[B-Greek] Romans 11:31

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed May 16 14:43:20 EDT 2007


On May 15, 2007, at 9:11 PM, Charles Tripp wrote:

> I have a question regarding Romans 11:31, it reads as follows:
>
>   hOUTWS KAI hOUTOI NUN HPEIQHSAN TWi hUMETERWi EELI, hINA KAI  
> AUTOI [NUN] ELEHQWSAN.
>
>   My question concerns how the dative phrase TWi hUMETERWi relates  
> to the passage as a whole.  In most English translations, the  
> phrase is connected with what follows hINA in the greek, example:
>
>   NASB "so these also now have been disobedient, that because of  
> the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy."
>
>   It seems to be translated as if the greek read as follows:
>
>   hOUTWS KAI hOUTOI NUN HPEIQHSAN, hINA KAI AUTOI [NUN] ELEHQWSAN  
> TWi hUMETERWi EELI.
>
>   I looked at perhaps 20 or 30 translations and the large majority  
> render it more or less this way.  I saw a couple three though that  
> capture it more or less the way I see it:


ROM. 11:30 hWSPER GAR hUMEIS POTE HPEIQHSATE TWi QEWi, NUN DE  
HLEHQHTE THi TOUTWN APEIQEIAi,  31 hOUTWS KAI hOUTOI NUN HPEIQHSAN  
TWi hUMETERWi ELEEI, hINA KAI AUTOI [NUN] ELEHQWSIN.

Cranfield (Rom. ICC) sets out the points of correspondence as see below

v.30
1 hUMEIS
2 POTE
3 HPEIQHSATE TWi QEWi
4 NUN (in v.30)
5 HLEHQHTE
6 THi TOUTWN APEIQEIAi

v.31
1 hOUTOI
2 NUN (first NUN in v.31)
3 HPEIQHSAN
4 [NUN] (second NUN in v.31)
5 ELEHQWSIN
6 TWi hUMETERWi ELEEI

Cranfield notes there is a dispute about where to connect TWi  
hUMETERWi ELEEI. The first and most obvious is to TWi hUMETERWi with  
HPEIQHSAN. The second is to connect it with ELEHQWSIN. Choosing the  
first reading does not resolve all the problems since the semantic  
function of the dative TWi hUMETERWi is also disputed.

The second reading, connecting TWi hUMETERWi with ELEHQWSIN allows  
for a nice tidy correspondence at constituent #6 in v.30 and v.31.  
However, the word order, placing TWi hUMETERWi before the hINA has  
caused problems for some scholars. Cranfield dosen't think this is a  
valid objection. He cites LSJ under hINA B, which allows that an  
empahtic constituent from the hINA clause can be fronted, i.e.,  
placed before hINA. Cranfield's argument from strutural  
correspondence is an elaboration on Sanday&Hedlam (Rom. ICC) who were  
preceeded by Meyer and Alford.

Note that this same construction, a fronted constiuent from a hINA  
clause, is found in 2COR. 2:4b and GAL. 2:10.

2COR. 2:4 EK GAR POLLHS QLIYEWS KAI SUNOCHS KARDIAS EGRAYA hUMIN DIA  
POLLWN DAKRUWN, OUC hINA LUPHQHTE ALLA THN AGAPHN hINA GNWTE hHN ECW  
PERISSOTERWS EIS hUMAS.

GAL. 2:10 MONON TWN PTWCWN hINA MNHMONEUWMEN, hO KAI ESPOUDASA AUTO  
TOUTO POIHSAI.

This structural argument is apparently so compelling that one might  
wonder how anyone could read it the other way but Calvin did and some  
moderns also.



Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list