[B-Greek] Causal hINA in Romans 5:20 and 6:1 - Caragounis

Charlie c.arnoldjr at worldnet.att.net
Sat May 5 14:30:50 EDT 2007


I see the word parabasis as the key to understanding Rm 5.20. Transgression
is a subset of  hamartia, in that it is the breaking of a specific
commandment whereas hamartia is just every departure from the way of
righteousness as 1 Jn 5.17 says. Until the law came in there had been only
one commandment related to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet
the world was full of sin - Cain and murder, idolatry of every kind, etc -
from then until Sinai and the giving of the law. But as Paul says in Rm 4.15
"where there is no law there is no transgression" (as in the time between
the fall and Sinai) and in Rm 5.13 "sin is not imputed where there is no
law". So as a result of the law sin did abound i.e. because of the law sin
did increase and it did because now is was parabasis.

As Kline points out from her selection from Cranfield, this giving of the
law was not the whole purpose of God but an important intermediate
objective - and that objective was clearly meant to be that man could not be
justified on the basis of the law - precisely Paul's point. The law was
meant   to point us to a greater righteousness.

C. Arnold

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
To: "b-greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:30 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Causal hINA in Romans 5:20 and 6:1 - Caragounis


In THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, Chrys
Caragounis has an interesting discussion in Chapter 4 (Syntactical
Developments),  Section XI - Conjunctions (pp. 218-226) wherein he discusses
the use and meaning of hINA - and basically turns the standard
interpretations
and translations of Romans 5:20 and Romans 6:1 on their heads.

>From what I could see, Daniel Wallace doesn't discuss this use/meaning of
hINA, nor does Perschbacher in his Syntax book, nor do Moo nor Schreiner nor
Mounce nor Kasemann (the only commentaries I have) in their commentaries on
Romans. They all opt for the usual interpretation of these verses - i.e.,
the Law
was given to cause sin to increase. St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on
these verses also seems to say the same thing as these others.

Caragounis interprets it to mean that the Law was given to curb sin, because
sin
had increased. He contends that hINA here functions causally. As I said, the
usual translations of Romans 5:20 and 6:1 are that the law entered in so
that sin
might increase (5:20), and Paul's question (6:1) - based on this idea that
as law
comes in, sin increases - is translated to say, "should we sin so that grace
might
increase" (since as sin increased, grace increased even more; cf. Romans
5:20b). But Caragounis argues that they should be translated, "the law
entered
in, because sin had increased" (5:20), and "should we continue in sin,
because
grace has increased?" (6:1).

Caragounis's translation comports better with Galatians 3:19, and he seems
to
have some good evidence to support his argument.

Any comments?

Naturally, this has huge implications for theology - or at least some
sermons
and commentaries. But I'm asking what people think of Caragounis's argument
and support for his case.

BDF at 369(2) discusses causal hINA, but not these verses: I don't know how
much of the following (from Logos) will display properly:

--On 'causal' &#7989;&#957;&#945; (Rev 22:14) s. Jannaris §1741; Hesseling
and Pernot,
Neophilologus 12 (1927) 41-6; Pernot, Études 90-5; Windisch, ZNW 26 (1927)
203-9; Robertson, Studies in Early Christianity, ed. by S. J. Case (N.Y. and
London,
1928) 51-7. Of the NT exx. adduced by Hesseling and Pernot, Rev 22:14 at the
best
stands the test if  &#956;&#945;&#954;&#940;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#953; .
&#7989;&#957;&#945; = &#956;&#945;&#954;&#940;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#953; .
&#8005;&#964;&#953; of Mt 5:3ff.; but 'in order that'
(dependent on &#960;&#955;&#973;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962;) is also
possible; likewise Rev 16:15. 14:13 &#7989;&#957;&#945; (p47
&#8005;&#964;&#953;!)
&#7936;&#957;&#945;&#960;&#945;&#942;&#963;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#953; is
a main clause 'they shall rest' (§387(3)). Mk 4:12 = Lk 8:10
&#7989;&#957;&#945; is final
(theory that some are incapable of repentance), softened by Mt 13:13 to
causal &#8005;&#964;&#953;
(&#948;&#953;&#8048; &#964;&#959;&#8166;&#964;&#959; in answer to
&#948;&#953;&#8048; &#964;&#943; 10). Ed. Schweizer, ThZ 8 (1952) 153f.
accepts &#7989;&#957;&#945; in 1 P
4:6 as causal. Literature on causal &#7989;&#957;&#945; also in Zerwick,
Graec. bibl. 95 n. The LXX is
also ruled out: Gen 22:14 &#7989;&#957;&#945; 'so that' (§391(5)), likewise
Epict.: 3.4.10 &#7989;&#957;&#945; is final, cf.
&#952;&#941;&#955;&#969; in 11. But still there remain the grammarians (e.g.
Apollonius Dysc., Synt. 3.28
[Gramm. Gr. ii 2, 382.2] explains &#7989;&#957;&#945;
&#966;&#953;&#955;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#947;&#942;&#963;&#969;
&#960;&#945;&#961;&#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#942;&#952;&#951;
&#932;&#961;&#973;&#966;&#969;&#957; as identical with
&#948;&#953;&#972;&#964;&#953;
&#7952;&#966;&#953;&#955;&#959;&#955;&#972;&#947;&#951;&#963;&#945; &#960;.
&#932;.), the Church Fathers and late papyri (e.g. BGU iv 1081.3 [ii/iii
ad] &#7952;&#967;&#940;&#961;&#951;&#957; &#7989;&#957;&#945; &#963;&#949;
&#7936;&#963;&#960;&#940;&#950;&#959;&#956;&#945;&#953; [however cf.
§392(1a)]; Ghedini, Aegyptus 15 [1935] 236).


  Eric S. Weiss
  XPICTOC ANECTH



---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek




More information about the B-Greek mailing list