Romans 12:2a translation

From: Jim West (
Date: Wed Aug 06 1997 - 12:03:44 EDT

At 11:29 AM 8/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>You (Jim West) wrote in response to my questions:

>My counter-response to you is that apparently qualified translators disagree
>with you, since some translate SUSCHMATIZESQE as middle (or even active
>"deponent") - see NIV (and New American Bible, I believe).

Thats ok. They can be wrong if they wish. ;>)
I would say that the context leans in favor of a passive rendering. Paul's
theology, likewies, supports a passive reading since it was his belief that
God was in control.

>>> 2. Should TWi AIWNI TOUTWi be translated "BY this age"
>>> (i.e., the age ...
>> no - "to this age" - taking it as a dative.
>Yes, I KNOW it's a "dative" - but I'm asking WHAT KIND of dative -
>instrumental dative ("by"), dative of indirect object ("to"), dative of
>reference ("with reference to"), etc.?

Dative of reference, of course.

>>> 3. What is "the renewal of the mind"?
>> see Albert Schweitzer's "The Mysticism of the Apostle Paul.
>Okay - I think I read this book several years ago. But I wonder if he'll be
>able to authoritatively answer my questions from a
>lexical/grammatical/syntactical point of view, and not just from a contextual
>or personal theological point of view.

can the two really be separated? methinks not.


>> God does the transforming (taking it as a divine passive)
>> you do the renewing by keeping your thoughts fixed on God's
>> transformation of you.
>Jim, I'll admit that this is ONE POSSIBLE translation/interpretation. But as
>my questions try to point out, there appear to be several equally valid
>translations/interpretations from a lexical/grammatical/syntactical
>perspective. On what basis do you conclude that what you have written as the
>meaning/translation of this phrase is THE CORRECT ONE?

again, context and familiarity with Paul's theological perspectives.

>I appreciate your prompt(!!) response, but I don't think you have adequately
>addressed my questions - or if you have, I'd like a little more explanation
>of the reasons behind your conclusions.

Sorry, laconic writing has always been my habit. Direct questions deserve
direct answers and not the usual flip flopping and the typical "death of a
thousand qualifications" answers that folks usually give.

If you want a thorough response it would be best to read someone like Georg
Strecker's "Theologie des NT". Here he examines Paul's theology and
language in depth.


your welcome.

>Eric Weiss


Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:24 EDT