[B-Greek] Romans 5

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Jun 16 19:44:52 EDT 2005


On Jun 16, 2005, at 7:17 PM, George F Somsel wrote:

> 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.

I'm a hard-head, George (as I think you're well-aware): I have a hard  
time believing in such things as "divine passive" and "nominative  
absolute." If
an item of grammar can be explained in ordinary terms intelligibly, I  
see no need to resort to terminology pulled out of a hat. And I do  
believe that the clause ECQROI ONTES KATHLLAGHMEN TWi QEWi can be  
explained intelligibly in ordinary terms: the subject of KATHLLAGHMEN  
is clearly first-person plural and could have been, for emphasis'  
sake, expressed as hHMEIS; ECQROI ONTES is in agreement with that  
subject, wherefore, I say, there's no need whatsoever for  
extraordinary terminology.

Actually I wouldn't call those participles in Mk 12:40 "nominative  
absolutes" either; but you're welcome to call them that if you  
prefer. Your construction in Rev  3:21 is different: the standard  
term for that is "solecism" -- something that Revelation is replete  
with; in this instance it seems to reproduce a Hebrew construction  
such as uses an ASHER   in Greek where it is not quite legitimate,  
even if it is intelligible.

As for our construction in Rom 5:10, I can't see anything different  
there from the construction of ENTEILAMENOS TOIS APOSTOLOIS ...  
ANELHMFQH
in Acts 1:2 ACRI hHS hHMERAS ENTEILAMENOS TOIS APOSTOLOIS DIA  
PNEUMATOS hAGIOU hOUS EXELEXATO ANELHFQH. ("until that day on which,  
after charging the disciples whom he had chosen through (the) Holy  
Spirit he was taken up"). ENTEILAMENOS, I would say, is an ordinary  
circumstantial participle, NOT a nominative absolute, any more than  
is ONTES ECQROI in Rom 5:10.



Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at ioa.com or cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list