Rom. 1:4 EN DUNAMEI adverbial or adjectival
David L. Moore
dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Wed Jul 15 16:47:19 EDT 1998
I just wanted to add a reference that I had not previously come across
which is really helpful on this matter. It is in Turner's _Syntax_ volume
of Moulton's grammar (Moulton, III:221). It consists of a full section
dedicated to "Attributive Prepositional Phrases." What Turner says is that
the rule requiring an article before a prepositional phrase for it to be
construed with a preceding noun is in accordance with classical usage. The
NT includes this turn of expression. But the it also has a considerable
number of instances of omission of the mentioned article in such
constructions. The examples he lists do not include either Rom. 1:4 or
1:17, but the list is extensive enough to attest the usage.
Regards,
David Moore
At 02:06 PM 7/15/98 -0400, David L. Moore wrote:
>At 09:09 AM 7/15/98 -0700, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:
>>Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>> As I've said previously, unless EK PISTEWS is specifically attached to hO
>>> DIKAIOS by a repeated article, so that it reads hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS,
>>> then EK PISTEWS ought to construe ONLY with ZHSETAI.
>>
>>Well, a repeated article such as you suggest would most certainly nail
>>it to hO DIKAIOS. And the absence ot that article gives us the
>>adverb-adjective controversy. If we understand hO DE DIKAIOS ZESETAI
>>as a 'unit of discourse' which EK PISTEWS modifies, then the
>>difficulty vanishes.
>
> But it appears, in that case, the noun is only affected by the
>prepositional phrase through the *verb*, _ergo_ the phrase is functioning
>adverbially. Maybe it is better to approach this from the standpoint of
>the original question of this thread. Does the phrase EK PISTEWS function
>as an adverb or as an adjective? Of course, how one answers this question
>is going to influence how each of the components of this sentence are
>understood, and that may be what George is getting at. But also, the
>sentence as a whole will be understood quite differently depending on how
>one answers it.
>
> The rule that Carl Conrad has cited seems to satisfactorily conform to the
>data available without too many exceptions. And I think it is this maxim
>that should be applied in the case of EN DUNAMEI in Rom. 1:4 and probably
>also of EK PISTEWS in 1:17 even though certain interpretations of its
>context may seem to favor its being taken in an adjectival sense.
David L. Moore
Miami, Florida, USA
E-mail: dvdmoore at ix.netcom.com
Home Page: http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list