[B-Greek] Romans 6:11
Carlton Winbery
winberycl at earthlink.net
Mon Aug 1 22:02:20 EDT 2005
David Bielby wrote: Can someone refresh me on this construction? Is
there a grammatical rule
here?
>LOGIZESQE EAUTOUS
>All Zerwick says is that it is a 3rd plural for a 2nd.
>While I'm on this chapter I have another question about the term
>ESOMEQA in Romans 6:5. Zerwick cites a lesson dealing with
>this term as a Future Participle. Is this a future participle? I have it
>parsed as a Future Middle Indicative-can someone explain the
>significance of his reference there?
>Zerwick's entry says 'ESOMEQA' fut. EIMI fut. "Connoting 'now that we are
>baptized, we", logical rather than temporal (cf 5:19) Latin ed.
>and then cites a lesson on how the future participle dropped out of use by
>and
>large and that the question may be raised whether the present participle
>may stand at times for the future. However I don't see a participle at all
>here.
>Is this an error is there something I'm missing in the comments? He is very
>brief and so maybe one of the big Greeks can illuminate me.
>Merci beaucoup!!
Its best to have the text before us.
Rom. 6:11 hOUTWS KAI hUMEIS LOGIZESQE hEAUTOUS [EINAI] NEKROUS MEN
THi hAMARTIAi ZWNTAS DE TWi QEWi EN CRISTWi IHSOU.
EINAI must be understood if it is not part of the text for it links
hEAUTOUS and NEKROUS. hEAUTOUS functions also as (subject) of the
understood infinitive and the whole structure is the extension of the
verb (dir. object). I wish I had my copy of Zerwick unpacked so I
could check what he says. I find that he usually gets it correct. The
only participle present in this verse is ZWNTAS in the accusative
case for it is used in contrast with NEKROUS, "on the one hand dead .
. . but living . . .."
Carlton Winbery
--
Carlton L. Winbery
Retired Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
318-448-6103
winberycl at earthlink.net
winbery at lacollege.edu
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list