[B-Greek] Rom 8:4, "That which is impossible to the law"
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Aug 26 16:23:16 EDT 2009
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Donald COBB wrote:
> 1 Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν
> χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 2 Ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ
> πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν χριστῷ
> Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ
> νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ
> θανάτου. 3 Τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ
> νόμου, ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς
> σαρκός, ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν
> πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς
> ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας
> κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ
> σαρκί· 4 ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου
> πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν, τοῖς μὴ κατὰ
> σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ
> πνεῦμα.
>
> 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 Τὸ
> γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, TO GAR ADUNATON TOU
> NOMOU, as "what is impossible for the law (God has done)" and refers
> to BDF, 263,2 "Τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου
> ‘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 Τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, 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.
Donald,
.
**prolegomena** :
.
The first hurdle to get over is choosing a framework for analysis. One
could just review what the standard grammars and most often quoted
commentaries and journal articles have to say about this passage and
then somewhat arbitrarily decide which one seems most appealing. The
problem with this approach is to chose a criteria by which one will
judge among the various scholarly opinions. Finding an acceptable set
of criteria is in itself a crux.
.
Another approach would start with a TLG search of TO GAR ADUNATON or
TO ADUNATON (I just did that) and see what it looks like (how it is
used) in Polybius, Aristotle, Ctesias ... this assumes that one can
read something like Aristotle's metaphysics with any confidence and
that Aristotle's use of language would have anything to do with Paul.
.
Another approach would take a look at Paul's syntactical habits with
special reference to clause initial articular neuter adjectives
(verbal). This is the approach taken by most of the older commentaries
that pay any attention to the greek text.
.
The Pauline syntax approach might suggest to some that a constituent
order analysis using a pragmatic functional approach (T.Givon, S.Dik,
etc.) would be worthwhile. Within this framework, clause initial
constituents are a major topic of discussion.
.
Obviously, these options are not mutually exclusive. I have chosen the
final option while giving some thought to all the others.
.
**pragmatic functional analysis** :
.
If we choose to treat the constituent TO ... ADUNATON TOU NOMOU as a
deep structure clause, then the most important information is clause
initial TO ... ADUNATON. This is not a statement about old/new
information. I don't think this constituent introduces any new
information. I suggest that we read the constituent TO ... ADUNATON
TOU NOMOU as a contextualzier, it ties thematic material from the
preceding discourse to what Paul is about say.
The problem with this analysis is that Paul seems to wander in his
thoughts. At *first glance* the immediately following context doesn't
seem to focus on TO ... ADUNATON TOU NOMOU. The very next clause EN
hWi HSQENEI DIA THS SARKOS provides the key word SARX for his
following thoughts in 3c-4. If we read hWi as coreferential with
TO ... ADUNATON (Sandy & Headlam) and if we read HSQENEI DIA THS
SARKOS as a predication about TO ... ADUNATON, then I guess the thread
of thought is maintained from 3a-4. However, the thread is somewhat
hard to follow due to the switch from TOU NOMOU to SARX as a key word.
At *first glance* there seems to be relevance break down between
TO ... ADUNATON TOU NOMOU and HSQENEI DIA THS SARKOS. What does SARX
have to do with NOMOS? Paul answers the question, but the logic is
somewhat torturous.
.
Having noted some difficulties, I would choose to read TO ... ADUNATON
TOU NOMOU as a discourse ligament[1] which connects what follows with
with what precedes. Donald's "For regarding the inability of the
law ... " is a good way to express this in English. Note however, I
didn't reach this point by talking about the accusative case.
.
Elizabeth Kline
[1] discourse ligament is a metaphor used to avoid the often confusing
technical terminology used in text linguistics.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list