hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Thu Apr 18 21:18:05 EDT 2002
Greek computer programs (plus learning strategy for first-year Greek) Greek fonts with papyrological symbols Hi all:Rom 9.32a: DIA TI? hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EX ERGWNMy question concerns the use of hWS here. Accordance tags it as a subjectiveparticle. If I understand this correctly, it means that hWS introduces anoun clause. But if so, what slot does it here fill? And can anyone give mesome advice as to how to distinguish hWS when it is a subjective particlefrom hWS when it is a subordinating conjunction? I would have pegged the usein Rom 9.32 as a subordinating conjunction.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIslovullo at mac.com
Greek computer programs (plus learning strategy for first-year Greek)Greek fonts with papyrological symbols
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Apr 18 23:14:33 EDT 2002
Greek computer programs (plus learning strategy for first-year Greek) Greek fonts with papyrological symbols on 4/18/02 6:18 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> Rom 9.32a: DIA TI? hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EX ERGWN> > My question concerns the use of hWS here. Accordance tags it as a subjective> particle. If I understand this correctly, it means that hWS introduces a> noun clause. But if so, what slot does it here fill? And can anyone give me> some advice as to how to distinguish hWS when it is a subjective particle> from hWS when it is a subordinating conjunction? I would have pegged the use> in Rom 9.32 as a subordinating conjunction.ROM. 9:31 ISRAHL DE DIWKWN NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS EIS NOMON OUK EFQASEN.ROM. 9:32 DIA TI; hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EX ERGWN: PROSEKOYAN TWiLIQWi TOU PROSKOMMATOS,Not a direct answer to your question but some light on subjective tag forhWS.Sandy&Headlam (Rom. ICC, p.280): “The hWS introduces a subjective idea. St.Paul wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that EX ERGWN was amethod by which NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS might be pursued. He therefore representedit as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they thought they could gainit.”C.E.B. Cranfield (Rom. ICC, p.511) appears to agree with this analysis. Ialso found useful information on this in Danker hWS 3.c (p.1105) or BAGDhWS III.3 (p.898) and also BDF #425(3).Bengel reads hWS as quasi, from the vulgate “quasi ex operibus.”I understand your slot question but it is too late in the day for solvingthat one. Perhaps someone from tommorow morning (Australia, Jerusalem,Korea) can address that question.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Greek computer programs (plus learning strategy for first-year Greek)Greek fonts with papyrological symbols
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Apr 19 00:02:08 EDT 2002
Greek fonts with papyrological symbols Greek fonts with papyrological symbols In a message dated 4/18/2002 11:15:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net writes:> Rom 9.32a: DIA TI? hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EX ERGWN> > My question concerns the use of hWS here. Accordance tags it as a subjective> particle. If I understand this correctly, it means that hWS introduces a> noun clause. But if so, what slot does it here fill? And can anyone give me> some advice as to how to distinguish hWS when it is a subjective particle> from hWS when it is a subordinating conjunction? I would have pegged the use> in Rom 9.32 as a subordinating conjunction.Not a direct answer to your question but some light on subjective tag forhWS.Sandy&Headlam (Rom. ICC, p.280): “The hWS introduces a subjective idea. St.Paul wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that EX ERGWN was amethod by which NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS might be pursued. He therefore representedit as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they thought they could gainit.”C.E.B. Cranfield (Rom. ICC, p.511) appears to agree with this analysis. Ialso found useful information on this in Danker hWS 3.c (p.1105) or BAGDhWS III.3 (p.898) and also BDF #425(3).___________________I’m wondering if Logos/Accordance here mean by “subjective particle” that it introduces a subject. Here’s the passage from BAGD p. 898. III. hWS introduces the characteristic quality of a pers., thing, or action, etc., referred to in the context. 3. a quality wrongly claimed, in any case objectively false EPISTOH hWS DI’ hHMWN a letter (falsely) alleged to be from us 2 Th 2:2a (Diod. S. 33, 5, 5 EPEMYAN hWS PARA TWN PRESBEUTWN EPISTOHN they sent a letter which purported to come from the emissaries; Diog. L. 10:3 falsified EPISTOLAI hWS EPIKOUROU). TOUS LOGIZOMENOUS hHMAS hWS KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS 2 Cor 10:2 (s. also 1c above). Cf. 11:17; 13:7. Israel wishes to become righteous OUK EK PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EC ERGWN not through faith but through deeds (the latter way being objectively wrong) Ro 9:32 (Rdm.2 26f). gfsomsel————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20020419/b1878a19/attachment.html
Greek fonts with papyrological symbolsGreek fonts with papyrological symbols
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Fri Apr 19 07:57:22 EDT 2002
