 EDT 2002

 

IOKOBOS to JAMES Luke 18:11 At 6:15 PM -0400 8/6/02, Paul Toseland wrote:>EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN> >On Aug 5 2002 Carl Conrad wrote,> >>The principal threads on this topic are to be found in>>Feb 1996, July 1996,February 1997, and August 1999.> >>I won’t try to specify the dates more narrowly nor point>>to the other brief and sporadic discussions of this>>verse and problem.> > >Thanks, Carl, it has been interesting reviewing these> posts. However, in respect of the phrase EK PISTEWS>EIS PISTIN, no firm conclusions were reached; the>construction remained a mystery.> >One of the sporadic discussions, contributed by Wayne>Leman on Oct 28 2002, cited a biref paper in ‘The Bible>Translator’ which surely throws some light:> >Benware, W. A. ‘Romans 1:17 and Cognitive Grammar’,>BT 51 (2000) 330-40.Well, Paul, you have already had Jeffrey Gibson’s response callingattention to Dunn’s discussion of the problem. My own comment is inresponse to your note above, “no firm conclusions were reached, theconstruction remained a mystery.” For my part, I am delighted when I see aclear consensus arrived at in the course of a discussion of a textualproblem in this forum, but I think that for many Biblical Greek texts whatyou found to be the case regarding BG discussions of Rom 1:17 is by nomeans uncommon: the problem is aired, alternatives are discussed, some ofthem are argued and shown to be more cogent than others, yet no “firmconclusion” is reached. It’s not that we suppose the author didn’t knowwhat he/she was writing or intended to be mysterious; it’s simply that wecan’t reach a consensus regarding that meaning amongst ourselves. Ipersonally think it is often the best we can achieve in this forum to raiseand air the issues involved in Biblical Greek texts; any particularaccounting of a text must win acceptance among any who do accept it byvirtue of its own cogency.Please note that I am NOT stating a hermeneutical proposition here; I amonly stating an observation about what has happened and does happen in ourvery earnest discussions in this forum.– 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/

 

IOKOBOS to JAMESLuke 18:11

Romans 1:17 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Aug 7 04:56:40 EDT 2002

 

Luke 18:11 Romans 1:17 On Aug 6 2002 Carl Conrad wrote,>I personally think it is often the best we can >achieve in this forum to raise and air the issues >involved in Biblical Greek texts; any particular>accounting of a text must win acceptance among any who do accept it by virtue of its own cogency.>Please note that I am NOT stating a hermeneutical >proposition here; I am only stating an observation >about what has happened and does happen in our>very earnest discussions in this forum.Absolutely~! The issues involved in interpretingmany biblical texts are incredibly complex, and this is especially the case with some of Paul’s letters. We start with a single phrase or clause,but to make sense of it we have to look at how itfunctions in the sentence, and it is not alwaysclear where the sentence begins or ends. And we often need to look at larger textual units, andtheir function in the text as a whole; and thenwe need to agree on the overall thrust of the text as a whole, it’s structure, it’s line of thought. And that it often a real can of worms!This is certainly the case with Rom 1:17.Paul Toseland

 

Luke 18:11Romans 1:17

Romans 1:17 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Aug 7 07:18:08 EDT 2002

 

Romans 1:17 IOKOBOS to JAMES On Aug 5 2002, Jeffery I wrote,> [Benware] argues quite persuasively that Rom 1:17 > should be translated along these lines:> > ‘In the gospel, right relationship with God is being> revealed: It is a path which begins in faith and ends> in faith.’On Aug 6 2002, Jeffery Gibson replied,>This might work, but only of one assumes that what Paul >is speaking of here is how to get right with God instead>of God’s covenant faitfulness to Israel.Yes, thank you for pointing this out. But I should havepointed out that Benware’s decision to render DIKAISONHQEOU ‘right relationship with God’ has no bearing on hisanlaysis of the meaning and role of EK PISTIS EIS PISTINin the sentence; and lalso, that PISTIS could equally well be rendered ‘fatithfulness’, without affecting hisargument. So, the core of his thought may be better summed up as follows:’In the gospel, DIKAIOSUNH QEOU is being > revealed: It is a path which begins in faith(fulness) and endsin faith(fulness).’The ambiguity inherent in this sentence is fascinating,especially in view of earlier discussions of the possibility of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU in the following,slightly modified quotation of Hab 2:4,KATHWS GEGRAPTAI: hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.http://www.ibiblio.org//test-archives/html4/1996-02/12229.htmlPaul Toseland

