[B-Greek] Romans 1:16

Mark Lama markosl80 at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 10 16:43:56 EDT 2003



"Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 at comcast.net> wrote: 
OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION, DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN *EIS* SWTHRIAN *PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hELLHNI* 

If memory serves (and I don't have the opportunity at the moment to
consult any commentaries) this statement by Paul is usually taken to be
an attempt at offering a definition of what the "gospel" **is** -- as if
somehow this needed clarifying.

But is there anything in the grammar and syntax of the text to give us
reason to believe that what Paul is doing is responding to a challenge?
That is to say, is there any grammatical or syntactical or stylistic
(or, if I might ask, contextual) reason to see that what Paul is up to
here is not answering a question (what is the Gospel?, how do **you**
define it?), but is defending a claim **about** what the (his) Gospel
is **that is in dispute** -- and is in effect saying something along
the lines of "contrary to what has been said about TO EUAGGELION, it
is indeed the power of God for the purpose of Salvation?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Yours,

Jeffrey


--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000 at comcast.net


---
[Mark]

Hello, Jeffrey,

Looking at the syntax of the verse we see that it consists of two halves, both assertions of fact, the second (with GAR) supporting the first. There is no purely syntactic issue here or in the context that I think could be adduced to exclude the possibility of the statements of fact being made for defensive and not explanatory purposes. In fact, the phrase "I am not ashamed" can be very defensive, depending on the occasion and intent of its use. But there is little information in the immediate context of the verse to give specificity to its use. Paul is often defending what he calls "my gospel," even to those he has previously evangelized. But when he gets defensive, I notice that he usually makes the "contrary to what has been said" part explicit, at least noting the opposition or contradiction that has occasioned his defense. I don't think there is a decisive stylistic factor here one way or the other. He could well, in my view, be declaring what the gospel is, rhetorically, before
 launching into his detailed development of it -- or he could be making the same assertion in a mildly defensive way, contra a perception of the EUAGGELION that he views as incorrect. There is no overt marker in the text that I can see that would preclude either perception-- no "defensive" mood in Greek :-).

CARIS KAI EIRHNH,

Mark Lama




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search


More information about the B-Greek mailing list