[B-Greek] Article Participle Noun construction

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Apr 18 07:07:22 EDT 2004


At 11:59 AM -0500 4/15/04, Rob Matlack wrote:
>My question relates to the interpretation of the article participle noun
>construction. I found 89 such constructions in the NT (if I formed my
>search correctly). If the somewhat special constructions using the
>participle of legw (who is called X) are left out there are about 73
>left. (206 in OT & NT) Romans 8:34 shows up in the computer search, but
>clearly does not fit our discussion. There may be others. In general
>however, the construction seems to me to be of an adjectival participle
>in an attributive position (first attributive) giving some attribute of
>the noun. For example:
>Mat. 2:2 POU ESTIN hOTEXQEIS BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN
>Where is the born king of the Jews
>
>Many times these are translated with a relative clause: "Where is He who
>is Born King of the Jews". Usually that makes little difference in
>English. Now consider:
>James 1:5  ... AITEITW PARA TOU DIDONTOS QEOU PASIN hAPLWS KAI OUK
>ONEIDIZONTOS KAI DOQHSETAI AUTWi
>What is the idea here? "Let him ask from the giving God to all
>generously..." This is poor English, but it stress the giving attribute
>of God which James picks up in 1:12 & 1:17.
>
>But now consider Romans 4:24 where there is a significant difference in
>meaning if the relative clause translation is used. (I don't want to
>discuss theology, just what the Greek text says.)
>Romans 4:24 ALLA KAI DI' hHMAS OIS MELLEI LOGIZESQAI TOIS PISTEUOUSIN
>EPI TON EGEIRANTA IHSOUN TON KURION hHMWN EK NEKRWN
>"but also for our sakes, to whom it will certainly be inputed, to those
>who believe on the risen Jesus our Lord from the dead." That is rough
>English, but it is clearly different from the common translations: "but
>for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised
>from the dead Jesus our Lord". In the first the belief which results in
>imputation is in the Jesus who has the attribute of being risen and in
>the other the belief which results in imputation is in the One who
>raised Him.
>
>What say ye? Which is the meaning of the Greek text? BTW, I did search
>the archives, but I may have missed something. Thanks in advance for
>your insights.

I've read Arie's response(s) to this and agree essentially with what he has
said, but I would add a couple points:

(1) with regard to EGEIRANTA, as Arie has already said, cannot be passive,
so that the initial translation of Rom 4:24 offered above simply will not
work: it's NOT "believing on the risen Jesus, our Lord from the dead" but
rather "believing on the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead";

(2) Of the three passages cited for comparison, Mt 2:2, Jas 1:5 and Rom
4:24, I think each of these is somewhat different from the others:

In Mt 2:2 BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN is predicate to the passive participle
TECQEIS, so that the construction is comparable to hO WN BASILEUS TWN
IOUDAIWN ('the one who is King of the Jews') or hO KALOUMENOS BASILEUS TWN
IOUDAIWN ('the one who is called King of the Jews."

In Jas 1:5 I would understand QEOU as appositional or epexegetical to TOU
DIDONTOS and I think that in my translation, if I were trying to be
literalist, I'd set it off by hyphens or in parentheses: "from the one who
gives--namely God--to all without distinction and who does not bring shame
..."

In Rom 4:24 I'd understand the substantival participle TOIS PISTEUOUSIN ...
as appositional/epexegetical to the relative clause: " ... to whom
{righteousness) will be imputed--namely the ones believing on him who
raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." Although I can't recall exactly where
it/they are, I recall an instance or two in the GNT of a construction that
I've seen in Augustan Latin poetry (I know I've seen it in Horace and
Propertius): a relative clause preceding its antecedent. I suppose Iver
might argue that hOIS MELLEI LOGIZESQAI takes prior position before TOIS
PISTEUOUSIN because it's the more prominent item in the argument about
imputing righteousness to believers set forth in Romans 4. I'm inclined to
think this is a rhetorical device.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list