Re: anarthrous noun in Romans 10:4

From: Dale M. Wheeler (
Date: Fri Feb 05 1999 - 20:09:05 EST

On: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 21:05:34 -0600
David R. Mills 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? 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?
>David R. Mills
>ESL Instructor
>Creighton University


CRISTOS is definite because its the subject of a predicate nominative
construction; but of course it depends on what you mean by "definite"??!!

TELOS...NOMOU is an Apollonius' Canon construction and as such the fact
that neither noun has an article tells you nothing about their
"definiteness"; ie., they could both be "indefinite", "qualitative", or
"definite" or any mix of the three, ie., you CANNOT base your
interpretation of NOMOU as either a specific Law (of Moses) or "legalism"
on the anarthrous state of the word; it could be either one from a
grammatical standpoint. Such choices will have to be made on other bases.


Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:

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