[B-Greek] Rom. 1:13
Antti V J Mustakallio
amustaka at cc.helsinki.fi
Tue Mar 15 07:50:45 EST 2005
Dear members of the list,
In his essay "For I am not Ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1.16): The Gospel
and the First Readers of Romans" (In Gospel in Paul. Studies on
Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard Longenecker, eds L. Ann
Jervis and Peter Richardson. 254-287. JSNTSup 108. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academy Press 1994) Steve Mason proposed a reading of Rom. 1:13 that has
bothered my mind lately. The Greek text goes as follows:
OU QELÔ DE HYMAS AGNOEIN, ADELFOI, hOTI POLLAKIS PROEQEMENÊN ELQEIN PROS
HYMAS, KAI EKÔLYQÊN AXRI TOU DEURO, HINA TINA KARPON SXÔ KAI EN HYMIN
KAQÔS KAI EN TOIS LOIPOIS EQNESIN
The translation in NRSV is a good example of how this verse has usually
been understood:
"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to
come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap
some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles"
That is, Paul compares "you" and "the rest of the Gentiles", and "the rest
of the Gentiles" refers to those among whom Paul has already work in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
Mason's proposal (p. 270) is quite different. He is of the opinion that
TOIS LOIPOIS EQNESIN should be translated "the remainder of the Gentiles"
- not just "the rest" - because the basic meaning of LOIPOS is
"remaining". According to his view, "the remainder of the Gentiles" does
not mean the Gentiles in the east but those Gentiles among whom Paul will
work in west, Spain. The idea would be as follows: "He will harvest some
fruit both among the Judean-Christians of Rome, in passing, and then
continue the mission for which he was called among the western Gentiles."
Mason gives the following translation: "I do not want you to be ignorant,
brothers, that I have often intended to come to you - and have been
prevented from doing so until now - in order that I might have some fruit
among you, just as also among the remainder of the Gentiles."
I think that there are some details that support Mason's reading: there is
only one verb, SXÔ, in the clause, and KAI ... KAI -structure. A big
question to me is that can KAQÔS really be so flexible.
I would be happy to know what kind of opinions members of this list have
on Mason's suggestion. Is it grammatically defensible?
Sincerely,
Antti Mustakallio
PhD student
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Helsinki
Finland
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list