Rom. 2:6-8--why nominatives in THAT slot?

Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Sat Aug 10 09:48:31 EDT 2002


On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 18:10, Daniel wrote:
>
>     I would agree with Clay's response, regarding the implicit
> copulative. If I remember correctly, this is how both the KJV and
> Darby handle this verse, along with the NIV.  However, I sympathize
> with Mike's concern, which is still: "Why?"
>
>     And it seems to me that the answer is found in Mike's original
> post.  Mike wrote,
>
> > > Given the parallelism in this text, why are ORGH and QUMOS nominatives?
>
> Perhaps this is the point . . . while there is certainly a surface
> level parallelism in the passage (up to the final three words), there
> is not a syntactical parallel. It is destroyed by the nominatives 
> Thus, the reason for the nominatives may simply be to make the reader
> stop and say "Hmmm . . . ORGH KAI QUMOS !"  If so, it worked :-)

I kinda like that.  And that does describe rather well what happened to
me.  I analyzed the structure until I was comfortable I understood it,
then I sat back and read it as if for the first time; I thought, "Hey,
what's with the nominatives?  Am I to focus on them?  What are you
saying to me, Paul, with this ORGH KAI QUMOS stuff?"

This got me thinking.  <smile>

Which brought me to the following.

Not to dismiss what Clay said, but I wonder sometimes if we too quickly
conclude to add the copula.  To me, it feels so much like I'm
Englishizing the Greek.  That is, I'm reading the Greek through English
eyes.  In English, in order to get it to fit my way of thinking, I need
some sort of copula in there.  But when Paul was dictating this, when he
was thinking it, he didn't.  Why?  What drove HIS choices?

First, some observations:
        * It appears to me that Rom 2:5-11 is chiastic
    
    Fronted topic sentence:   2:5   The storing up of wrath
      A      2:6   God measures people according to what they've done
        B    2:7     Good works are rewarded
          C  2:8       Selfish ambition is judged as wrong
          C' 2:9       Distress for everyone who does wrong
        B'   2:10    Jew or Gentile will both be rewarded
      A'     2:11  God shows no favoritism
    
        * Notice at the start of the paragraph (2:5) the subject of the
          verb is implicit:  KATA DE THN SKLHROTHTA SOU KAI AMETANOHTON
          KARDIAN QHSAURIZEIS SEAUTWi ORGHN.  There's no nominative.  In
          other words, the grammatical subject is NOT made prominent in
          any way.  So,  what's the theme of the paragraph?  I suspect
          that to a careful Greek reader, one thinking in Greek, because
          the grammatical subject is not made prominent, a question
          comes to mind--what IS prominent?  What's he REALLY talking
          about?
        * That question hangs there until these nominatives slap ya
          along side the head.  Which, interestingly enough, are dead
          center in the chiasm!!!

It's like Paul is doing the following in verse 8:

    ...on the other hand, those who are selfishly ambitious and who
    disobey the truth <pause>...  Well, <pause> it's wrath and anger for
    those who adhere to unrighteous behavior.

Admittedly, that's not very good English as far as following good
grammar.  And yet I can hear someone say (preach) those words in that
way.  That last clause hits with a WHAM!

So, could it be that ORGH and QUMOS are nominatives because they really
ARE the subject--they really are the thematic focus--of the entire
paragraph?  If that's true, then Paul using nominatives there is really
quite natural.  That doesn't dismiss the need for a copula in order to
make it work in English; but it's perfectly natural Greek which flows
from a Greek mind making grammatical and linguistic choices as it
dictates the words.  The advantage, as I see it, to the above
explanation, is that it explains (tries to explain) WHY Paul made those
choices that we find in the text.

And just to be clear (hopefully) what I'm really trying to get at is how
the Greek works.  I'm dealing at a level higher than the typical grammar
question, but my questions still are really about the natural
functioning of the Greek.

-- 
Mike Sangrey
msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Landisburg, Pa.
                        "The first one last wins."
            "A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."




More information about the B-Greek mailing list