From: Jim West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 18 1998 - 17:18:26 EDT
At 05:01 PM 4/18/98 -0400, you wrote:
>May I ask for help in translating another verse which has been used by many as
>evidence for Christ's membership of the Trinity; Romans 9:5: WN hOI PATERES,
>KAI EX WN hO CRISTOS TO KATA SARKA; hO WN EPI PANTWN QEOS EULOGHTOS EIS TOUS
>Here, it seems to me, the interpretation is dependent more on assumptions
>about punctuation than about grammar. The key to the translation being
>whether in fact there is a stop of any sort after PANTWN.
>All the translations and commentaries I have read are definite that CRISTOS
>and QEOS are one and the same, but it seems to me that the passage could be
>read just as easily as:
>... of whom is Christ, concerning the flesh, who is over all - God be blessed
Jim Dunn adopts this approach in his magisterial coomentary on Romans,
translating this segment: "...came the Christ insofar as the flesh is
concerned. God, who is over all, may he be blessed forever. A little later
he says "the arguments on how to punctuate this much disputed line have been
well rehearsed on both sides..." Dunn sides with the option reflected in
his translation- and presumes that what follows is simply one of Pauls'
See W. Lorimer's study in NTS 13, (1966-67), p. 385f. And especially B.
Metzger's "The Punctuation of Rom 9:5" in FS for C.F.D Moule- Christ and
Spirit in the New Testament.
>Am I right that the difference in interpretation lies purely in assumptions
>about the punctuation, or are there grammatical or linguistic nuances that tie
>CRISTOS and QEOS firmly together?
No- this is not strictly an interpretative matter. The problem exists
because 1) there was no punctuation in the earliest mss and 2) the grammar
of the passage can be read in a number of ways.
>Bushey, Hertfordshire, UK
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:24 EDT