From: Eric Inman (
Date: Wed Apr 16 1997 - 02:15:47 EDT

My impression is that the first ETI applies to the whole clause governed by APEQANEN, not in the sense of extending the time of APEQANEN, but in the sense of the clause extending the line of thought more than what would normally be anticipated. Thus I would translate it "moreover" or "furthermore." I believe Acts 2:26 and Romans 3:7 contain similar cases.

For the second ETI, I would not translate ETI KATA KAIRON as "at the right time," but as "while there was still opportunity." Transalations like the former have given me the impression of Christ waiting for the right time, whereas ETI KATA KAIRON gives me the impression of not letting the opportunity slip by.

From: Carl W. Conrad[]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 12:20 PM
To: Jonathan Robie
Subject: Re: Romans 5:6 ETI...ETI KATA KAIRON

At 11:23 AM -0500 4/15/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 07:08 AM 4/15/97 -0500, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>At 5:26 AM -0500 4/15/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>>I'm having problems understanding this sentence, and I think my point of
>>>confusion is the ETI...ETI KATA KAIRON formulation:
>>>Some manuscripts, incidentally, say EI GAR, which I can read and understand
>>>- in this case ONTWN hHMWN ASQENWN ETI becomes one phrase. But I simply
>>>don't know how to read the ETI...ETI in the version I quoted above.
>>I would understand the first ETI as to be understood with the genitive
>>absolute ONTWN hHMWN ASQENWN, and I would understand the ETI KATA KAIRON
>>phrase as in apposition to it. While it seems a bit strange for the ETI to
>>be removed from the adverbial phrase with which it is to be understood and
>>separated from that phrase by the subject CRISTOS, the rhetorical emphasis
>>upon the ETI is powerful, underscored all the more by the succeeding GAR.
>>What makes the construction awkward is that CRISTOS is also competing for
>>that rhetorical highlighting at the beginning of the sentence. My weak
>>attempt to convey the rhetorical force:
>>"For it was even then that Christ--while we were helpless, even at the
>>opportune moment--he died for us impious (creatures)."
>Might the second ETI actually go with CRISTOS too, and just be repeated for

I really don't see how: it's an adverb and one used most frequently to
emphasize a temporal adverb or phrase--which is what we have in this
instance--in fact very much like German "noch." I don't see how it would be
used to emphasize a noun subject.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:13 EDT