 

Romans 1:17IOKOBOS to JAMES

[] Romans 1:16-17 Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Apr 7 21:49:42 EDT 2003

 

[] EN MESWi [] John 13:2 Genitive Absolute > Am I missing something here? Are these possibilities? > Clipping from Romans 1:16-17 “OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUANGELION[TOU> XRISTOU], DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN….> DIKAIOSUNH GAR QEOU EN AUTW….” > Assuming the majority text version here, what are the reasons whyChrist is> not the subject in the phrases that follow…either in “DUNAMIS GARQEOU> ESTIN” (For He is the power of God….instead of…it is the power ofGod) > And also: “DIKAIOSUNH GAR QEOU EN AUTW” For in Him arighteousness has> been revealed…. vs For in it a righteousness has been revealed…. > Thank you! > David Bielby> dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org> www.bloomingtonvineyard.orgGrammatically I think it’s possible, but I would guess it refers to TOEUAGGELION because TO EUAGGELION is viewed as what Paul is writing about(Romans 1:15), and in I Cor. 1:18 he describes hO LOGOS … hO TOUSTAUROU as being DUNAMIS QEOU. I.e., the message he preaches is thepower of God for salvation, and in Romans 1, he’s preaching TOEUAGGELION. True, in I Cor. 1:30 Christ is described as becomingDIKAIOSUNH for us — but since the implied pronoun for ESTIN (DUNAMISGAR THEOU ESTIN) in Romans 1:16 is likely TO EUAGGELLION for the reasonsI just suggested, the AUTWi in Romans 1:17 (DIKAIOSUNH GAR THEOU ENAUTWi) would I think also likely have the same antecedent, i.e., TOEUAGGELION.- – -Eric Weisshttp://home1.gte.net/vzn05pnm/index.htmS.D.G.

 

[] EN MESWi[] John 13:2 Genitive Absolute

[] Romans 1:17 & 18 Vineyard Christian Fellowship vcf at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Fri May 23 11:12:50 EDT 2003

 

[] word meaning [] Re: Non-NT Koine Greek and earlier works The verb APOKALUPTETAI in both Ro 1:17 & 18 has me wondering about thetense and the intrinsic meaning of the term. The very nature ofrevealing something may simply mean this is seen as of now.even thoughthe present indicative tense usually means ongoing action. But thecontext here makes me think the emphasis is on the continuing revealingof righteousness and anger.not something that’s completely done.butsomething that is continuing to unfold. Is this on target?David BielbyPastordbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.orgwww.bloomingtonvineyard.org

 

[] word meaning[] Re: Non-NT Koine Greek and earlier works

[] Romans 1:17 & 18 Eric S. Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Fri May 23 12:27:33 EDT 2003

 

[] Re: Non-NT Koine Greek and earlier works [] word meaning To confuse matters(!), I believe that Stanley Porter, whose specialty is the aspect of Greek verbs (though some of his ideas are considered idiosyncratic by some), in his IDIOMS book views Romans 1:18ff. as being aorist verbs with present (rather than past) meanings. I think Today’s English Version (The Good News Bible), nearly alone among contemporary translations, adopts this view:17 For the gospel reveals how God puts people right with himself: it is through faith from beginning to end. As the scripture says, “The person who is put right with God through faith shall live.” 18 God’s anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known.19 God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain. 20 Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! 21 They know God, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. 22 They say they are wise, but they are fools; 23 instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. 25 They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever! Amen. 26 Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. 27 In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing. 28 Because those people refuse to keep in mind the true knowledge about God, he has given them over to corrupted minds, so that they do the things that they should not do. 29 They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip 30 and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. 32 They know that God’s law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them.>The verb APOKALUPTETAI in both Ro 1:17 & 18 has me wondering about the>tense and the intrinsic meaning of the term. The very nature of>revealing something may simply mean this is seen as of now.even though>the present indicative tense usually means ongoing action. But the>context here makes me think the emphasis is on the continuing revealing>of righteousness and anger.not something that’s completely done.but>something that is continuing to unfold. Is this on target?> — Eric S. Weisshttp://home1.gte.net/vzn05pnm/index.htmS.D.G.

