[B-Greek] Genitive in Romans 6:6c
yancywsmith
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Wed Jul 12 14:43:07 EDT 2006
Thanks for the reply. The Theodoret quote is especially helpful and
noteworthy. I had thought to look up Alford before e-mailing because
of his Patristic citation, but didn't because my office is tosy-turvy
from a recent move.
My problem with taking "body of sin" as the meaning unit is precisely
with its referent. Apparently the majority of interpreters take it as
="sinful body/body prone to sin" while disputing over the exact
meaning of KATARGHQHi (thanks for the correction on spelling, BTW)
whether "strong" or "weak" meaning i.e. "destroyed" vs "render
ineffective or powerless." The phrase would not, on this reading,
however, simply be the human body, but as you say, a rough equivalent
of hO PALAIOS ANQRWPOS. I think that is my problem, because it seems
that the most natural sense of SWMA is simply the human body. If I
read Theodoret right, he is saying that hO PALAIOS ANQRWPOS is NOT
the human body. That is, the FUSIS, the natural body-person, i.e. the
human being as created by God. Rather, he seems to say that hO
PALAIOS ANQRWPOS is the evil inclination, THN PONHRAN GNWMHN. Either
it does not occur to him at all that SWMA THS hAMARTIAS is also THN
PONHRAN GNWMHN or its physical manifestation or he rejects this
interpretation out of hand. So he takes SWMA in its most common
meaning, as "the human body," which he also refers to as THN FUSIN.
He appears to see SWMA as referring simply the human being as created
by God. In order for him to "translate" hINA KATARGHQHi TO SWMA THS
hAMARTIAS into hINA ARGON GENHTAI THi hAMARTIAi TO SWMA he has to
take THS hAMARTIAS as an ablatival/adverbial genitive with
KATARGHQHi, which he "translates" as ARGON GENHTAI, "might become
unemployed, useless, etc." So it appears that Theodoret takes Romans
6:6d as a restatement of 6:6c for emphasis. Without prejudicing what
Paul says elsewhere about SWMA, this reading seems to solve the
problem of the referent of SWMA THS hMARTIAS by implying it is simply
figment of the reader's imagination, a misreading of Paul. Is this a
case of the amazing, disappearing "body of sin"?
After thinking about it a bit more I see that Paul uses KATARGEW
elsewhere with similar meaning in conjunction with the ablatival
genitive. Perhaps the phrase with KATARGEW and APO and the ABLATIVAL
genitive in Rom 7:3, where "if the husband dies, [the wife] is
released from the law about the husband" is a good parallel to this
one. EAN DE APOQANHi hO ANHR, KATARGHTAI APO TOU NOMOU TOU ANDROS.
On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2006, at 6:02 PM, yancywsmith wrote:
>
>> I am puzzling about the use of the genitive in Rom 6:6 hINA KATARGHQH
>> TO SWMA THS hAMARTIAS and wondered if, rather than reading it as
>> modifying SWMA in some way: i.e. "in order that the body of sin might
>> be shut down" it shouldn't be read adverbially with KATARGHQH
>> "released" "of/from sin", "in order that the body might be freed from
>> sin." The second translation involves a different understanding of
>> KATARGHQH. Any suggestions?
>>
>> Yancy Smith
>
>
> Rom. 6:6 TOUTO GINWSKONTES hOTI hO PALAIOS hHMWN ANQRWPOS
> SUNESTAURWQH, hINA KATARGHQHi TO SWMA THS hAMARTIAS, TOU MHKETI
> DOULEUEIN hHMAS THi hAMARTIAi:
>
> Alford cites Theodoret in support of taking THi hAMARTIAi with
> KATARGHQHi. I found only one place in Theodoret where he cites
> KATARGHQHi TO SWMA THS hAMARTIAS. Not sure this is the reference
> Alford had in mind. The critical clause would appear to be hINA
> ARGON GENHTAI THi hAMARTIAi TO SWMA (line 43-44 below). I will
> leave this to the patristic scholars.
>
> n. 1: Theodoretus Scr. Eccl.; Theol., Interpretatio in xiv
> epistulas sancti Pauli, Volume 82, page 105, line 39, 44:,
>
> 35
> HiNIXATO THN ANASTASIN. FUETAI GAR TO SAFWS FU-
> TEUOMENON.
> #2. TOUTO GINWSKONTES, hOTI hO PALAIOS hHMWN
> ANQRWPOS SUNESTAURWQH, hINA KATARGHQHi TO
> SWMA THS hAMARTIAS, TOU MHKETI DOULEUEIN hHMAS
> 40
> THi hAMARTIAi. PALAION ANQRWPON OU THN FUSIN EKA-
> LESEN, ALLA THN PONHRAN GNWMHN. TAUTHN DE EFH
> TWi BAPTISMATI NEKRWQHNAI, hINA ARGON GENHTAI THi
> hAMARTIAi TO SWMA. TOUTO GAR EIPEN: hINA KATAR-
> GHQHi TO SWMA THS hAMARTIAS, hWSTE AUTO MHDAMWS
> 45
> THi hAMARTIAi DOULEUEIN.
>
>
>
> I think taking THi hAMARTIAi with KATARGHQHi creates more problems
> that it solves. TO SWMA THS hAMARTIAS is an intelligible metaphor,
> another way of saying hO PALAIOS ANQRWPOS. If SWMA stands without
> THS hAMARTIAS, what is the referent?
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Kline
>
>
> -
>
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list