[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