 

[] Re: Non-NT Koine Greek and earlier works[] word meaning

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN richard at biblewheel.com richard at biblewheel.com
Sun Apr 25 17:18:31 EDT 2004

 

[] Re: meaning of BAPTIZW [] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN I was reading The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael Munk, and on page 152 he mentioned that the Torah was given MN)MN LN)MN, (Minne’eman L’ne’eman), which he interprets as meaning “from the Trustworthy [King] to the trustworthy [servant].” He cites the Midrash Rabbah as the source, so it does not seem unlikely that this Hebrew phrase could have informed Paul when he wrote EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN, which looks like it might be a translation of that exact Hebrew phrase.The meaning of EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN was discussed at some length in 1996 & 1999. I reveiwed the posts but didn’t notice any discussion linking to the Hebrew phrase from the Talmud. Any help would be appreciated.Richard Amiel McGoughDiscover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com

 

[] Re: meaning of BAPTIZW[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Mon Apr 26 16:10:42 EDT 2004

 

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN [] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN “Any help …”. Well, let’s try.Because in my opinion the expression EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN is veryinteresting, I read the discussion about it in the archive of August 1999. Idid not find my own view represented.I frequently noticed that EUAGGELION in the NT does not have the meaning”gospel”, but “preaching of the gospel to those who do not believe”. Inverse 16 that meaning is quite possible, if we compare verse 15.Preaching the gospel is indeed a DUNAMIS … *EIS* SWTHRIAN, if a personcomes to believe (PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI).EN AUTWi in verse 17 means EN TWi EUAGGELIWi, in the preaching of thegospel. And indeed in the *preaching* there is APOKALUPSIS of God’sDIKAIOSUNH. In the preaching of the gospel the source is the PISTIS of theperson who is preaching (EK PISTEWS) and the goal is the PISTIS of theperson who is listening (EIS PISTIN).The combination EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN is of the type of the Latin expressionmanus manum lavat: (one) hand washes (the other) hand.The addition of the quotation from Habakkuk stresses the importance ofbelieve in the whole process.So in my opinion there exists a slight parallel between the expression inthe Talmud and EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN. In our verse God is not the origin,but the person who brings the gospel.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: <richard at biblewheel.com>Aan: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: zondag 25 april 2004 23:18Onderwerp: [] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTINI was reading The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet by Rabbi Michael Munk, andon page 152 he mentioned that the Torah was given MN)MN LN)MN, (Minne’emanL’ne’eman), which he interprets as meaning “from the Trustworthy [King] tothe trustworthy [servant].” He cites the Midrash Rabbah as the source, so itdoes not seem unlikely that this Hebrew phrase could have informed Paul whenhe wrote EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN, which looks like it might be a translationof that exact Hebrew phrase.The meaning of EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN was discussed at some length in 1996 &1999. I reveiwed the posts but didn’t notice any discussion linking to theHebrew phrase from the Talmud.Any help would be appreciated.Richard Amiel McGoughDiscover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible athttp://www.BibleWheel.com— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Apr 26 17:36:54 EDT 2004

 

