Rom 6:6

Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 26 09:08:30 EDT 2002


Kevin wrote:

----------
>How does the articular infinitive TOU MHKETI DOULEUEIN hHMAS THi hAMARIAS
>function in Rom 6:6? Grammarians seem to split over whether to identify it
>as an infinitive of purpose or an infinitive of result (with BDF remaining
>ambiguous on the question).
>
>I prefer viewing it as an infinitive of result, but perhaps my logic needs
>some critiquing. First, it seems odd to have an additional purpose clause
>(viz., with the articular infinitive) tacked onto the preceding purposive
>hINA clause. The articular infinitive seems to more naturally function
>consecutively here. Second, Rom 6:7 draws an inference concerning a result
>(or resulting state), not a purpose.
-----------

I have yet another option to include: maintain the ambiguity.

It seems to me that on many occasions, BOTH a purpose and result
are not only possible, but perhaps even intended by the writer.

The apostle John used this profusely. And I really do think that
one should consider the ambiguity of various constructs as
demonstrating a good understanding of first century rhetoric,
something your associate has written much on (by the way,
please pass on my appreciation for his works in Acts and
Galatians).

Incidently, BOTH ideas of purpose and result in this passage
make perfect sense, right?

My thoughts,

Mark Wilson


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list