From: Harold R. Holmyard III (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jul 30 2000 - 20:37:36 EDT
>2 Cor. 5:21
>TON MH GNONTA hAMARTIAN hUPER hHMWN hAMARTIAN EPOIHSEN hINA hHMEIS
>GENWMEQA DIKAIOSUNH QEOU EN AUTWi
>How does the second hAMARTIAN function in this sentence? I notice most
>translations insert ìto be.î
It functions as part of a double accusative of object-complement. One
accusative substantive ("the one not knowing sin") is the direct object of
the verb, and the other accusative ("sin") complements the object in that
it predicates something about it. The complement may be substantival or
These words are taken from Dan Wallace's _Greek Grammar beyond the Basics_,
Exactly how to translate is another matter. "To be" is added in English for
ease of understanding.
>Are there other words that can be inserted?
>God made Christ to be sin (Christ = sin)
>God made Christ as sin (incarnation, like sin)
I think that the first one is right, the second not. The context probably
goes back to 5:15:
"And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for
themselves, but for him who died for them and was raised again" (NIV).
The thought is similar in 5:21:
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might
become the righteousness of God" (NIV).
>Would it have been possible to use OU GNONTA? (I ask this only to help me
>understand the difference between MH and OU when both are possible, as
>Carl pointed out in verse 19.)
Apparently so, according to BAGD, under MH at II.2.d. It gives this verse
as a place that would have taken OU in classical Greek.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:32 EDT