Phil 4.10 Greek Palindromes on 4/18/02 11:02 PM, Polycarp66 at aol.com at Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:> In a message dated 4/18/2002 11:15:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,> cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net writes:> > >> Rom 9.32a: DIA TI? hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EX ERGWN>> >> My question concerns the use of hWS here. Accordance tags it as a subjective>> particle. If I understand this correctly, it means that hWS introduces a>> noun clause. But if so, what slot does it here fill? And can anyone give me>> some advice as to how to distinguish hWS when it is a subjective particle>> from hWS when it is a subordinating conjunction? I would have pegged the use>> in Rom 9.32 as a subordinating conjunction.> > > Not a direct answer to your question but some light on subjective tag for> hWS.> > Sandy&Headlam (Rom. ICC, p.280): “The hWS introduces a subjective idea. St.> Paul wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that EX ERGWN was a> method by which NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS might be pursued. He therefore represented> it as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they thought they could gain> it.”> > C.E.B. Cranfield (Rom. ICC, p.511) appears to agree with this analysis. I> also found useful information on this in Danker hWS 3.c (p.1105) or BAGD> hWS III.3 (p.898) and also BDF #425(3).> ___________________> > I’m wondering if Logos/Accordance here mean by “subjective particle” that it> introduces a subject. Here’s the passage from BAGD p. 898.> > III. hWS introduces the characteristic quality of a pers., thing, or action,> etc., referred to in the context.> > 3. a quality wrongly claimed, in any case objectively false EPISTOH hWS DI’> hHMWN a letter (falsely) alleged to be from us 2 Th 2:2a (Diod. S. 33, 5, 5> EPEMYAN hWS PARA TWN PRESBEUTWN EPISTOHN they sent a letter which purported> to come from the emissaries; Diog. L. 10:3 falsified EPISTOLAI hWS> EPIKOUROU). TOUS LOGIZOMENOUS hHMAS hWS KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS 2 Cor 10:2> (s. also 1c above). Cf. 11:17; 13:7. Israel wishes to become righteous OUK EK> PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EC ERGWN not through faith but through deeds (the latter way> being objectively wrong) Ro 9:32 (Rdm.2 26f).Thanks, Clay and George, for the helpful information. I do still have a fewquestions. I think I understand the “subjective” idea better, especially inlight of the comment by Sanday & Headlam. I already understood hWS EX ERGWNto mean something like “as if by works,” meaning in the mind of those whowere pursuing righteousness as such, but did not connect the label”subjective” to it. I think part of my confusion arose from the definitionof the grammatical tag “subjective” in Accordance: “A subjective particle isapplied to ‘hWS’ introducing a noun clause such as ‘as if.'” What I focusedon was the idea of it introducing a noun clause. So I guess my confusion wasmore syntactic than semantic. My understanding of the clause, supplyingimplied words, is as follows:hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL’ [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS EX ERGWN”because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as if itwere by works” (AUTON and “it” refer to NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS from v. 31)Since EK PISTEWS seems to be adverbial, modifying understood EDIWXAN, I aminclined to take hWS EX ERGWN as adverbial as well, subordinate to impliedEDIWXAN. But according to the Accordance definition of “subjective,” hWShere introduces a noun clause. The trouble is, I can’t conceive of it as anoun clause, nor can I understand what slot it might fill as a noun clause.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIslovullo at mac.com
Phil 4.10Greek Palindromes
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a jerker karlsson jerker_k at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 19 11:58:03 EDT 2002
Greek Palindromes First Year Greek I do agree with you. There is no reason why the phrase should be said to introduce at subjective clause. But I dont think that we by this reason alone are to infer that the phrase are adverbial. Another possible solution is to understand it as consecutive i.e. as a hWSTE clause. The meaning would then be that the Jews pursued the law in such a way that works excelled over faith. That is Because of what? Not because they pursued the righteousness of the law out of faith but that they pursued it as to produce human efforts.RegardsJerker KarlssonLund, Sweden>Since EK PISTEWS seems to be adverbial, modifying understood EDIWXAN, I am>inclined to take hWS EX ERGWN as adverbial as well, subordinate to implied>EDIWXAN. But according to the Accordance definition of “subjective,” hWS>here introduces a noun clause. The trouble is, I can’t conceive of it as a>noun clause, nor can I understand what slot it might fill as a noun clause.>From: Steven Lo Vullo <slovullo at mac.com>>Reply-To: Steven Lo Vullo <slovullo at mac.com>>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>>Subject: [] Re: hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a>Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:57:22 -0500>============> >Steven Lo Vullo>Madison, WI>slovullo at mac.com_________________________________________________________________Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Greek PalindromesFirst Year Greek
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Apr 19 21:25:24 EDT 2002
