Re: hORISQENTOS hUIU QEOU (Rom 1:4)

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Mar 17 1999 - 08:23:26 EST


At 12:10 PM +0000 3/17/99, Blahoslav Cicel wrote:
>Hello friends,
>
>the other day we were reviewing the activity of the Holly Spirit and we
>came to Rom 1:4. I was surprised by the new translation, so I checked it
>in the GNT. It showed to bee more comlplex than my Little Greek
>knowledge is able to handle. Comparing other translations I realized,
>that it seems to not bee so easy to understand, as each renders it in a
>different way.
>
>The verses 1-3 are clear, the ending of the verse 4 (IHSOU CRISTOU TOU
>KURIOU hHMWN), too. But I dont know how to structure the text
>
>TOU hORISQENTOS hUIU QEOU EN DUNAMEI KATA PNEUMA hAGIWSUNHS EX
>ANASTASEWS NEKRWN
>
>The verse 3b and the verse 4a are parallel statements characterising
>Christ in contrast:
>GENOMENOU -- hORISQENTOS
>KATA SARKA -- KATA PNEUMA
>
>The structure of 3b is straight:
>A: TOU GENOMENOU
>B: EK SPERMATOS DAUID
>C: KATA SARKA
>
>but in 4a I see two possibilities:
>A': TOU hORISQENTOS hUIU QEOU
>B': EN DUNAMEI
>C': KATA PNEUMA hAGIWSUNHS
>D': EX ANASTASEWS NEKRWN
>
>or
>A': TOU hORISQENTOS hUIU QEOU EN DUNAMEI
>C': KATA PNEUMA hAGIWSUNHS
>B': EX ANASTASEWS NEKRWN
>
>My question is: What is correct? and: Why?
>a) the first one
>b) the second one
>c) both may be correct (ambiguous)
>d) none is correct (yours is *the correct one* ;)
>e) whatever

I would opt for your second arrangement--the one that puts EN DUNAMEI on
the same line with TOU hORISQENTOS hUIOU QEOU, for two basic reasons:
(a) structural: I think the parallelisms between (1) the two EK/EX phrases,
and (2) the two KATA phrases is deliberate;

(b) I think that EN DUNAMEI is essential to complete the meaning of TOU
hORISQENTOS hUIOU QEOU: there are the two distinct affirmations regarding
Jesus' status as "son of God" here: (1) on the natural plane, Jesus was
born of David's lineage (regardless of differences in the Matthaean and
Lucan genealogies, the assertion that Jesus is descended from David is
evidently credal and accepted by both, even affirmed in the insistence on
Jesus' historical birth in the city of David, Bethlehem; (2) on the
spiritual plane, it is the event of the resurrection that DEFINES Jesus'
status as "plenipotentiary" Son of God. I personally believe, although I
may well be wrong on this, that Paul may here be citing a pre-Pauline
credal formula that is sufficiently early that it antedates a more balanced
valuation of Jesus' earthly ministry and his risen-and-enthroned
status--that is, I rather think this formula may weight the importance of
the resurrection from the dead as being of far greater importance than
birth from the lineage of David.

I've tried here to focus most specifically upon the question asked and
offer my reasons for preference of one scheme of analysis over any other.
I've laid out in considerably greater detail my understanding of the verse
as a whole in a message dated Dec 12, 1998 which is accessible in the newer
archives.

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
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


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