Question about translation of Romans 13:8 Sharon VanDevender shavandev at hotmail.com Fri Apr 20 21:23:31 EDT 2007 The other translation problem in Romans 13 is the word “authority” (exousia). …. reason is that doing good in this context means fulfilling the law (Rom 13:8-10). Romans 13:8-14 Be under obligation to no one – the…
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…
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…
Romans 15.18-19 Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk Tue Jul 13 06:17:45 EDT 1999 Revelation 13.15-17 Romans 15.18-19 Rom 15.18-19:OU GAR TOLMHSW TI LALEIN hWN OU KATEIRGASATO XRISTOS DI EMOU EIS hUPAKOHN EQNWN, LOGWi KAI ERGWi, EN DUNAMEI SHMEIWN KAI TERATWN, EN DUNAMEI PNEUMATOS [QEOU].NIV, RSV and NASB all translate with something like this: “I…
Romans 8:16 Mitchell Gray shavedice at itexas.net Fri Sep 10 01:30:07 EDT 1999 A new E-List dedicated to GMark Do prepositions govern or merely clarify case functions in Koine Greek? Dear list-members,How should Romans 8:16 be rendered: “The spirit *itself* bears witness withour spirit that we are God’s children.” Or, “The spirit *himself* bearswitness…
Lk.23:45 Ted Mann theomann at earthlink.net Tue Oct 9 11:54:11 EDT 2001 Luke 7:39 Lk.23:45 When Luke wrote EKLIPONTOS (Lk.23:45), did he have in mind an actual solareclipse, as a number of translations imply (e.g., Phillips, NEB), or wasthis just an idiomatic way of describing the darkening of the sun (e.g.,NIV, NASB), without intending…
Romans 1:16 Glen L Naftaniel glensmail at juno.com Thu Apr 4 22:17:01 EST 2002 why miniscule? why miniscule? Hello all,I am trying to better understand Rom 1:16: “OU GAR EPAISCHUNOMAI TO EUANGELION DUNAMIS GAR THEOU ESTIN EIS SOTERIAN PANTI TO PISTEUONTAI IUDAIO TE PROTON KAI hELLENI.”I have always thought that EUANGELION was the subject.…
Isaiah 45:19 (also Isaiah 7:14 in Mt 1:23) Benjamin Raymond braymond at ipa.net Sat Sep 5 21:34:28 EDT 1998 Compound subjects with hH? Present tence copulative verbs At 10:54 PM 9/4/98 +0000, you wrote:>On Fri 4 Sep 98 (15:31:55), cms at dragon.com wrote:>> Could the repetition be a scribal error or is it emphasis? Not…
Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com Tue Nov 27 14:30:41 EST 2001 SU as part of a vocative? Use of MH Hi!I am near the completion of an essay on Paul and natural theology, but have recently stumbled over an interpretation of the NOOUMENA KATHORATAI in Romans 1:…
Romans 1:17 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com Mon Aug 5 18:25:57 EDT 2002 IOKOBOS to JAMES Romans 1:17 This verse has been oft discussed on . Go to Feb. and following in 1996 for a good string.What follows is a good posting from Edward Hobbs.[Since the meaning of Romans 1:17 has come up…
The relevant text: καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην,
My question concerns the last prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην, The first prepositional phrase used the same construction, the preposition eis with the articular infinitive. The first phrase would seem to express the purpose of God in making Abraham the father of all who believe. Should the second phrase be understood as purpose or result, or is there some overlap in the two? Should the second phrase be applied to all those who believe, or should it be construed as the first phrase with the purpose of God. If the former, unbelievers would want to believe (one supposes) for the purpose of being imputed righteousness, but the fact that they do believe indicates that as a result they are imputed righteousness.
Thanks in advance,
Statistics: Posted by ronsnider1 — July 16th, 2014, 12:04 pm
Msindisi wrote: ↑June 27th, 2017, 4:33 amAs the context must govern the referent it would make sense that εΦ ω would signify ‘upon which’ rather than ‘upon whom’ for three major reasons.
