[B-Greek] Romans 2:4 adjective XRHSTON
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at juno.com
Fri Dec 30 03:20:48 EST 2005
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:23:29 +1000 "craig" <newsgroupstuff at people.net.au>
writes:
> In looking at Romans 2:4 I was intrigued by the use of the adjective
> XRHSTON, in second part of verse, as opposed to use of the noun
> XRHSTOTHTOS
> in first part of the verse.
>
> I think I can understand why the noun is used in the first part of
> 2:4.
> However, is there a grammatical reason it couldn't also have been
> used
> later, and that the adjective needed to be used? It also seems
> unusual that
> in English we translate it as a noun (goodness) instead of an
> adjective
> (good), although I can see the awkwardness of translating as 'the
> good of
> God'.
>
> Any clarifications on this for me?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Craig Johnson
> Brisbane, Australia
____________________
hH TOU PLOUTOU THS XRHSTOTHTOS AUTOU KAI THS ANOXHS KAI THS MAKROQUMIAS
KATAFRONEIS, AGNOWN hOTI TO XRHSTON TOU QEOU EI METANOIAN SE AGEI?
While the noun could have been used again in the second part of the
verse, it is not unusual to find an adjective used as a substantive and,
not surprisingly, every translation I looked at did so translate it (AV,
ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, ESV). Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics, p. 294) notes
The adjective is frequently used independently of a noun. That is, it can
function as a substantive (in which case it either implies a noun or
takes on the lexical nuance of a noun).
He continues to note
Usually, though not always, such a substantival adjective will have the
article with it to point out that its use is indeed substantival. Some
words, such as KURIOS (lord), ERHMOS (desert), DIABOLOS
(slanderous, or, as a noun, the devil), and hAGIOS (holy, or, as a
noun, saint), often function as substantives without the article since
they are either often or usually independent of nouns in the NT. Other
adjectives, however, usually require the article to make clear that they
are being used substantivally.
Furthermore, when the adjective is substantival, its gender is generally
fixed by sense rather than by grammatical concord. That is to say, if it
refers to a male, it will usually be masculine; if it refers to a female,
it will usually be feminine; if it refers to an entity or concept, it
will be neuter.
Note the situation here. XRHSTON does have the article (but then, so
does XRHSTOTHTOS). There is, however, something interesting about this.
As Wallace notes, the gender differs from that of the noun in the first
part of the verse. Whereas the noun is feminine, the substantival
adjective is neuter, just as Wallace states.
george
gfsomsel
___________
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list