An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 9:22-24: Grammatical Challenges of εἰ δέ and Narrative Cohesion An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 9:22-24: Grammatical Challenges of εἰ δέ and Narrative Cohesion The passage of Romans 9:22-24 presents a significant exegetical challenge, primarily centered on the grammatical function and structural role of the introductory phrase εἰ δέ. The absence…
“`html An Exegetical Analysis of γαρ in Romans 5:7 An Exegetical Analysis of γαρ in Romans 5:7 This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of γαρ in Romans 5:7 is based on a b-greek discussion from October 14, 2001. The initial query centered on the two occurrences of the conjunction γαρ in Romans 5:7, specifically…
“`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;…
“`html An Exegetical Study of Romans 13:8 An Exegetical Study of Romans 13:8: The Obligation of Love and the Fulfillment of the Law This exegetical study of Question about translation of Romans 13:8 is based on a b-greek discussion from April 20, 2007. The initial discussion centers on translation difficulties encountered in Romans 13, particularly…
An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 8:16 body { font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 1.6; } h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-family: serif; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } h2 { font-size: 1.8em; } h3 { font-size: 1.4em; } blockquote { font-style: italic; margin-left: 20px; border-left: 3px solid #ccc; padding-left: 10px; } b { font-weight: bold; }…
“`html An Exegetical Analysis of Luke 23:45: The Nature of the Solar Obscuration An Exegetical Analysis of Luke 23:45: The Nature of the Solar Obscuration This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of Luke 23:45: The Nature of the Solar Obscuration is based on a b-greek discussion from Tue Oct 9 11:54:11 2001. The initial…
“`html An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 1:16 body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; max-width: 900px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 { font-family: Georgia, serif; color: #333; } h2 { font-size: 1.8em; border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.3em; margin-top: 1.5em; } h3 { font-size: 1.4em;…
An Exegetical Analysis of Romans 1:20: The Participle νοούμενα and its Relationship to καθορᾶται body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 20px; } h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; } h2 { font-size: 1.8em; margin-top: 2em; } h3 { font-size: 1.4em; margin-top: 1.5em; } p { margin-bottom: 1em; } blockquote { border-left:…
An Exegetical Study of Romans 1:17: “From Faith to Faith” and the Righteousness of God An Exegetical Study of Romans 1:17: “From Faith to Faith” and the Righteousness of God This exegetical study of Romans 1:17: An Examination of “From Faith to Faith” and the Righteousness of God is based on a b-greek discussion from…
The relevant text: καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην,
My question concerns the last prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι [καὶ] αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην, The first prepositional phrase used the same construction, the preposition eis with the articular infinitive. The first phrase would seem to express the purpose of God in making Abraham the father of all who believe. Should the second phrase be understood as purpose or result, or is there some overlap in the two? Should the second phrase be applied to all those who believe, or should it be construed as the first phrase with the purpose of God. If the former, unbelievers would want to believe (one supposes) for the purpose of being imputed righteousness, but the fact that they do believe indicates that as a result they are imputed righteousness.
Thanks in advance,
Statistics: Posted by ronsnider1 — July 16th, 2014, 12:04 pm
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑June 17th, 2017, 11:22 pmJonathan Robie wrote: ↑June 15th, 2017, 3:17 pmSeveral translations seem to translate κατά “just as”, giving a nice parallelism:
***
But can κατά really bend that way? Can you think of similar constructions where it is used like this? Or is there another justification for this kind of translation?Translations are best thought of more of a guide to how someone interpreted the text rather than a commentary on the grammatical structures per se of the source text.
Of course, but translations seem to follow two very different ways of understanding this particular text. And these two different interpretations seem to be found in commentaries as well.
One interpretation takes ἅγιον to be a substantive, the other takes it to be a predicate complement.
Stephen Carlson wrote: ↑June 17th, 2017, 11:22 pmA more literal ‘translation’ would be something like “in accordance with the holy one who called you” and even that does certain transformations like participle to relative clause, adding a “one” to substantive the adjective, etc. These transformations only become problematic with they seem to depart from fidelity to the sense of the source.
That’s a more literal translation of this interpretation (the one shown in my last post):
κατὰ
ἅγιον
And that agrees with Meyer, as quoted above. NET and NASB both understand the Greek text this way. Here is NASB:
NASB wrote:but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
I think I’ve persuaded myself that I like this understanding best. But ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, KJV, etc. are based on a different understanding of the Greek text. Here is ESV:
ESV wrote:but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
That seems to follow this understanding of the text:
+ ἀλλὰ
s καὶ αὐτοὶ
pc ἅγιοι
+ ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ
v γενήθητε
Expositor’s Greek argues for this interpretation:
Expositor’s Greek wrote:—ἅγιον is better taken as predicate than as substantive, since ὁ καλέσας (καλῶν) is well-established as a title of God in His relation to Gentile Christians (cf. 1 Peter 2:9, etc.)
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — June 18th, 2017, 12:07 pm
I don’t know if you would find this helpful, but a really technical analysis of Ancient Greek participles and their relation to the main verb is found here in a article by Dag Haug and Corien Bary: http://semprag.org/article/download/sp.4.8/pdf_1 A poster of their views in brief can be found here: http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/rese … poster.pdf
The participles you point out would be considered “elaborations” and their function is to provide more information about the main verb. They are not intended to interact with the time of the context (just that of the main verb) or to introduce a new event time into the discourse. In Wallace’s terms, they would be classified as a circumstance participle of manner or something like that.
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — February 14th, 2014, 4:31 pm
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
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 …
“`html An Exegetical Examination of κοινός in Romans 14:14: Addressing Translational Divergence An Exegetical Examination of κοινός in Romans 14:14: Addressing Translational Divergence This exegetical study of An Exegetical Examination of κοινός in Romans 14:14: Addressing Translational Divergence is based on an ongoing b-greek discussion concerning the adjective κοινός. The discussion notes that κοινός appears…
Timothy,
Thanks for he correction, you are right of course. You response highlights what I was trying to get at… namely are there a clear grammatical reasons for the way Paul constructs this passage or is do we have to rely more on logical inference for the antecedents? I am not sufficiently familiar with relative pronoun constructions to know if this is a typical structure. My observation for what its worth (very little probably) is that Paul has opted for a certain amount of rhetorical beauty and balance, a sort of aesthetic quality for effect, almost poetic! Obviously the over all context makes it clear what he means.
Paul Evans
Wilmington, NC
Statistics: Posted by Paul Evans — October 19th, 2013, 9:35 am