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN [] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS Dear Arie,I’m not trying to be a wet blanket (be discouraging) but rather to check a possible over-readiness to jump on the bandwagon (accept the proposal).>I frequently noticed that EUAGGELION in the NT does not have the meaning>“gospel”, but “preaching of the gospel to those who do not believe”. In>verse 16 that meaning is quite possible, if we compare verse 15.>Preaching the gospel is indeed a DUNAMIS … *EIS* SWTHRIAN, if a person>comes to believe (PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI).HH: However, EUAGGELION QEOU in Rom 1:1 probably is not “the preaching of God” but the “the good news that belongs to God.” And the definite article with EUAGGELION in verse 16 might refer back to the earlier use of the noun (cf. also v. 9: “the gospel of His Son”). The verb EUAGGELIZW does occur in v. 15.>EN AUTWi in verse 17 means EN TWi EUAGGELIWi, in the preaching of the>gospel. And indeed in the *preaching* there is APOKALUPSIS of God’s>DIKAIOSUNH. In the preaching of the gospel the source is the PISTIS of the>person who is preaching (EK PISTEWS) and the goal is the PISTIS of the>person who is listening (EIS PISTIN).HH: This is a really interesting suggestion. For even if EUAGGELION just meant “good news,” could not this still be true? However, isn’t a good alternative interpretation for EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIV the idea of ever increasing degrees of faith? Anyway, yours is an attractive suggestion.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN[] Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEIOS

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Laurence Schell laurenceschell at yahoo.co.uk
Tue Apr 27 12:46:10 EDT 2004

 

[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_ [] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EKPISTEWS ZHSETAI I find it hard to grasp how consistently people preferthe meaning of PISTIS as “faith” or “belief,” ratherthan “faithfulness.” My take on this passage is thatit can’t be understood apart from the meaning of”faithfulness” or “the trustworthy,” as Richard put itin his post.When Paul quotes from Hab. 2:4, I think it ought to beunderstood that he means “faithfulness.” In the OT,the lone instance of the Hebrew word being translatedinto English as “faith” is Hab. 2:4. This doesn’t lenda lot of weight to the idea of “faith.”I think Rom. 1:17 might be better understood as therighteousness of God being revealed from [His]faithfulness leading to [our] faithfulness.<Richard wrote: I was reading The Wisdom of the HebrewAlphabet by Rabbi Michael Munk, and on page 152 he mentioned that the Torah was givenMN)MN LN)MN, (Minne’eman L’ne’eman), which he interprets as meaning”from the Trustworthy [King] to the trustworthy [servant].” Hecites the Midrash Rabbah as the source, so it does not seem unlikely that thisHebrew phrase could have informed Paul when he wrote EK PISTEWS EISPISTIN, which looks like it might be a translation of that exact Hebrewphrase.The meaning of EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN was discussed atsome length in 1996 & 1999. I reveiwed the posts but didn’t noticeany discussion linking to the Hebrew phrase from the Talmud. Any help would be appreciated.Richard Amiel McGoughDiscover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of theHoly Bible at ____________________________________________________________Yahoo! Messenger – Communicate instantly…”Ping” your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

 

[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EKPISTEWS ZHSETAI

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EKPISTEWS ZHSETAI Fred Day fred.a.day at cox.net
Tue Apr 27 14:40:13 EDT 2004

 

