[B-Greek] Romans 5

George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Thu Jun 16 19:17:23 EDT 2005


On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:20:43 -0400 "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at ioa.com>
writes:
> 
> On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:16 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Eric Weiss
> > <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com> 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").
> 
> except that ECQROI in 5.10 is NOT Nominative ABSOLUTE: my text has   
> 
> EI GAR ECQROI ONTES KATHLLAGHMEN TWi QEWi ... ECQROI ONTES is simply 
>  
> circumstantial participle to KATHLLAGHMEN TWi QEWi
> 
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
__________________-

The term "nominative absolute" is somewhat traditionally attached to a
pendant expression which is attached to the subject represented by a
pronoun which is generally in an oblique case.  An example of such is Rev
3.21

 hO NIKWN DWSW AUTWi KAQISAI

I find the distinction that this must be attached to an oblique case a
distinction without any real difference.  In other words, it is a
multiplication of categories to no good purpose.  In Wallace _Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics_ he gives as examples two such pendant
nominatives attached to the oblique case represented by a pronoun -- Rev
3.21, cited above, and Jn 7.38.  In addition he lists several other
examples without specifically citing them.  Among these is Mk 12.40

hOI KATESQIONTES TAS OIKIAS TWN XHRWN KAI PROFASEI MAKRA PROSEUXOMENOI --
hOUTOI LHMYONTAI PERISOTERON KRIMA.

Here we have a near parallel structurally to our passage.  The subject
represented by the pronoun is in the NOMINATIVE (hOUTOI) rather than in
an OBLIQUE case.  The difference here lies in the fact that we have no
expressed pronoun in our passage, but the subject is contained in the
verb itself KATHLLAGHMEN.  The question then is "does the mere absence of
an express pronoun where it is represented by the subject of the verb
exclude it from consideration as a nominative absolute?"  It seems to me
that this is a distinction without a real difference.  If it walks like a
duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck!  I see no reason to
not consider EXQROI EXONTES as being a nominative absolute.

george
gfsomsel
___________


More information about the B-Greek mailing list