Romans 13:10

“`html An Exegetical Analysis of Rom. 13:10a: The Substantive Use of πλησίον body { font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; } h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { color: #333; } blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; font-style: italic; } b { font-weight: bold; } i { font-style: italic;…

Romans 3:9

IOUDAIOUS TE KAI HELLHNAS (Rom 3 9)

“`html An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 3:9: The Conjunction τε και and the Universal Scope of Sin body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; color: #333; margin: 0 auto; max-width: 900px; padding: 20px; } h1, h2, h3 { color: #2c3e50; } h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 30px; } h3…

Roman 1:17

Roman 1:17

“`html An Exegetical Study of Romans 1:17: The Ambiguity of ‘Faith’ and the ‘from-to’ Construction body { font-family: “Palatino Linotype”, “Book Antiqua”, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; color: #333; max-width: 900px; margin: 2em auto; padding: 0 1em; } h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { color: #2c3e50; margin-top: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 0.8em; } h2 { font-size: 1.8em;…

Romans 14:21

“`html The Aspectual Force of Aorist Infinitives in Romans 14:21: Situational Abstention or Continuous Prohibition? The Aspectual Force of Aorist Infinitives in Romans 14:21: Situational Abstention or Continuous Prohibition? This exegetical study of “Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives” is based on a b-greek discussion from June 12, 2007. The initial query concerned the interpretation of Romans…

Romans 9:32

The Grammatical and Semantic Function of ὡς ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 9:32a This exegetical study of The Grammatical and Semantic Function of ὡς ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 9:32a is based on a b-greek discussion from Thu Apr 18 21:18:05 EDT 2002. The initial query concerned the use of ὡς in Romans 9:32a, specifically its classification…

Romans 9:6

“`html An Exegetical Study of Romans 9:6: The Syntactic Function of οὐχ οἷον … ὅτι body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; } h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; } h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 30px; } h3 { margin-top: 20px; } blockquote { background: #f9f9f9; border-left:…

Romans 4:1

A Better Translation Of Rom 4 1

“`html A Grammatical and Rhetorical Analysis of Romans 4:1 A Grammatical and Rhetorical Analysis of Romans 4:1 This exegetical study of Romans 4:1 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 23, 2001. The initial query highlights a significant divergence in the translation of Romans 4:1, contrasting a common rendering, exemplified by the NIV (“What…

Romans 2:4

Genitives In Rom. 2 4

“`html An Exegetical Analysis of Genitives in Romans 2:4 An Exegetical Analysis of Genitives in Romans 2:4 This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Genitives in Romans 2:4 is based on a b-greek discussion from Thu Feb 6 03:14:29 EST 2003. The initial inquiry raised a question concerning the grammatical construction of Romans 2:4,…

Romans 3:19

New Testament • Re: Parsing of  Rom 3:19 and ἵνα clause as complement

It seems agreed that we distinguish “semantics” and “(discourse) functions” of a word, and
we should not transfer the functions of the word derived from context to the semantics of the word.

In connection with ἱνα I would pose a hypothesis that
ἱνα introduces a non-indicative (modal) content
that is potential, contingent, etc in contrast to the content introduced by a ὁτι clase, which is actual.
That is the semantics of ἱνα. More than that, e.g. wish, intention, purpose, obligation, command, etc
is derived from context.

I think that this is the minimum that Sim proposes after all things that look like over-interpretation are filtered out.

To support this hypothesis, let me cite two more examples in additionn to the one already given.

(1) The original example,

εκηρυσσεν τον Ιησοῦν ὁτι οὗτος εστιν ὁ υἱοσς τοῦ θεοῦ.
He was proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God.
VERSUS
Και εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν ἱνα ὁτιμετανοῶσιν.
Going out, they preached that people should repent.

Here the ὁτι clause and the ὁτι clause correspond to each well.
The only difference seems that the one describes an indicative content, whereas
the other a non-indicative content. The more specific content is derived from the context and the
nature of the main verb.

(2)
LXX Exo 6:11.
εισελθε λαλησον Φαρθω βασιλεῖ Αιγυπτου ̔ινα εξαποστειλῃ τους υἱους Ισραελ εκ τῆς αυτοῦ.
KJV: Go in, speak unto Pharaho king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Here ̔the ινα clause specifies the content of the request. To think about “a purposed result”
seems to be an over-interpretation.

(3) Num 21:5
και κατελαλει ὁ λαος προσ τον θοεν και κατα Μωυσῆ λεγοντες ἱνα τι εξͅγαγες ἡμας εξ Αιγυπτου..
The people spoke against God and against Moes, saying “Why did you bring out out of Egypt..”

[Similarly with 2Sa 19:12]

Here ̔the ινα clause introduces a direct question, meaning that Moses shouldn’t have done that,
which is a non-indicative content.

Let me present two verses from LXX as examples where the ̔the ινα clause is the content of speech.

If I apply this idea to Rom 3:19, I could obtain:

[With reference to ] what the law says to those in the law, it (= the law) speaks that every mouth
should be stopped and all the world should be guilty before God.

[ It is difficult to express the subtle nuance of Greek subjunctive in English. So, the use of “should” should
be simply taken to indicate that it is a pointer fo the subjunctive verb in Greek. ]

Here I took ὁσα ὁ νομος λεγει τοῖς εν τῷ νομῳ to be an instance of the accusative of reference.

A similar construction is found in Rom 10:5:

Μωυσῆ γαρ γραφει την δικαιοσυνην την εκ τοῦ νομου ὁτι ὁ ποιησας αυτα ανθρωποσ ζησεται εν αυτοις.
Moses writes with reference to the righteousness from the law that the person who does them shall live in them.

Statistics: Posted by moon — June 29th, 2014, 7:34 am


Romans 3:21

New Testament • Re: Rom 3:21-22: Ellipse of  verb

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