Skip to content

Tag Archives: Romans

Revelation 15:2


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 […]

Romans 1:27


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: A poster of their views in brief can be found here: … 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

Mark 16:1

Stephen Carlson wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Jonathan Robie wrote:

April 17th, 2017, 8:12 pm

I am a concrete thinker, so part of what I am looking for is a clear understanding of the relationship between the topics at various levels – the sentence topic and the discourse topic in this passage, for instance.

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 pm

Lambrecht’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 pm

Levinsohn 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

Romans 1:23

ronsnider1 wrote:
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

Romans 15:13


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 […]

Romans 14:14


In the NT, the adjective KOINOS occurs twelve times.   In the A.V., it is translated as follows: “common” 7 times “unclean” 3 times “defiled” 1 time “unholy” 1 time   Three times it is translated as “unclean” and only in Romans 14:14.   In the Latin Vulgate of Romans 14:14, KOINON is translated by the Latin word […]

Romans 7:19



Thanks for he correction, you are right of course. You response highlights what I was trying to get at… namely are there a clear grammatical reasons for the way Paul constructs this passage or is do we have to rely more on logical inference for the antecedents? I am not sufficiently familiar with relative pronoun constructions to know if this is a typical structure. My observation for what its worth (very little probably) is that Paul has opted for a certain amount of rhetorical beauty and balance, a sort of aesthetic quality for effect, almost poetic! Obviously the over all context makes it clear what he means.

Paul Evans
Wilmington, NC

Statistics: Posted by Paul Evans — October 19th, 2013, 9:35 am