[B-Greek] Rom 8:4, "That which is impossible to the law"
Donald COBB
docobb at orange.fr
Wed Aug 26 08:47:32 EDT 2009
Dear B-Greekers,
As I've been rereading Romans over the last couple weeks, I was struck
once again by the beginning of Rom 8. Here are vv. 1-4:
^1 ????? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????, ^2 ? ??? ????? ???
????????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???
???????? ??? ??? ???????. ^3 ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????, ?? ? ??????? ???
??? ??????, ? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ?????? ????????
??? ???? ???????? ?????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ?????· ^4 ??? ??
???????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????, ???? ?? ???? ????? ????????????,
???? ???? ??????.
OUDEN ARA NUN KATAKRIMA TOIS EN CRISTWi IHSOU, hO GAR NOMOS TOU
PNEUMATOS THS ZWHS EN CRISTWi IHSOU HLEUQERWSEN SE APO TOU NOMOU THS
hAMARTIAS KAI TOU QANATOU. TO GAR ADUNATON TOU NOMOU, EN hWi HSQENEI DIA
THS SARKOS, hO QEOS TON hEAUTOU hUION PEMYAS EN hOMOIWMATI SARKOS
hAMARTIAS KAI PERI hAMARTIAS KATEKRINEN THN hAMARTIAN EN THi SARKI· hINA
TO DIKAIWMA TOU NOMOU PLHRWQHi EN hHMIN, TOIS MH KATA SARKA
PERIPATOUSIN, ALLA KATA PNEUMA.
What most interests me is vv. 3-4. BDAG (2,b) understands ?? ???
???????? ??? ?????, TO GAR ADUNATON TOU NOMOU, as "what is impossible
for the law (God has done)" and refers to BDF, 263,2 "?? ??? ????????
??? ????? 'the one thing the law could not do', not abstract". This
takes the sentence as a bit of an anacoluthon: "For, what was impossible
to the law, in that it was impotent because of the flesh, God, sending
his very own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..., and as a sin
offering, he condemned sin in the flesh"; an understanding that gives a
good sense if not a little tortuous, as Paul jumps from thought to
thought (but Paul is not here on his first broken sentence! He does it
again just a few verses later, in 8:12-13). It's translated that way in
several recent versions (NRS, NASB, NIV) and that's the way I've also
understood it up to now.
I'm wondering, though, if other possibilities are viable contenders.
Could ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?????, for instance, be understood as a kind
of Accusative of reference? "For regarding the inability of the law, in
that is was impotent because of the flesh". That would have the
advantage of construing 3b-4 as a complete clause. It would also create
an explanation in connection with v. 1, i.e., "There is therefore now no
condemnation in Christ Jesus... (because) God condemned sin in the
flesh". Other construals might also be possible.
I'm not necessarily advocating understanding this passage in another way
than the usual one. But verse 4 seems to be difficult on any count, and
it might be worth wrestling with it to see if more clarity can come out
of it.
Anybody's thoughts?
Donald Cobb
Aix-en-provence
No virus found in this outgoing message
Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.0.0.19 - 10.004.079).
http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list