Hi, I found an answer to my question, while scanning the thick grammar book by A. T. Robertson, p. 1184.
Sometimes a word is repeated with DE for special emphasis, as DIKAISUNH in Ro 3:22( cf. 9:30).
9:30:
EQNH TA MH DIWKONTA DIKAIOSUNHN KATELABEN DIKAISUNHN, DIKAISUNHN DE THN EK PISTEWS.
So, if DE can introduce a phrase as Rom 9:30, the answer to my question is obvious.
Moon Jung
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 10th, 2014, 7:52 am
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
It seems like this is a Hebraism. In Hebrew, “to be” + preposition “Le” means “to become”, e.g. to become a wife, a people, son, father etc.
Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — January 30th, 2014, 10:50 am
Mr. Conrad,
I tend to agree with you.
Added to that is that Paul calls what is happening a “mystery.” The 10 Northern Tribes being brought back into the “fold” (2 sticks becoming one, Ezekiel 37) would not have been a mystery since their Scriptures clearly expressed what would happen.
Thank you for the response. I appreciate it.
Dustin Curlee
Statistics: Posted by dcurlee — December 21st, 2013, 5:17 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Actually, the phrase is καὶ ἐάν = even if.
WOW. That’s it. Thanks.
Moon
Statistics: Posted by moon — June 13th, 2014, 4:51 pm
Stephen Hughes wrote:Philippians 4:10 wrote:Ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως, ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν· ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαιρεῖσθε δέ.What explanation can be put forward to describe why ἠκαιρεῖσθε is in the middle voice here?
[The antonym εὐκαιρεῖν is used in the active voice, both absolutely ἐλεύσεται δὲ ὅταν εὐκαιρήσῃ. (1 Corinthians 16:12), and in conjunction with an infinitive οὐδὲ φαγεῖν εὐκαίρουν. (Mark 6:31).]
I’ve noted Mike’s comment and the further elaboration Stephen has offered. I think Mke is right here to say we’d have a better notion if we had more instances of the verb’s usage, but DGE (see Logeion) offers additional support for middle-passive usage;
it’s also the case that we don’t have much doubt about what Paul is saying in this rather informally-phrased locution: “Your impulsive thoughtfulness on my behalf has deeply gratified me — the fact that you wanted to do something but had no opportunity.” It seems to me that ἠκαιρεῖσθε here is a personal usage involving deprivation: Subject-affectedness is discerned and expressed in the middle voice here.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — March 18th, 2017, 8:44 am
MAubrey wrote: ↑November 27th, 2017, 7:25 pmIf you remember, Rachel and I talked about a comparable example in Galatians back in Cambridge in June/July.starting on page 40…https://www.academia.edu/34125524/The_c … structionsThanks, this is exactly…
Stephen Hughes wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 11:29 amJonathan Robie wrote: ↑October 24th, 2017, 6:01 amI don’t want this to get lost – Timothy is correct here, and this is the one direct response to the question in the OP.ταυτη is not referring back to …
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…
Pat Ferguson wrote:
Here’s what another source relates:Old English hors, from Proto-Germanic *hursa- …, of unknown origin, connected by some with PIE root *kurs-, source of Latin currere “to run”.
The usual Indo-European word is represented by Old English eoh, from PIE *ekwo- “horse” (see equine). In many other languages, as in English, this root has been lost in favor of synonyms, probably via superstitious taboo on uttering the name of an animal so important in Indo-European religion. (Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary 2013)
That quote just says that the Germanic etymon of English horse is of obscure origin; it doesn’t say anything about ἵππος. And if you click on the word equine from where you quoted it, it says that ἵππος comes from the PIE *ekwo-.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 11th, 2014, 5:44 pm