1. Though Hebrews speaks of Levi being in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes, the immediate context of Romans 5 does not speak of our pre-existence in Adam but it does speak of our helpless sinful condition, verse 6, 8 and possibly verse 10. Therefore, verse 12 may easily be seen as explaining the reason why we are sinful which speaks of inheriting a sinful condition.
2. The following 2 verses do not speak of sin at the time of the fall but the condition of sin when there was no law. The whole discourse concerns the committing of sin by people and the mastery of death over people who sin. The idea of inheriting guilt would therefore be of secondary importance and tangential to the whole discussion Paul is expounding.
3. There is a logical progression, which makes sense in light of the context. Not a simple chiasmus that has the last point returning back to the same event mentioned in the first point. Not.
A. One man sins.
B. Sin came into the world.
C. Death came into the world through sin.
B’. Death spread to all men.
A’. In Adam all sinned.
Rather A- B’ show a consequential progression and so it would make sense that as B’ is a consequence of C that A’ is also a consequence of B’. Though this argument is not conclusive by itself it is strong in light of arguments numbers 1 & 2.
Secondary strengths of this interpretation, but not decisive points are that, aside from a Pelagian reading of the passage, all viewpoints can agree on this understanding. We all agree that we sin because we have inherited a sin nature. This is consistent with the Jewish concept of ‘היצר הרע’ ‘hayetser Hara’ or the evil impulse. It is consistent with the reformed understanding of original sin in the concept that people inherit both sin nature and guilt of Adam’s sin. It also agrees with the Arminian view that we inherit the sin nature though not the guilt but become guilty of Adam’s sin when we sin in like manner.
Also it preserves a systematic approach from misinterpreting a passage through reading it according to a presupposed theological stance but ties the theology to the exegesis of that passage in a way that is governed by that particular text and minimises the danger of prooftexting.
Thirdly, even people with reformed theological understanding, such as Thomas Schreiner, recognise the strength of the “upon which” argument in his exegetical commentary on Romans (BECNT). Though this is not conclusive regarding the referent in the passage it does raise questions concerning the strength of the argument itself when one whose theology has been heavily influenced by a reformed soteriology disregards the referent that more clearly supports the reformed position even though the interpretation that he sided with does not in itself contradict a reformed understanding of original sin.
Talk about resurrection, this is quite an old thread. Please note that on B-Greek we focus on on issues of grammar and syntax, understanding the Greek as Greek, and not issues of theology. In this case of Romans 5:12, what tips it for me is not the theological content, but that the phrase is really a stock phrase used adverbially elsewhere, and particularly in the plural, ἐφ οἷς, but not unknown in the singular. Now, whether it’s consecutive or causal is a matter of some debate in the history of interpretation. This article by Cranfield is supposed to be quite exhaustive on the subject:
“On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5.12,” SJT 22 (1969): 324–41
But I can’t comment further since the Scottish Journal of Theology is not accessible through JSTOR (the first time I’ve been let down on that regard).
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 29th, 2017, 11:02 am
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑June 17th, 2017, 11:22 pm
Translations are best thought of more of a guide to how someone interpreted the text rather than a commentary on the grammatical structures per se of the source text.
Of course, but translations seem to follow two very different ways of understanding this particular text. And these two different interpretations seem to be found in commentaries as well.
One interpretation takes ἅγιον to be a substantive, the other takes it to be a predicate complement.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑June 17th, 2017, 11:22 pmA more literal ‘translation’ would be something like “in accordance with the holy one who called you” and even that does certain transformations like participle to relative clause, adding a “one” to substantive the adjective, etc. These transformations only become problematic with they seem to depart from fidelity to the sense of the source.
