implied verbs in Rom 5.18 Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Tue Jan 8 06:17:43 EST 2002
Ruth 2:1 KAI THi NWEMIN ANHR GNWRIMOS TWi ANDRI AUTHS Biblical Greek Fonts on this website? Hi all:Rom 5.18: ARA OUN hWS DI’ hENOS PARAPTWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EISKATAKRIMA, hOUTWS KAI DI’ hENOS DIKAIWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EISDIKAIWSIN ZWHS …We have here a complex sentence with an independent clause and a subordinatecomparative clause. Outside of conjunctions and adverbs, we basically havetwo strings of prepositional phrases. My question is: What verb or verbs (orother word(s)) are implied that make sense of the strings of prepositionalphrases? I don’t think I have run across anything quite like this before.The several prepositional phrases don’t look like they can all make senseconstrued with only one implied verb.================Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Ruth 2:1 KAI THi NWEMIN ANHR GNWRIMOS TWi ANDRI AUTHSBiblical Greek Fonts on this website?
implied verbs in Rom 5.18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 8 08:18:57 EST 2002
Biblical Greek Fonts on this website? Biblical Greek Fonts on this website? At 5:17 AM -0600 1/8/02, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>Hi all:> >Rom 5.18: ARA OUN hWS DI’ hENOS PARAPTWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EIS>KATAKRIMA, hOUTWS KAI DI’ hENOS DIKAIWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EIS>DIKAIWSIN ZWHS …> >We have here a complex sentence with an independent clause and a subordinate>comparative clause. Outside of conjunctions and adverbs, we basically have>two strings of prepositional phrases. My question is: What verb or verbs (or>other word(s)) are implied that make sense of the strings of prepositional>phrases? I don’t think I have run across anything quite like this before.>The several prepositional phrases don’t look like they can all make sense>construed with only one implied verb.Interesting! I note that NET comments on this thus:”28tn There are no verbs in the Greek text of v. 18, forcing translators tosupply phrases like “came through one “In fact, however, the text is not really difficult to understand. Thesentence reminds me, the more I look at it, of an algebraic equation: a:b =x:y. My candidate would be GINETAI–or better. EGENETO.It’s just as worthy of note, I think, that these clauses don’t really havea subject either: they are constituted each of three prepositional phrases.This is a job for Superman–or should I say, for an analytic linguist. Butgoing at it more intuitively than might such a one, I think I’d say theseclauses are reductions and that verbal efficacy/dynamism/force (for want ofa technical term) resides in the verbal nouns, PARAPTWMA, KATAKRIMA,DIKAIWMA, and DIKAIWSIS, so that we may tentatively supply the implicitverbs thus:ARA OUN hWSPER DIOTI hEIS PAREPESEN/hHMARTEN, DIA TOUTO PANTES ANQRWPOIKATEKRIQHSAN, hOUTWS DIOTI hEIS EDIKAIWSEN, DIA TOUTO PANTES ANQRWPOIEDIKAIWQHSAN.So the real driving verbal force resides, I think, within those verbalnouns; it is the “genius” or at least the NOMOS or EQOS of Greek todispense with implicit copulas such as ESTI, GINETAI, KAQISTATAI, KTL.Well, there’s one way of looking at it, anyhow.– 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/
Biblical Greek Fonts on this website?Biblical Greek Fonts on this website?
