From: Carl W. Conrad (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 28 1995 - 11:10:50 EDT
At 9:16 AM 9/28/95, JClar100@aol.com wrote:
>If I understand you, then "DIA GRAMMATOS KAI PERITOMHN" would in effect
>function as an adjective modifying "nomou" with "ton" as the definite article
>preceding "nomou." It would be like saying "the (...white and blue and
No, DIA GRAMMATOS KAI PERITOMHS [gen., not acc.] modifies PARABATHN NOMOU,
"transgressor of (the) Law"; I would understand the prepositional phrase
DIA GRAMMATOS KAI PERITOMHS as "in terms of the letter and of circumcision"
or, if you want to turn that into adjectives, "the literal and circumcised
transgressor of the law."
>The only other question is regarding the genitive use of "nomou." Is that
>because "dia" takes the genitive?
No, DIA can take genitive or accusative; NOMOU here is an objective
genitive construed with PARABATHN: "transgressor of (the) Law."
>I was also confusing the gender of "PARABATHN."
Yes, this is in the category (that is really fairly common) of masculine
1st declension agent nouns in -THS.
>Finally, would you agree that "EPAINOS" in 2:29 is the author's "play" on the
>Hebrew word for "Judah.?" If so, it would seem to fit the argument being
>made in this chapter and the first chapter. I'm translating "epainos" simply
No, I really don't quite see how this could be: there's an R in that name,
isn't there? So that, even if the P is is the sibilant in the Hebrew name,
the R following it wouldn't be reproduced in the Greek EPAINOS;
furthermore, the syllable AI is a diphthong in the Greek, not 2 vowels in
diaeresis. I honestly don't think there's any relationship.
Hope this helps. cwc
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
firstname.lastname@example.org OR email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:28 EDT