EF' hWi in Rom 5.12

Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Tue Dec 4 01:30:40 EST 2001



On Monday, December 3, 2001, at 06:40  AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> Steven, I think that here the hWi doesn't have an antecedent in what
> precedes but is rather a fairly common elliptical expression with
> antecedent pressed into the relative (or relative attracted into the 
> case
> of the implicit antecedent demonstrative): EF' hWi = EPI TOUTWi hWI =
> "because of this: that" or "because"; I think this EF' hWi has come to 
> be
> an adverbial conjunction in its own right, much like hOTI its 
> wide-ranging
> usage as a conjunction derivative ultimately from a relative pronoun.
>
> Other instances:
> 2 Cor 5:4 KAI GAR hOI ONTES EN TWi SKHNEI STENAZOMEN BAROUMENOI, EF' 
> hWi OU
> QELOMEN EKDUSASQAI ALL' EPENDUSASQAI, hINA KATAPOQHi TO QNHTON hUPO THS
> ZWHS.
>
> Phil 3:12 OUC hOTI HDH ELABON H HDH TETELEIWMAI, DIWKW DE EI KAI 
> KATALABW,
> EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN hUPO CRISTOU [IHSOU].
>
> Phil 4:10 ECARHN DE EN KURIWi MEGALWS hOTI HDH POTE ANEQALETE TO hUPER 
> EMOU
> FRONEIN, EF' hWi KAI EFRONEITE, HKAIREISQE DE.

Carl:

Thanks for your response. Yes, these examples are pretty convincing, 
especially since in the first two cases there is no explicit substantive 
whatsoever to serve as an antecedent, and in the third example none that 
makes any sense. Some have proposed ANQRWPOU as the antecedent in Rom 
5.12 (since hWi can be masculine), but the more I read the passage, the 
more unlikely this seems, the relative being so far removed (compared 
to, say, Acts 7.33, where EF' hWi follows immediately upon its 
antecedent, TOPOS).




More information about the B-Greek mailing list