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN [] RE: “Jesus Loves Me” in Greek <I find it hard to grasp how consistently people prefer<the meaning of PISTIS as “faith” or “belief,” rather<than “faithfulness.” My take on this passage is that<it can’t be understood apart from the meaning of<“faithfulness” or “the trustworthy,” as Richard put it<in his post.<When Paul quotes from Hab. 2:4, I think it ought to be<understood that he means “faithfulness.” In the OT,<the lone instance of the Hebrew word being translated<into English as “faith” is Hab. 2:4. This doesn’t lend<a lot of weight to the idea of “faith.”Up to now, I’ve just been reading the postings. Being a real amature, it’ssometime difficult enough just to do that! 😉 But the final clause of Rom.1:17 has been one of interest to me, so here are my thoughts/questions:I think the meaning of PISTEWS would depend on what intent of DIKAIOS andPISTEWS are in terms of ZHSETAI. Do they refer to how the just will livelife now (faithfully or based on their faith), or to life as the reward ofthose who are just? If it is the latter, are they just because of theirfaith (or maybe their faithfulness)? Certainly Paul’s theology would notsupport anyone being counted just based on their faithful living. Is thereanything in the Greek that would help clarify the intent?Fred Day<I think Rom. 1:17 might be better understood as the<righteousness of God being revealed from [His]>faithfulness leading to [our] faithfulness.<Richard wrote: I was reading The Wisdom of the HebrewAlphabet by Rabbi Michael Munk,and on page 152 he mentioned that the Torah was givenMN)MN LN)MN,(Minne’eman L’ne’eman), which he interprets as meaning”from theTrustworthy [King] to the trustworthy [servant].” Hecites the Midrash Rabbah asthe source, so it does not seem unlikely that thisHebrew phrase couldhave informed Paul when he wrote EK PISTEWS EISPISTIN, which lookslike it might be a translation of that exact Hebrewphrase.The meaning of EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN was discussed atsome length in1996 & 1999. I reveiwed the posts but didn’t noticeany discussionlinking to the Hebrew phrase from the Talmud.Any help would be appreciated.Richard Amiel McGoughDiscover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of theHoly Bible at____________________________________________________________Yahoo! Messenger – Communicate instantly…”Ping”your friends today! Download Messenger Nowhttp://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN[] RE: “Jesus Loves Me” in Greek

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EK Laurence Schell laurenceschell at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Apr 28 17:17:39 EDT 2004

 

[] Re: Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament [] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EK Fred,I consider myself something of an amateur. Yet I havelooked at these verses and the whole issue offaith/faithfulness in some depth.I have looked at several of the postings on Rom. 1:17in the archives for February ’96. I think yourquestions are addressed there.Not being expert in Greek, I can’t give all thereasons for the difficulties in understanding Paul’smeaning in this passage. However, I have noticed atendency in some of the past posts to say, in effect,”Paul could not possibly have meant…,” when talkingabout this verse. There are a great many occurences ofthe word PISTIS in the NT, and I would venture thatthe argument supporting the translation as “faith”rather than “faithfulness” in the overwhelmingmajority of cases might often boil down to, “Paulcould not possibly have meant…” This represents some degree of theological bias. If weare going to preserve our most cherished beliefs,then, for heaven’s sake please, let’s not monkeyaround with the banner verse of the Reformation. But,if we are going to learn the meaning of the language,let’s not first interpret Paul and then translateaccordingly. Of course, I realize there are a lot ofnuances I don’t yet comprehend, and a lot ofpossibilities; and I know that I am not immune totheological bias.I think there is a cultural issue involved that we inthe modern western mindset don’t understand the wayPaul did. The idea of covenant was central to Hebraicthought and religion. As a rabbi, Paul would haveunderstood words like “faith/faithfulness” and”righteous” in the context of covenant.Faith/faithfulness would have been what he understoodas the requirement of walking in covenant with God.The “righteous” would be the one who obligates himselfto and does live within the boundaries of a covenantrelationship. I think Paul saw faithfulness, not asworks of the law as people often imply, but as beingopposed to the works of the law. Faithfulness waswalking in covenant relationship with God andfulfilling the spirit of the law. Well, there I have gone and spilled the beans, thatis, my interpretation of Paul. Having some bias makesme human after all. But I haven’t seen the covenantangle addressed in the archives I have read. Soperhaps it could shed some light. And I would like toknow if there is any merit in it from those who aremore knowledgable than me.In the case that it does merit some furtherconsideration, I should like to add that Paul wouldseem to mean that faith/faithfulness is the mode inwhich a covenant-keeping righteous person will live.This faithfulness arises out of God’s faithfulness.But Paul may be deliberately vague as to whosefaithfulness is in view, because in covenant bothparties obligate themselves to faithfulness, even ifit originates first with God. His faithfulness leadsto the faithfulness of those who truly believe; andthey live their lives out of His faithfulness. And, ofcourse, I am talking about faith/faithfulness. Theyare two sides of the same coin, and, in my opinion,should not be considered apart from each other here.Interestingly, this faith/faithfulness was arequirement in both the Old (Hab. 2:4) and New (Rom.1:17) Covenants.I hope I have not overstepped the bounds on theologytoo much here. But I think by nature it is a weighteddiscussion when it comes to this verse. And perhapsthis could be a balance that leads to productivediscussion of the meaning, grammar, and other aspectsof the language. I hope this could shed some light forsome people on the mysteries of a verse which getsdiscussed from time to time with an ambiguous outcome.Thinking that Paul could not have meant somethingdoesn’t get me very far in discovering the meaning,and so now here is something else he could have meant.I don’t believe I have read this in past posts.Sincerely,Laurence Schell<Up to now, I’ve just been reading the postings. Being a real amature, it’ssometime difficult enough just to do that! 😉 But thefinal clause of Rom.1:17 has been one of interest to me, so here are mythoughts/questions:I think the meaning of PISTEWS would depend on whatintent of DIKAIOS andPISTEWS are in terms of ZHSETAI. Do they refer to howthe just will livelife now (faithfully or based on their faith), or tolife as the reward ofthose who are just? If it is the latter, are theyjust because of theirfaith (or maybe their faithfulness)? Certainly Paul’stheology would notsupport anyone being counted just based on theirfaithful living. Is thereanything in the Greek that would help clarify theintent?Fred Day____________________________________________________________Yahoo! Messenger – Communicate instantly…”Ping” your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

