[B-Greek] Re: Romans 12:1
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sun Jul 18 17:41:50 EDT 2004
On Jul 17, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Brad Evers wrote:
> The speaker should have first solved this grammatical problem prior to
> drawing theological conclusions. "It should be noted that neuter
> plural
> nouns regularly take singular verbs." (Learn to Read New Testament
> Greek
> by David Alan Black, pg. 26).
Brad, I don't think this is really to the point, since neuter plural
nouns taking singular verbs is a peculiar grammatical phenomenon
applying to neuter nouns and does not apply across the board. It also
does not apply to the particular construction in question in Rom 12.1.
There we have a double accusative construction in which a plural direct
object is complemented by a singular noun:
PARAKALW ... hUMAS ... PARASTHSAI TA SWMATA hUMWN QUSIAN ZWSAN, KTL
The main question posed by the original poster is whether,
grammatically speaking, there should be agreement in number in this
type of construction. There are other examples in the NT of PARISTHMI
with accusatives in the object-complement construction:
(1) Singular pronoun-singular adjective (2 Tim 2.15)
(2) Singular pronoun-singular adjectival participle (Acts 1.3; 9.41)
(3) Singular noun-singular adjective (Eph 5.27; Col 1.28)
(4) Plural pronoun-plural adjective (Col 1.22)
(5) Plural pronoun-plural noun (Rom 6.16, 19)
(6) Plural noun-plural noun (Ro 6.13)
(7) Plural noun-singular noun (Rom 12.1; 2 Cor 11.2)
It seems to me that when the complement is adjectival there must be
agreement in number. However, when both direct object and complement
are nouns, there may in certain circumstances be disagreement in
number. This may also be the case with other verbs that may take the
object-complement construction (cf. Phil 3.7, 17; James 5.10).
But what significance may there be of a plural noun or pronoun direct
object and a singular noun complement? A close look at 2 Cor 11.2 may
be instructive:
ZHLW GAR HUMAS QEOU ZHLWi, hHRMOSAMHN GAR hUMAS hENI ANDRI PARQENON
hAGNHN PARASTHSAI TWi CRISTWi.
Though the pronoun hUMAS is not explicit in the infinitival clause, I
think most would agree that it must be supplied from the previous
clause. The idea is not that Paul's purpose was to present a pure
virgin to Christ, but that his purpose was to present *them* as a pure
virgin to Christ.
What is significant about this is that Paul's purpose is to present a
group of people as a "corporate" virgin to one husband, Christ. So here
the singular noun functioning as the complement DOES seem to indicate a
corporate entity. And I think Paul's idea of the church as a body is
not far from his thought here. So I think we must conclude that in
certain instances when we have a plural direct object and a singular
complement we should at least consider the possibility that the
singular noun MAY have a corporate significance.
But what about Rom 12.1? I think it is *possible* that Paul means to
indicate that the Romans were to offer their bodies as a unified,
corporate sacrifice. This idea gains some plausibility from the "body"
metaphor in the following context. However, I don't think one can
confine this sacrifice to a limited time and place, since there is
nothing in the context to indicate this. In fact, there is much to
contraindicate it. So it seems to me that the idea advanced by the
pastor to whom the original poster referred is improbable and seems
theologically motivated, though it may have a kernel of truth to it.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list