From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Mon Feb 22 1999 - 06:43:37 EST

At 10:53 PM -0600 2/21/99, Bill Ross wrote:
>>Is there any gramatical reason that DIA TOUTO in Romans 5:12 cannot refer
>to TH ZWH AUTOU in 5:10?
>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.
>What I'm considering is, rather than ending the sentence in 5:11 with
>KATALLAGHN ELABOMEN, continuing it with DIA TOUTO, so it reads: KATALLAGHN
>* is this grammatically acceptable?
>* if so, what would seem to be the antecedent of TOUTO?

It would be very odd idiomatically, inasmuch as (a) forms of hOUTOS, hAUTH,
TOUTO generally refer backwards to what has been previously mentioned; and
(b) the phrase DIA TOUTO or DIA TAUTA almost, if not always, appears at the
beginning of a clause--I can't remember ever seeing it at the END of a
If this is the case, you're going against the grain of ordinary usage.

>>While I'm at it, does anyone object to KATAKRIMA being translated "death
>sentence" in 5:16?
>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.
>How would KATEKRIQH in Matthew 27:3 be translated? It reads:
>The reason I ask is that he did not see the legal sentencing (see verse 11).
>Does the word necessarily imply a "legal" sentencing, or might he seen only
>that "He was going to die"?
>I am wondering if the word has a range of nuances like our English word
>"condemned," used in reference to:
>* someone sentenced to death by a court;
>* a building marked for destruction;
>* a person who will inevitably come to some demise, apart from a judicial
>setting (i.e. "he was condemned to remember his mistake for the rest of his

Your problem, if I may say so, seems to be a matter of working from the
English word "condemn" and its common meanings in English rather than from
KATAKRINW and its common meanings in Greek. KATAKRINW is used fundamentally
of a judicial decision against a person in a court; while the decision
MIGHT mean a death penalty, it would more often mean a fine or loss of
citizen rights (in Athens, at any rate). So KATAKRINW is used fundamentally
of a finding of a court against a defendant. Beyond that you can't
generalize. Although the verb might be used metaphorically, I cannot
imagine KATAKRINW being used in that third sentence of yours, "he was
condemned to remember his mistake ..." nor can I imagine it ever being used
of a decision to declare a building unfit for use.

As for Mt 27:3, the sense, as I see it, is simply that Judas took note of
the fact that the Sanhedrin had found against Jesus; no doubt the Sanhedrin
wanted the death penalty, but only a Roman court could ratify that decision
by the Sanhedrin. Now you might well imagine that Judas takes note of the
Sanhedrin's decision and makes the assumption that Pilate will, in fact,
ratify that decision and execute Jesus. My own point is simply that the
verb KATAKRINW in and of itself does NOT imply a death sentence.

>>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
>This is the definition I have for "constituted":
>1 : to appoint to an office, function, or dignity
>Since "sinners" and "righteous" are adjectives and not nouns and describe
>the *characters* of the ones being KAQISTHMI, I wanted to translate this in
>a way that made clear to the reader that this was not a "positional" or
>"judicial" statement (ie: "reckoned" as "unrighteous"). Constituted, in the
>sense of "appoint" fits many of the contexts of KAQISTHMI, but it would seem
>a strange reading for being "appointed to the office of sinner," or
>"appointed to the office of uprightness" though it could be an intentional
>spin by Paul.
>Perhaps "were made into sinful people" and "made into righteous people"?

I had always thought that Paul's intention was to say that, owing to the
disobedience of Adam, countless descendants of Adam were put into the
condition/status of being sinners. I don't want to get into the whole
doctrine of original sin here, but at the least Paul seems to be saying
that sinfulness or a proneness to sin is passed on genetically from Adam to
his descendants as an aspect of their "constitution." You might not want to
use "constituted" for those to whom righteousness is reckoned/imputed
(ELOGISQH) but the verb KAQISTHMI has the range that allows it to be used
for both the establishment of sinfulness in Adam's heirs and for the
declaration of righteousness for Christ's heirs.

If I may make a comment here on the formulation of these questions, it
seems to me that they focus more on English word usage than on the
distinctive Greek words and their usage in and for judicial process. It
ought not to be assumed that Hellenistic Jewish/Roman judicial practice
described with Greek judicial terminology is going to correspond
word-for-word with English terminology used to describe processes in a very
different judicial system.

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