From: Eric Weiss (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 1997 - 20:55:10 EST
I Corinthians 1:18 - hO LOGOS GAR hO TOU STAUROU
Galatians 2:20 - ...EN PISTEI ZW THi TOU hUIOU TOU QEOU
Romans 5:15 - ...KAI hH DWREA EN CHARITI THi TOU hENOS ANQRWPOU
What is the function of the definite article in these phrases?
In I Corinthians 1:18 is it to qualify which LOGOS he means,
i.e., "for the message - i.e., the [message] of the cross"
(possibly in contrast to what he had said about LOGOS in 1:17
"for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,
not with/by wisdom of a LOGOS..."? That's how I have interpreted
it, seeing it as a little different than the simple translation
that omits the hO - "For the message of the cross...."
That's how I also interpreted Galatians 2:20 - "by faith I live -
(that is) [the] faith in the son of God" - a more sharply defined
statement than "by faith in the son of God," omitting the
definite article. The emphasis thus appears to be that he now
lives by faith (as opposed to law) - and then he explains the
object (or source) of his faith. Omitting the definite article
would seem to mean he lives "by faith in the son of God" as a
Romans 5:15, like the Galatians passage with an EN prepositional
phrase followed by a dative definite article, seems the same:
"much more the grace of God and the gift by grace - that is, by
[the grace] of the one man Jesus Christ - abounded to the many."
This, in preference to "and the gift by the grace of the one man
Jesus Christ" (NASB) - same meaning, just not as pointed in my
Are my thoughts valid? IS THIS THE "DEICTIC" USE OF THE DEFINITE
If you wish to respond or cc: me privately, my home e-mail is
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:01 EDT