[B-Greek] Romans 5

George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Thu Jun 16 21:07:37 EDT 2005


On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:44:52 -0400 Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
writes:
> 
> 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/
______________

I share your desire to not multiply terminological distinctions without
good reason.  I think, however, that there is a reason to resort to the
term "nominative absolute" to describe these constructions.  Wallace
defines a circumstancial participle as one which is subordinated to its
controlling verb.  Both nominative absolutes and genitive absolutes are
thus classified by him. The reason I see for distinguishing the phrase
EXQROI ONTES in Rom 5.10 as nominative absolute is that, while it is
dependent upon its connection to an included but unexpressed hHMEIS, it
is a semi-independent phrase in having its own subject (EXQROI) unlike
participles such as that in Mt 5.14 OU DUNATAI POLIS KRUBHNAI EPANW
hOROUS ** KEMENH ** which lack an independent subject but simply are
descriptive of the noun (POLIS).  

george
gfsomsel
___________


More information about the B-Greek mailing list