hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a
c stirling bartholomew
cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Thu Apr 18 23:14:33 EDT 2002
on 4/18/02 6:18 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:
> Rom 9.32a: DIA TI? hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL' hWS EX ERGWN
>
> My question concerns the use of hWS here. Accordance tags it as a subjective
> particle. If I understand this correctly, it means that hWS introduces a
> noun clause. But if so, what slot does it here fill? And can anyone give me
> some advice as to how to distinguish hWS when it is a subjective particle
> from hWS when it is a subordinating conjunction? I would have pegged the use
> in Rom 9.32 as a subordinating conjunction.
ROM. 9:31 ISRAHL DE DIWKWN NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS EIS NOMON OUK EFQASEN.
ROM. 9:32 DIA TI; hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL' hWS EX ERGWN: PROSEKOYAN TWi
LIQWi TOU PROSKOMMATOS,
Not a direct answer to your question but some light on subjective tag for
hWS.
Sandy&Headlam (Rom. ICC, p.280): "The hWS introduces a subjective idea. St.
Paul wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that EX ERGWN was a
method by which NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS might be pursued. He therefore represented
it as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they thought they could gain
it."
C.E.B. Cranfield (Rom. ICC, p.511) appears to agree with this analysis. I
also found useful information on this in Danker hWS 3.c (p.1105) or BAGD
hWS III.3 (p.898) and also BDF #425(3).
Bengel reads hWS as quasi, from the vulgate "quasi ex operibus."
I understand your slot question but it is too late in the day for solving
that one. Perhaps someone from tommorow morning (Australia, Jerusalem,
Korea) can address that question.
Clay
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list