That’s a more literal translation of this interpretation (the one shown in my last post):
And that agrees with Meyer, as quoted above. NET and NASB both understand the Greek text this way. Here is NASB:
NASB wrote:but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
I think I’ve persuaded myself that I like this understanding best. But ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, KJV, etc. are based on a different understanding of the Greek text. Here is ESV:
ESV wrote:but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
That seems to follow this understanding of the text:
s καὶ αὐτοὶ
+ ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ
Expositor’s Greek argues for this interpretation:
Expositor’s Greek wrote:—ἅγιον is better taken as predicate than as substantive, since ὁ καλέσας (καλῶν) is well-established as a title of God in His relation to Gentile Christians (cf. 1 Peter 2:9, etc.)
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 18th, 2017, 12:07 pm
As an addition, as I could not edit the former text: M. Psellus, In E. Nic. 549.6: “δυνατὸν δὲ αὐτοὺς νικῆσαι οὐκ ἐκ προφανοῦς πο- λέμου”. “it is possible now that they win not out of a forseen battle”. Same author (Oratoria min. 2.37: ” ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῷ μάχεσθαι νικᾶν τε καὶ εἰρήνην ἐκ πολέμου…
I don’t know if you would find this helpful, but a really technical analysis of Ancient Greek participles and their relation to the main verb is found here in a article by Dag Haug and Corien Bary: http://semprag.org/article/download/sp.4.8/pdf_1 A poster of their views in brief can be found here: http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/rese … poster.pdf
The participles you point out would be considered “elaborations” and their function is to provide more information about the main verb. They are not intended to interact with the time of the context (just that of the main verb) or to introduce a new event time into the discourse. In Wallace’s terms, they would be classified as a circumstance participle of manner or something like that.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 14th, 2014, 4:31 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm
As far as I can tell, there’s no simple relation between the two. They’re different things. The fact that they share the term “topic” seems to be creating expectations they are more closely related, but they are not.
I really do think I’ve heard some other people imply that there is a closer relationship than that, but those people may be confused too.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pmLambrecht’s books has been very popular and influential. He provides (his own) definitions for topic and focus. It is similar to what Levinsohn is doing, but not identical. I think Levinsohn follows Simon Dik more (whom I haven’t read). So does Helma Dik.
I have Simon Dik’s book. It is very clearly written, I should work my way through it.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pmLevinsohn has actually published quite a bit. To understand him, that’s the first and best place to go. His coursebook, though dated, lays out several of the concepts, but he’s been updating them in other publications. Many of these are on his website. If you can read Spanish, you may find his introduction to his Galatians analysis helpful.
Thanks, I’ll look there. My … Spanish … is not great. But that kind of technical Spanish may or may not be possible.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 18th, 2017, 10:19 am
My question relates to how one understands and classifies the genitive string in Romans 1:23 that follows the en clause. The entire phrase relates to that which was exchanged for the glory of the incorruptible God, but I am having a little trouble identifying the type of genitives used here.
καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.
It’s pretty clear, I’d say, that εἰκόνος depends upon ὁμοιώματι and that φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν all depend upon εἰκόνος. I would think too that φθαρτοῦ, although linked directly with ἀνθρώπου, is implicitly understood also with the other genitive nouns as well. The four genitive nouns dependent on εἰκόνος all fall under the most basic category of adnominal genitives, whether you call it “possessive” or “genitive of belonging”. Categorizing the adnominal linkage of εικόνος to ὁμοιώματι is perhaps less clearcut (if it really matters — the meaning of the phrase is hardly in doubt!); I think I’d call it an “appositive” or “explanatory” genitive (cf. Smyth, §1322): “a likeness, i.e. an image of … “.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 30th, 2014, 11:08 am
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amI don’t want this to get lost – Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP.ταυτη is not referring back to …
Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Richard r.vandenhengel at hetnet.nl Sun Dec 1 04:03:27 EST 2002 Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error? Steven Wrote:> I submit to you that no one approaching this text without a=20> preconceived (and wrong, IMO) theological notion derived from the=20> question of the relationship between…
Stephen Carlson wrote: OK, but that does not sound like the “same viewpoint” as expressed above. Oh? Then sorry I must have interpreted Hefin’s terminology wrongly. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — January 20th, 2014, 11:17 pm David Lim wrote: Hefin J. Jones wrote:Coming back to this after a while – her Wittgenstein quote…