Romans 7:3

Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Mon Oct 14 23:58:51 EDT 2002



In a message dated 10/14/02 3:56:41 PM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:

>At 8:30 PM +0000 10/14/02, Mark Wilson wrote:
>>David:
>>
>>You wrote:
>>
>>------
>>>Why is the noun in this clause, MOICALIS CRHMATISEI, in the nominative
>>>case?
>>>With an active verb, it appears the noun should be accusative unless
>the
>>>noun is the subject or unless the noun is functioning somewhat like a
>>>predicate nominative by renaming the subject (despite the active verb).
>>------
>>
>>MOICALIS is not a noun. It's an adjective.
>
>Although it CAN be adjectival, I'd call MOICALIS a noun in this context
>where it is a predicate nominative, and BDAG lists it as such
>MOICALIS/-IDOS, hH. CRHMATIZW is a somewhat peculiar verb. BDAG notes under
>B2: "2. to take/bear a name/title (as so and so), to go under the name
>of,
>act., but freq. rendered as pass. in Engl. tr.: be called/named, be
>identified as." That is CRHMATIZW here works something like German
>"heissen" or French "s'appeller." "she will be called an adulteress."
>-- 
Carl, deals with MOICALIS by making CRHMATIZW function like a linking verb. 
Others, especially in the A.T. Robertson tradition, call nouns used in this 
way as nominatives of appelation. Examples are either with passive verbs of 
active. Eg. Rev. 9:11 ONOMA ECEI APOLLUWN. Note that APOLLUWN is in aposition 
to an accusative ONOMA. John 13:13, FWNEITE ME hO DIDASKALOS KAN hO KURIOS. 
Note that hO DIDASKALOS KAN hO KURIOS is in apposition to ME. Luke 2:21 
EKLHQH TO ONOMA AUTOU IHSOUS. These could be dealt with by having understood 
forms of EIMEI, but is that necessary? It seems to me that the writers 
consider the names important enough to express them in the nominative case.

Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College



More information about the B-Greek mailing list