Page 1 of 4

Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 15th, 2013, 1:53 pm
by Bobby Garringer
James Orr -- in his book on the virgin birth of Christ -- states that the relevant phrases in Romans 1:4, including especially the reference to "power" and "Spirit," are an echo of the angel's statement in Luke 1:35 and are, therefore, an indirect reference to the virgin birth. I am wondering if there is a sound grammatical basis for his conception.

The text reads: TOU hORISQENTOS hUIOU QEOU DUNAMEI KATA PNEUMA hAGIWSUNHS EX NEKRWN ...

Is it possible that Paul intends to indicate that the resurrection of Jesus designated Jesus to be "the-Son-of-God-with-power-according-to-the-Spirit-of-Holiness [the Holy Spirit]?" Can this understanding of the phrases be grammatically justified?

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 16th, 2013, 1:59 am
by Stephen Carlson
The Greek text you posted is garbled, missing words etc. Where are you getting it from? The actual text is:
Rom 1:4 wrote:τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
What are the options you are considered for relating ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ("from the resurrection of the dead") to the rest of the sentence. Your gloss doesn't seem to take this key phrase into account.

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 16th, 2013, 7:52 am
by Bobby Garringer
In a sense, I'm asking how the phrase, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, relates to the earlier part of the verse?

Must the phrase, "according to the Spirit of holiness" [κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης], be taken as the means by which Jesus is raised? Or can it be an aspect of what it means to be "the Son of God in power" [υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει]?

If the latter is possible, then James Orr could be right in finding, in Paul's statement here, an echo of the tradition preserved in Luke 1:35.

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 16th, 2013, 1:34 pm
by Stephen Carlson
As I mentioned in another thread, I don't think that asking whether a reading is "possible" is very helpful. After all, it is "possible" that "Ich bin ein berliner," means "I am a jelly doughnut," but no one really thinks that President Kennedy announced to whole world that he a fine tasting pastry. Could you reformulate the question without the word "possible"?

By the way, my inclination is to read all three prepositional phrases with the participle ὁρισθέντος rather than the noun phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ.

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 16th, 2013, 6:18 pm
by John Brainard
Stephen Carlson wrote:As I mentioned in another thread, I don't think that asking whether a reading is "possible" is very helpful. After all, it is "possible" that "Ich bin ein berliner," means "I am a jelly doughnut," but no one really thinks that President Kennedy announced to whole world that he a fine tasting pastry. Could you reformulate the question without the word "possible"?

By the way, my inclination is to read all three prepositional phrases with the participle ὁρισθέντος rather than the noun phrase υἱοῦ θεοῦ.
Interesting reply. I need to ask, "Do you of any translations that would disagree with your position on the three prepositions in verse 4"?

John

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 16th, 2013, 6:53 pm
by Bobby Garringer
James Orr has proposed translating Romans 1:4, "who was declared the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead..."

What grammatical objections might be raised to such a translation? And are they fatal to his translation?

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 16th, 2013, 7:32 pm
by John Brainard
I meant to ask if you knew of any translation.

John

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 17th, 2013, 6:55 am
by Stephen Carlson
I'm getting concerned about the reliance on "translation" here in this thread. There's a diffrence between translating the Greek and understanding the Greek. Many times when the source language is vague or potentially ambiguous, it possible to translate the vagueness or ambiguity into the target language somewhat mechanically but this does not necessarily evidence a particular understanding of the source text. In these cases, the translation by itself is not adequate to convey the translator's understanding of the Greek, if there is one.

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 17th, 2013, 10:43 am
by Bobby Garringer
Are you asserting that Orr's translation lacks due consideration of the grammar?

Re: Translation in Romans 1:4

Posted: April 17th, 2013, 10:55 am
by Stephen Carlson
I think Orr's translation as quoted here is ambiguous and as such, it is insufficient to convey what he thinks of the grammar (as related by you).