implied verbs in Rom 5.18 Clayton Javurek javurek at asu.edu
Tue Jan 8 09:43:55 EST 2002
Gramcord Lite? More Questions for the List Clayton JavurekE-MAIL: javurek at asu.eduDouglas Moo in his NIC series commentary on Romans believes thatthe word GINOMAI is inherent as the verb in this passage.—–Original Message—–From: Steven Lo Vullo [mailto:doulos at merr.com]Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:18 AMTo: Biblical GreekSubject: [] implied verbs in Rom 5.18Hi all:Rom 5.18: ARA OUN hWS DI’ hENOS PARAPTWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EISKATAKRIMA, hOUTWS KAI DI’ hENOS DIKAIWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EISDIKAIWSIN ZWHS …We have here a complex sentence with an independent clause and a subordinatecomparative clause. Outside of conjunctions and adverbs, we basically havetwo strings of prepositional phrases. My question is: What verb or verbs (orother word(s)) are implied that make sense of the strings of prepositionalphrases? I don’t think I have run across anything quite like this before.The several prepositional phrases don’t look like they can all make senseconstrued with only one implied verb.================Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI — home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: [javurek at asu.edu]To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20020108/fe68c318/attachment.html
Gramcord Lite?More Questions for the List
implied verbs in Rom 5.18 Paul, Doug Doug.Paul at GDC4S.Com
Tue Jan 8 10:11:33 EST 2002
Gramcord Lite? Phil 1:28 hHTIS Romans 8:31 is similar in that there are no verbs in:EI hO QEOS hUPER hHMWN TIS KAQ hHMWN______________________________________________Doug Paul doug.paul at GDC4S.com______________________________________________—–Original Message—–From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:19 AMTo: Biblical GreekCc: Biblical GreekSubject: [] Re: implied verbs in Rom 5.18At 5:17 AM -0600 1/8/02, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>Hi all:> >Rom 5.18: ARA OUN hWS DI’ hENOS PARAPTWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EIS>KATAKRIMA, hOUTWS KAI DI’ hENOS DIKAIWMATOS EIS PANTAS ANQRWPOUS EIS>DIKAIWSIN ZWHS …> >We have here a complex sentence with an independent clause and asubordinate>comparative clause. Outside of conjunctions and adverbs, we basically have>two strings of prepositional phrases. My question is: What verb or verbs(or>other word(s)) are implied that make sense of the strings of prepositional>phrases? I don’t think I have run across anything quite like this before.>The several prepositional phrases don’t look like they can all make sense>construed with only one implied verb.Interesting! I note that NET comments on this thus:”28tn There are no verbs in the Greek text of v. 18, forcing translators tosupply phrases like “came through one “In fact, however, the text is not really difficult to understand. Thesentence reminds me, the more I look at it, of an algebraic equation: a:b =x:y. My candidate would be GINETAI–or better. EGENETO.It’s just as worthy of note, I think, that these clauses don’t really havea subject either: they are constituted each of three prepositional phrases.This is a job for Superman–or should I say, for an analytic linguist. Butgoing at it more intuitively than might such a one, I think I’d say theseclauses are reductions and that verbal efficacy/dynamism/force (for want ofa technical term) resides in the verbal nouns, PARAPTWMA, KATAKRIMA,DIKAIWMA, and DIKAIWSIS, so that we may tentatively supply the implicitverbs thus:ARA OUN hWSPER DIOTI hEIS PAREPESEN/hHMARTEN, DIA TOUTO PANTES ANQRWPOIKATEKRIQHSAN, hOUTWS DIOTI hEIS EDIKAIWSEN, DIA TOUTO PANTES ANQRWPOIEDIKAIWQHSAN.So the real driving verbal force resides, I think, within those verbalnouns; it is the “genius” or at least the NOMOS or EQOS of Greek todispense with implicit copulas such as ESTI, GINETAI, KAQISTATAI, KTL.Well, there’s one way of looking at it, anyhow.– 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/— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/You are currently subscribed to as: [doug.paul at gd-cs.com]To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu
Gramcord Lite?Phil 1:28 hHTIS
implied verbs in Rom 5.18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 8 11:32:43 EST 2002
Phil 1:28 hHTIS Use of plural words in singular situations At 10:11 AM -0500 1/8/02, Paul, Doug wrote:>Romans 8:31 is similar in that there are no verbs in:> >EI hO QEOS hUPER hHMWN TIS KAQ hHMWNNot really; this is standard omission of a copula (ESTIN) between a clearlyindicated subject (hO QEOS, TIS) and a clearly indicated predicate (hUPERhHMWN, KAQ’ hHMWN).Rom 5:18, on the other hand, makes the verbal force reside in the verbalnouns and adverbial prepositional phrases.– 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/
Phil 1:28 hHTISUse of plural words in singular situations
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)
—
Hi Sam
PAS with article = ALL
without article = MANY
Scuse me my bad english
Mario Trinchero
2011/1/18 Samuel Cripps
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
—
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
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:
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:
Mark,
Zerwick doesn’t give a rule! The (bogus) rule about the article comes from
elsewhere.
That’s tough. BASILEUEI hH AKOLOUQIA ??
James
Hi Sam
PAS with article = ALL
without article = MANY
Scuse me my bad english
Mario Trinchero
2011/1/18 Samuel Cripps
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
—
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
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:
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:
Mark,
Zerwick doesn’t give a rule! The (bogus) rule about the article comes from
elsewhere.
That’s tough. BASILEUEI hH AKOLOUQIA ??
James