Phil 2:13, etc.
email@example.com (Micheal Palmer) wrote:
>It is tempting to think that O( ENERGWN and O( DIKAIWN 'constitute
>relative clauses' because we must use relative clauses to translate them
>adequately into English. I doubt seriously, however, if a first century
>Greek speaker would have seen them as equivalent to relative clauses. We
>see them this way because of OUR language. They are, however, nominalized
>clauses as are relative clauses, but of quite a different sort. Whether or
>not Colwell's rules apply is another issue.
Turner's reference to Colwell is somewhat cryptic at this point. He
says, "E.C. Colwell (JBL, 52, 1933, 12-21) formulates rules for the art. with
predicate nouns in NT in sentences in which the verb occurs. He finds that
... in relative clauses it does not apply since nouns always follow the verb,
anarthrous or not" (Moulton III 183). I don't have access to Colwell's 1933
article; and since Turner gives no examples on this point, I supposed that he
was talking about substantives that serve the function of relative clauses.
Rom. 8:33 should probably not be considered in reference to Colwell's Canon
anyway, since the verb does not appear in the clause QEOS O( DIKAION.
Taking another tack on this matter, could the strong verbal force that
the participles have, both in Rom. 8:33 and Phil. 2:13, be significant in
infuluencing whether they are taken as subject or predicate? I can't help
but understand them as the latter. Practically all translations so
understand them, if you take "It is God" as making "God" the subject. At any
rate, practically all make "God" the subject in relation to the relative
clauses represented by the participles. But this comes full circle to the
question about Colwell's Canon, doesn't it.
David L. Moore