hOTI in Rom 5.8 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at earthlink.net
Sun Oct 14 17:25:32 EDT 2001
Jn.3:15,16 GAR in Rom 5.7 Hi all:In Rom 5.8 the Gramcord text of Accordance tags hOTI as a subordinatingcausal conjunction. But it seems more appropriate to take it as a nominalconjunction introducing a clause in apposition to AGAPHN. Which do you thinkis correct? Or are there other possibilities?– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Jn.3:15,16GAR in Rom 5.7
hOTI in Rom 5.8 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Oct 14 20:41:20 EDT 2001
Jn.3:15,16 hOTI in Rom 5.8 Dear Steven,>Rom 5.7 contains two occurrences of GAR. Both are tagged as explanatory>conjunctions in Accordance. Does the second instance simply introduce a>clause parallel to the first clause introduced by GAR, or is there a>distictive usage involved?HH: BAGD notes that sometimes GAR can function like DE and even have thesense “but.” It specifically cites Rom 5:7 with this sense (see under 4.).So NIV’s “though” for the second GAR in 5:7 may be pretty good.>In Rom 5.8 the Gramcord text of Accordance tags hOTI as a subordinating>causal conjunction. But it seems more appropriate to take it as a nominal>conjunction introducing a clause in apposition to AGAPHN. Which do you think>is correct? Or are there other possibilities?HH: I like Gramcord’s parsing. Verse 8 seems like verse 6. As verse 6supports the assertion in verse 5, so verse 8b supports the one in 8a.Verse 8b shows not so much the content of the love, but the way in whichGod commends it.There may be emphasis on God as initiator of the love already in verse 5.Our hope in God does not disappoint us, for God’s love has been poured outin our hearts through the Holy Spirit. That is, God took the initiative, asverse 6 describes.We see that love on the human plane will scarcely die for a merelyrighteous person, though for a good person perhaps someone would dare todie. So God commends His love for us to us, for while we were still sinnersChrist died for us. This surpasses anything to be expected on the humanplane, thus commending the love of God as supernatural.Yours,Harold HolmyardDallas, TX
Jn.3:15,16hOTI in Rom 5.8
hOTI in Rom 5.8 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 14 23:48:16 EDT 2001
hOTI in Rom 5.8 hOTI in Rom 5.8 At 4:25 PM -0500 10/14/01, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>Hi all:> >In Rom 5.8 the Gramcord text of Accordance tags hOTI as a subordinating>causal conjunction. But it seems more appropriate to take it as a nominal>conjunction introducing a clause in apposition to AGAPHN. Which do you think>is correct? Or are there other possibilities?>—Text: SUNISTHSIN DE THN hEAUTOU AGAPHN EIS hHMAS hO QEOS, hOTI ETIhAMARTWLWN ONTWN hHMWN CRISTOS hUPER hHMWN APEQANEN.I’ve read Harold’s response to this and I agree with his affirmation of thetagging of hOTI as causal; it seems to me very much like a Latin QUODintroducing an explanatory clause with the sense, “the fact being that …”= “inasmuch as …”. If the clause introduced by hOTI were to be understoodas appositional to AGAPHN as you suggest, Steven, I think it would beintroduced by hHi, i.e. “love whereby/with which … .” Otherwise, I thinkthe hOTI clause, if nominal, might have to be linked to the preceding bysomething like a TOUTWi which the hOTI would refer back to. I just don’tquite see how the hOTI clause can be appositional to an accusative noun, atleast in this instance.– 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/
hOTI in Rom 5.8hOTI in Rom 5.8
hOTI in Rom 5.8 Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Thu Oct 18 17:20:56 EDT 2001
hOTI in Rom 5.8 REMA THEOU on 10/14/01 10:48 PM, Carl W. Conrad at cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu wrote:> Text: SUNISTHSIN DE THN hEAUTOU AGAPHN EIS hHMAS hO QEOS, hOTI ETI> hAMARTWLWN ONTWN hHMWN CRISTOS hUPER hHMWN APEQANEN.> > I’ve read Harold’s response to this and I agree with his affirmation of the> tagging of hOTI as causal; it seems to me very much like a Latin QUOD> introducing an explanatory clause with the sense, “the fact being that …”> = “inasmuch as …”. If the clause introduced by hOTI were to be understood> as appositional to AGAPHN as you suggest, Steven, I think it would be> introduced by hHi, i.e. “love whereby/with which … .” Otherwise, I think> the hOTI clause, if nominal, might have to be linked to the preceding by> something like a TOUTWi which the hOTI would refer back to. I just don’t> quite see how the hOTI clause can be appositional to an accusative noun, at> least in this instance.Thanks, Carl and Harold, for helping me out on this one. (And thanks to Iverfor his comments on GAR in Rom 5.7.) After reading your comments andstudying the text more carefully, I see that my thinking on this was wayoff. If I had only substituted the hOTI clause for THN hEAUTOU AGAPHN, itshould have been apparent to me that apposition does not fit.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
hOTI in Rom 5.8REMA THEOU