Re: anarthrous noun in Romans 10:4

From: Jim West (jwest@Highland.Net)
Date: Thu Feb 04 1999 - 17:44:26 EST

At 09:05 PM 2/4/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I am sorry if you get this message twice. My mailer keeps trying to send
the message to bgreek without the hyphen.
>In Romans 10:4, NOMOU is anarthrous: TELOS GAR NOMOU CRISTOS EIS
>DIKAIOSUNHN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI. Accordingly, one commentary says that
>Paul is talking about law in general and not the Law of Moses. Can a case
>be made for NOMOU being definite?

All of the commentaries I checked (Kasemann, Dunn, Wilckens, Alford) so take
it (i.e.- as definite). The grammars (Blass-Debrunner, Robertson,
Moulton/Turner) dont even list Rom 10:4 in the index (so that it is not very
special, unique, or unusual). Likewise the versions I checked (Danish,
French, German, Italian, and Hebrew) all have the definite article...

> I notice that none of the nouns here
>have articles, yet CRISTOS is definite. Can we assume that TELOS is
>definite? Would it be unusual for NOMOU, which modifies TELOS, to be
>definite in this case?

Christ is the end of the Law..... That is the plain meaning of the Greek

>David R. Mills
>ESL Instructor
>Creighton University



Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:15 EDT