 

[] Re: Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EK

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EK Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Apr 28 18:26:22 EDT 2004

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EK [] Re: use of “lord” in NT Dear Laurence,Let me give a couple of quick reactions to what you say about favoring the idea faithfulness for PISTIS. First, the lexicons give “faith, trust” as the basic meanings of the word (LSJ, BAGD). Second, perhaps the key issue of the NT was not faithfulness but faith. Look at taking the gospel to the pagan world. Paul told the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your house.” I know that’s the verb, but the existential issue was the same whether employing the noun or the verb.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN –> hO DE DIKAIOS EK[] Re: use of “lord” in NT

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu Apr 29 11:37:47 EDT 2004

 

[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_ [] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Lawrence Schnell wrote:>I think there is a cultural issue involved that we in>the modern western mindset don’t understand the way>Paul did. The idea of covenant was central to Hebraic>thought and religion. As a rabbi, Paul would have>understood words like “faith/faithfulness” and>“righteous” in the context of covenant.>Faith/faithfulness would have been what he understood>as the requirement of walking in covenant with God.>The “righteous” would be the one who obligates himself>to and does live within the boundaries of a covenant>relationship.I couldn’t agree more. The notion of the covenant, IMHO, lies at the core of Paul’s theology, and more tothe point, at the core of the theology of Romans. Lawrence continues,>I should like to add that Paul would>seem to mean that faith/faithfulness is the mode in>which a covenant-keeping righteous person will live.>This faithfulness arises out of God’s faithfulness.>But Paul may be deliberately vague as to whose>faithfulness is in view, because in covenant both>parties obligate themselves to faithfulness, even if>it originates first with God. His faithfulness leads>to the faithfulness of those who truly believe; and>they live their lives out of His faithfulness.Harold Holmyard replied:>First, the lexicons give “faith, trust” as the basic>meanings of the word (LSJ, BAGD).Well, BDAG now gives two basic senses of PISTIS,first ‘that which evokes trust and faith’; here ismost of Danker’s entry under 1a:a. the state of being someone in whom confidence canbe placed, faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment (X., An. 1, 6, 3; 3, 3, 4; Aristot., Eth.Eud, 7, 2, 1237b, 12; Polyb. 7, 12, 9; 38, 1, 8 al.;Herodian 2, 14, 4 al.; SIG 675, 22; OGI 557, 16; PTebt 27, 6; 51 [II BC]; POxy 494, 9; 705, 32; otherpap M-M. s.v.; Ps 32:4; Pr 12:22; Jos., Ant. 2, 61;TestAsh 7:7) w. KRISIS and ELEOS Mt 23:23. (Opp.APISTIA,a as Hes., Op. 370) THN PISTIN TOU QEOU KATARGEIN nullify the faithfulness/commitment of God (cp. Ps 32:4; Hos 2:22) Ro 3:3. PASAN P. ENDEIKNUSQAI AGAPHN show all good faith(fulness) Tit 2:10 (cp. BGU 314, 19 META PISTEWS AGAQHS). W. other virtues Gal 5:22 (on PISTIS, PRAUTHS cp. Sir 45:4; 1:27). W. hUPOMENH, 2 Th 1:4. THN PISTINTETHRHKA I have remained faithful or loyal (PISTINTHREIN as Polyb. 