Ephesians 5:18-21 Greek Palindromes In a message dated 4/19/2002 7:59:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, slovullo at mac.com writes:Since EK PISTEWS seems to be adverbial, modifying understood EDIWXAN, I aminclined to take hWS EX ERGWN as adverbial as well, subordinate to impliedEDIWXAN. But according to the Accordance definition of “subjective,” hWShere introduces a noun clause. The trouble is, I can’t conceive of it as anoun clause, nor can I understand what slot it might fill as a noun clause.________________Yes. I find the label “subjective” somewhat confusing myself. (BTW: It’s not limited to Accordance – Logos also labels it thus) That’s why I speculated regarding its meaning.gfsomsel
Ephesians 5:18-21Greek Palindromes
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Dr. Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at multnomah.edu
Sat Apr 20 15:57:11 EDT 2002
First Year Greek Thessalonikeis’ Infinitive! Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>Hi all:> >Rom 9.32a: DIA TI? hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EX ERGWN> >My question concerns the use of hWS here. Accordance tags it as a subjective>particle. If I understand this correctly, it means that hWS introduces a>noun clause. But if so, what slot does it here fill? And can anyone give me>some advice as to how to distinguish hWS when it is a subjective particle>from hWS when it is a subordinating conjunction? I would have pegged the use>in Rom 9.32 as a subordinating conjunction.>============> >Steven Lo Vullo>Madison, WI>slovullo at mac.comA couple of things about this (which include some comments about subsequent posts on this issue):1) the reason that Logos and Accordance tag this the same way is because they are both using the Gramcord MorphGNT database, as does Gramcord for Windows, and now Biblesoft’s PC Study Bible (this is info, not an advertisement!)2) The Gramcord tag (which I didn’t create, but am responsible for, since I’m the editor of the text) of Particle, Subjective does in fact mean that the hWS is introducing a noun clause here, not a subordinate clause or adverbial modifier. I’m not sure where the quote in Accordance came from exactly (I think is was from an email conversation that I had with one of their associates), but it is accurate. I believe the term comes from one of the grammars, but since I’m at home, I’m not sure which one off the top of my head–Carl is the only one who can quote just about anything off the top of his head!! (-:3) Not intending to be pedantic but just explanatory…a noun clause will fill the slot a noun or adjective would fill, thus it is usually explanatory to some word or phrase. Thus, as a noun clause, as was pointed out in several quotes from commentaries, the hWS etc. is NOT saying, “They pursued it as if pursuing it by works.” That would be hWS as an adverbial modifier (= BDAG hWS I.1.).4) As a Noun Clause it is saying, as you said (though you wanted to classify it as adverbial):hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL’ [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS EX ERGWN”because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as if it were by works” (AUTON and “it” refer to NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS from v. 31)5) Thus, the hWS clause is providing an appositional/adjectival explanation, *not* of how they pursued it, but rather the nature of the NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS, ie., they thought it was a “law” which was by its nature attainable EX’ ERGWN.6) BDAG’s translation is misleading in terms of where they locate it within the hWS article, since it sounds like they are saying that the hWS clause explains how they pursued it (which means that it should be in category I.1.)…but if you compare the definition for the section (“III. hWS introduces the characteristic quality of a pers., thing, or action, etc., referred to in the context.”; ie., a noun clause explaining/appositional/adjectival to another word or phrase in the context) and other two examples in the section (which are clearly explanatory noun clauses), their explanation and translation don’t fit: > III. hWS introduces the characteristic quality of a pers., thing, or action, > etc., referred to in the context. > > 3. a quality wrongly claimed, in any case objectively false EPISTOH hWS DI’ > hHMWN a letter (falsely) alleged to be from us 2 Th 2:2a (Diod. S. 33, 5, 5 > EPEMYAN hWS PARA TWN PRESBEUTWN EPISTOHN they sent a letter which purported > to come from the emissaries; Diog. L. 10:3 falsified EPISTOLAI hWS > EPIKOUROU). TOUS LOGIZOMENOUS hHMAS hWS KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS 2 Cor 10:2 > (s. also 1c above). Cf. 11:17; 13:7. Israel wishes to become righteous OUK EK > PISTEWS ALL’ hWS EC ERGWN not through faith but through deeds (the latter way > being objectively wrong) Ro 9:32 (Rdm.2 26f).7) I think most of the translations (but who ever really knows what translators are trying to do??!!) are trying to communicate this noun clause idea, eg., NRSV “…they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.”8) There are a whole lot of other problems in this passage, eg., what kind of “righteousness” are we talking about here…forensic, personal, eschatological; are “works” the works of the Mosaic Law, or other “deeds” of Pharisaic Judaism, etc., etc., etc….but I’m sure you’re aware of those things and how each conclusion on each one of those things effects your conclusions about the others.Hope that helps…Blessings…Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Editor, The GRAMCORD Morphological Greek New Testament***********************************************************************Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Research Prof., Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan St. Portland, OR 97220V: 503-2516416 E: dalemw at multnomah.edu***********************************************************************
First Year GreekThessalonikeis’ Infinitive!
