[B-Greek] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN

Mike Sangrey msangrey at BlueFeltHat.org
Thu Apr 29 19:24:54 EDT 2004


On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 11:37, Paul Toseland wrote:
<snip>
> Hence, it seems, Rom 1:17 may be rendered as follows:
> 
> 'In the gospel, right relationship with God is being 
> revealed: It is a path which begins in faithfulness
> and ends in faithfulness; as it is written, 
> The righteous shall live by faithfulness.' [I've adjusted this
> to reflect Paul's later posting. -- Mike Sangrey]
> 
> [By faith(fulness) I mean, of course, to express the
> ambiguity that Lawrence has rightly suggestsed may be
> intended in Paul's Greek.]
> 
> If this is right, then Rom 1:17 states the theme of the whole letter.

I agee completely.  And I agree with Lawrence Schnell, too, when he
wrote:
>But Paul may be deliberately vague as to whose
>faithfulness is in view, because in covenant both
>parties obligate themselves to faithfulness, even if
>it originates first with God. 

I'd like to add a couple of points given Paul Toseland's statement about
theme.  The theme is not only of Romans, but ALSO the theme to the
entire discourse of Habakuk.

A far, far too brief summary of Habakuk (this is BGreek, afterall!)
A  Habakuk complains that Israel is messed up;
        B  God says, "I'll solve that by the Babylonians taking over";
                C  Habakuk says, "What da huh?"
                C' God replies that "the righteous will live by
                faithfulness (implying, I believe given the context,
                covenantal faithfulness and God states it in an
                ambiguous way).
        B' Next is a description of judgement on the Babylonians
A' And last:  a prayer by Habakuk based on God being absolute and also
faithful.

Habakuk ends with a summary statement that he will be faithful because
God is faithful.

So, interestingly, the above forms a chiastic structure essentially
folded around 2:4.  I believe Paul brings that entire theme forward into
Romans.  Therefore, there is a purposeful ambiguity in Rom. 1:17 which
needs to be reflected in the translation.  All the arguments over 1:17
trying to resolve the ambiguity, while understandable, are "resolved" by
accepting the ambiguity is intended--but clearly intended.

If I might add this lends substantive support to the understanding of
the controversial genitives in Rom. 3 as subjective--it is Jesus'
faithfulness to which we need to respond to in faith.

So, coming to grips with the THEME of LARGE discourses (Rom. 1-3 and
Habakuk), especially when the author textually inter-relates them,
enables one to either disambiguate the text or to make a case (at least)
for a clearly intended ambiguity.

-- 
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