From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Sun Feb 21 1999 - 20:17:00 EST

At 2:47 PM -0600 2/21/99, Bill Ross wrote:
>Carl, Maurice, Mary, thanks for the help. Mary, was Maurice's paper what you
>were referring to?
>I am leaning toward meaning 5:
>>(5) "On the grounds of which," or "because of which," an interpretation
>that takes "death" as the antecedent of masc. EF' hWi and explains it
>as the origin of death
>I have another question:
>Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTA in Romans 5:12 cannot refer to
>TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?

It's DIA TOUTO, and as it's a neuter, I hardly think it can refer back to
THN ZWHN AUTOU. I would understand it as referring to the entire main
clause of 5:11 as the antecedent.

>While I'm at it, does anyone object to DATAKRIMA being translated "death
>sentence" in 5:16?

Do you mean KATAKRIMA? It will mean "condemnation" and in this instance
that will be death, but I wouldn't want to endorse "death sentence" itself
as an appropriate translation for KATAKRIMA in 5:16.

>And KATESTAQHSAN beint translated "oriented as" in 5:19?

Seems very strange to me; it really means "were constituted" = "were caused
to be" or even "were made" This verb KAQISTHMI regular means "put someone
into a state/condition," which state/condition is normally indicated as a
predicate accusative or, in this instance of a passive verb, as a predicate

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 OR

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 - 15:40:17 EDT