The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Sat May 29 06:06:11 EDT 1999
AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? Dear B-greekers:Is Gal 2:15 a verbless sentence? Or is it a dangling subject, which is interrupted by the participle clause (EIDOTES), and then resumed byKAI hHMEIS? If so, we would have:We Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, knowing that ….,we also believed in …Cheers!Moon-Ryul JungAssitant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University, Seoul, Korea?
AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVEThe dangling subject in Gal 2:15?
The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 29 07:13:02 EDT 1999
The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE At 7:06 AM -0400 5/29/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Dear B-greekers:> >Is Gal 2:15 a verbless sentence? Or is it a dangling subject, which is>interrupted by the participle clause (EIDOTES), and then resumed by>KAI hHMEIS? If so, we would have:> >We Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, knowing that ….,>we also believed in …One of the most common features of all ancient Greek is omission of thecopula (EINAI) from a nominal clause, i.e. a clause consisting of a subjectand a predicate nominative. Therefore an ESMEN is implicit in Gal 2:15 andshould be supplied by anyone translating into a language that wouldnormally make such a copula explicit.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
The dangling subject in Gal 2:15?AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE
The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Sat May 29 06:06:11 EDT 1999
AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? Dear B-greekers:Is Gal 2:15 a verbless sentence? Or is it a dangling subject, which is interrupted by the participle clause (EIDOTES), and then resumed byKAI hHMEIS? If so, we would have:We Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, knowing that ….,we also believed in …Cheers!Moon-Ryul JungAssitant ProfessorDept of Computer ScienceSoongsil University, Seoul, Korea?
AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVEThe dangling subject in Gal 2:15?
The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 29 07:13:02 EDT 1999
The dangling subject in Gal 2:15? AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE At 7:06 AM -0400 5/29/99, Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:>Dear B-greekers:> >Is Gal 2:15 a verbless sentence? Or is it a dangling subject, which is>interrupted by the participle clause (EIDOTES), and then resumed by>KAI hHMEIS? If so, we would have:> >We Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, knowing that ….,>we also believed in …One of the most common features of all ancient Greek is omission of thecopula (EINAI) from a nominal clause, i.e. a clause consisting of a subjectand a predicate nominative. Therefore an ESMEN is implicit in Gal 2:15 andshould be supplied by anyone translating into a language that wouldnormally make such a copula explicit.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
The dangling subject in Gal 2:15?AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE
Galatians 2:15-16 The word who was supplied by the NKJV translators, but it is unnecessary. It would be better to translate vv 15 and 16 as two independent sentences: “We are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. Since we know that….”
Jews often referred to Gentiles as sinners. Thus according to the Judaizers a Gentile would have to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to escape sinner status.
Though the wording varies slightly, three times in this verse Paul says “that a man is not justified by the works of the law” and three times he says a man is justified “by faith in Jesus Christ.” Justification is being declared righteous once and for all by God the Father.
Forensic justification is the imputation (2 Cor 5:21) of Christ’s righteousness, but not the impartation of His righteousness (cf. 1 John 1:8,10; 3:2).
In Galatians Paul normally uses the term law (nomos) to refer to the Law of Moses. The specific expression works of the law occurs six times in Galatians and is always used negatively (2:16 three times; 3:2,5,10). There is also one obviously negative reference to “the works of the flesh” in 5:19. Only one of the eight uses of the word works is positive or neutral (see 6:4).
“Faith in Christ” (pisteœs I¢sou Christou) is seen by some to refer to the faithfulness of Christ. However, the contrast here is between justification by faith in Christ or by fulfilling the law.