[B-Greek] Romans 5
Eric Weiss
papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 16 10:24:20 EDT 2005
George:
I think my brain must be on the blink this morning. Of course you're right. I've been doing too
much other reading, and my Greek has slipped. Sheesh!!
Now I'll go back to reviewing grants. Sorry for the dumb questions. ;^)
George F Somsel <gfsomsel at juno.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Eric Weiss
writes:
> > 6. ONTWN hHMWN ASQENWN . . . APEQANEN.
> > 8. hAMARTWLWN ONTWN hHMWN . . . APEQANEN
> >
> > What we have in vv. 6, 8 is a genitive absolute which functions
> > adverbially in relation to the main verb APEQANEN -- "while we
> were weak
> > / sinners . . . he died." The adverbial usage here is generally
> temporal
> > (see Wallace, pp. 654, 55).
>
> And, being temporal, it would likely coincide timewise with APEQANEN
> ("died" ... "we were").
>
> But must it coincide timewise with APEQANEN - i.e., does the aorist
> APEQANEN rule out
> translating the genitive absolutes as presents (i.e., "we are"
> versus "we were")? After all, Paul
> continues his argument with ECQROI ONTWN in 5:10, which is not a
> genitive absolute
> (ECQROI is nominative).
_____________
Yes, being temporal it does coincide with APEQANEN. Your example of
5.10 is a different construction -- the nominative absolute. Whereas the
genitive absolute is adverbial and circumstantial ("while we were weak /
sinners, he died"), the nominative absolute which is not circumstantial
but substantival and describes the subject ("we who were enemies have
been").
george
gfsomsel
___________
Eric S. Weiss
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list