6, 56, 13; 10, 37, 5; Jos., Bell. 2, 121; 6, 345; OGI 339, 46f; IBM III, 587b, 5f [Dssm., LO 262=LAE 309, esp. note 3]).In a post of Tue Aug 6 19:15:25 EDT 2002 I drew attention to a paper on Rom 1:17 in The Bible Translator, July 2000, by Prof. Wilbur Benware, University of California, Linguistics). For convenience I will quote part of that post here:==========Benware has studied the construction EK noun phrase EIS noun phrase, and reports that the following points hold good ‘throughout Greek literature’:(1) NOUN PHRASE encompasses all types of nouns.(2) Anarthrous noun phrases are by far the most common, but demonstratives in anaphoric reference are not uncommon, e.g. EK TINOS EIS TI (‘from this to that’).(3) The construction occurs with different noun phrases, as well as dientical ones. And in the case where the two noun phrases areidentical,(4) The verb with which the expression occurs is always non-telic.(5) When the nouns are concrete, the verb expresses movement from one liocation to another.(6) The idom maintains ‘the exact conceptual identity’ of the two nouns.Examples include EK TOPOU EIS TOPON (‘from Place to place’), EX ALOGOU EIS ALOGON (‘from absurdity to absurdity’), and from biblical literature, EK DUNAMEWS EIS DUNAMIN (Ps 83:8 LXX),EK KAKWN EIS KAKA (Jer 9:3 LXX), and EK QANATOU EIS QANATON, EK ZWHS EIS ZWHN (2 Cor 2:16).Arguing from Cognitive Grammar (he says the principles of this field relating to prepositions are generally agreed among practitioners; I won’t try tosummarize his reasoning here), he argues that‘‘the idiom simply underscores immutability, unchangeableness’. Hence, it seems, Rom 1:17 may be rendered as follows:’In the gospel, right relationship with God is being revealed: It is a path which begins in faith(fulness)and ends in faith(faithfulness); as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith(fulness).'[By faith(fulness) I mean, of course, to express theambiguity that Lawrence has rightly suggestsed may beintended in Paul’s Greek.]If this is right, then Rom 1:17 states the theme of the whole letter.Best regardsPaul ToselandBristol, England

 

[] Very interesting GNT, _A Readers Greek New Testament_[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu Apr 29 12:01:16 EDT 2004

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN [] new (encyclopedic) book on ancient languages; Danker FS I wrote, >Hence, it seems, Rom 1:17 may be rendered as follows: >’In the gospel, right relationship with God is being >revealed: It is a path which begins in faith(fulness) >and ends in faith(faithfulness); as it is written, >The righteous shall live by faith(fulness).’On a little further reflection, however, faith is onefacet of covenant faithfulness, both under the oldcovenant and the new; so I would rather translatePISTIS in Rom 1:17 with ‘faithfulness’:’In the gospel, right relationship with God is beingrevealed: It is a matter of faithfaithfulness frombeginning to end; as it is written,The righteousshall live by faithfulness.’I am sure this captures Prof. Benware’s intentions,so far as the EK … EIS idiom is concerned; I havea feeling I may be reproducing from memory analternative translation due to him.Best regardsPaul ToselandBristol, England

 

[] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN[] new (encyclopedic) book on ancient languages; Danker FS