hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a

Dr. Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at multnomah.edu
Mon Apr 22 11:43:10 EDT 2002


Steven Lo Vullo wrote:

>Thanks very much, Dr. Wheeler, for taking the time to clarify things for me.
>I do still have one more question, though.
>
> > 3) Not intending to be pedantic but just explanatory...a noun clause will
> > fill the slot a noun or adjective would fill, thus it is usually
> > explanatory to some word or phrase.  Thus, as a noun clause, as was pointed
> > out in several quotes from commentaries, the hWS etc. is NOT saying,  "They
> > pursued it as if pursuing it by works."  That would be hWS as an adverbial
> > modifier (= BDAG hWS I.1.).
> >
> > 4) As a Noun Clause it is saying, as you said (though you wanted to
> > classify it as adverbial):
> >
> > hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL' [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS EX ERGWN
> >
> > "because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as if it
> > were by works" (AUTON and "it" refer to NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS from v. 31)
> >
> > 5) Thus, the hWS clause is providing an appositional/adjectival
> > explanation, *not* of how they pursued it, but rather the nature of the
> > NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS, ie., they thought it was a "law" which was by its nature
> > attainable EX' ERGWN.
>
>I am familiar with hWS introducing an appositive, such as it does in 1 Cor
>4.1:
>
>hOUTWS hHMAS LOGIZESQW ANQRWPOS hWS hUPHRETAS CRISTOU KAI OIKONOMOUS
>MUSTHRIWN QEOU.
>
>In these cases, though, there is usually an expressed appositive following
>hWS.
>
>So if the hWS clause is appositional in Rom 9.32, can it be explained in the
>following way?
>
>hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL' [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS [NOMON
>DIKAIOSUNHS] EX ERGWN
>
>"because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as [a law
>of righteousness] by works
>
>I know this is a long way to go, but I want to make sure I understand how
>hWS is functioning in this particular instance.
>============

Steve:

I think that's correct; I might amplify the translation a bit to make it 
clearer as: "but [they pursued it] as [if it were a law of righteous which 
could be attained] by works."  I think this is what Sanday and Headlam are 
trying to say in ICC and what the NRSV, etc., are trying to 
communicate...and what the GC tag is saying.

Another way this could be understood is to take the hWS as causal (I think 
this less likely): "but [they pursued it] because [they thought it was a 
law of righteousness attainable] by works."

BTW, as I pointed out in my response to Moon, I was using the term 
"noun/substantival clause" in a very broad way...I suppose if you wanted to 
get very specific here  this hWS introduces a second complementary 
predicate to the implicit first one = the direct object "it"...thus its a 
noun clause sitting in the object complement position (or, less likely, in 
apposition to "it").

Finally, remember, I'm not saying that this is the ONLY way to understand 
this...just one of the ways.  Again it depends on how you understand the 
others words in the syntactical construction...the syntax could be 
understood in at least two very different ways depending on the meanings of 
Law, Righteousness, Works, Faith.

Blessings...


***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Prof., Biblical Languages          Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan St.                                  Portland, OR 97220
V: 503-2516416                                 E: dalemw at multnomah.edu
***********************************************************************




More information about the B-Greek mailing list