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sat Apr 20 21:01:02 EDT 2002
More parsing Tabula Iliaca [apologies: off topic] Thanks very much, Dr. Wheeler, for taking the time to clarify things for me.I do still have one more question, though.> 3) Not intending to be pedantic but just explanatory…a noun clause will> fill the slot a noun or adjective would fill, thus it is usually> explanatory to some word or phrase. Thus, as a noun clause, as was pointed> out in several quotes from commentaries, the hWS etc. is NOT saying, “They> pursued it as if pursuing it by works.” That would be hWS as an adverbial> modifier (= BDAG hWS I.1.).> > 4) As a Noun Clause it is saying, as you said (though you wanted to> classify it as adverbial):> > hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL’ [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS EX ERGWN> > “because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as if it> were by works” (AUTON and “it” refer to NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS from v. 31)> > 5) Thus, the hWS clause is providing an appositional/adjectival> explanation, *not* of how they pursued it, but rather the nature of the> NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS, ie., they thought it was a “law” which was by its nature> attainable EX’ ERGWN.I am familiar with hWS introducing an appositive, such as it does in 1 Cor4.1:hOUTWS hHMAS LOGIZESQW ANQRWPOS hWS hUPHRETAS CRISTOU KAI OIKONOMOUSMUSTHRIWN QEOU.In these cases, though, there is usually an expressed appositive followinghWS.So if the hWS clause is appositional in Rom 9.32, can it be explained in thefollowing way?hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL’ [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS [NOMONDIKAIOSUNHS] EX ERGWN”because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as [a lawof righteousness] by worksI know this is a long way to go, but I want to make sure I understand howhWS is functioning in this particular instance.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIslovullo at mac.com
More parsingTabula Iliaca [apologies: off topic]
hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a Dr. Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at multnomah.edu
Mon Apr 22 11:43:10 EDT 2002
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6 hWS EX ERGWN Steven Lo Vullo wrote:>Thanks very much, Dr. Wheeler, for taking the time to clarify things for me.>I do still have one more question, though.> > > 3) Not intending to be pedantic but just explanatory…a noun clause will> > fill the slot a noun or adjective would fill, thus it is usually> > explanatory to some word or phrase. Thus, as a noun clause, as was pointed> > out in several quotes from commentaries, the hWS etc. is NOT saying, “They> > pursued it as if pursuing it by works.” That would be hWS as an adverbial> > modifier (= BDAG hWS I.1.).> >> > 4) As a Noun Clause it is saying, as you said (though you wanted to> > classify it as adverbial):> >> > hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL’ [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS EX ERGWN> >> > “because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as if it> > were by works” (AUTON and “it” refer to NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS from v. 31)> >> > 5) Thus, the hWS clause is providing an appositional/adjectival> > explanation, *not* of how they pursued it, but rather the nature of the> > NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS, ie., they thought it was a “law” which was by its nature> > attainable EX’ ERGWN.> >I am familiar with hWS introducing an appositive, such as it does in 1 Cor>4.1:> >hOUTWS hHMAS LOGIZESQW ANQRWPOS hWS hUPHRETAS CRISTOU KAI OIKONOMOUS>MUSTHRIWN QEOU.> >In these cases, though, there is usually an expressed appositive following>hWS.> >So if the hWS clause is appositional in Rom 9.32, can it be explained in the>following way?> >hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL’ [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS [NOMON>DIKAIOSUNHS] EX ERGWN> >“because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as [a law>of righteousness] by works> >I know this is a long way to go, but I want to make sure I understand how>hWS is functioning in this particular instance.>============Steve:I think that’s correct; I might amplify the translation a bit to make it clearer as: “but [they pursued it] as [if it were a law of righteous which could be attained] by works.” I think this is what Sanday and Headlam are trying to say in ICC and what the NRSV, etc., are trying to communicate…and what the GC tag is saying.Another way this could be understood is to take the hWS as causal (I think this less likely): “but [they pursued it] because [they thought it was a law of righteousness attainable] by works.”BTW, as I pointed out in my response to Moon, I was using the term “noun/substantival clause” in a very broad way…I suppose if you wanted to get very specific here this hWS introduces a second complementary predicate to the implicit first one = the direct object “it”…thus its a noun clause sitting in the object complement position (or, less likely, in apposition to “it”).Finally, remember, I’m not saying that this is the ONLY way to understand this…just one of the ways. Again it depends on how you understand the others words in the syntactical construction…the syntax could be understood in at least two very different ways depending on the meanings of Law, Righteousness, Works, Faith.Blessings…***********************************************************************Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Research Prof., Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan St. Portland, OR 97220V: 503-2516416 E: dalemw at multnomah.edu***********************************************************************
The structures of Gal 2:4 and 2:6hWS EX ERGWN