Re: Romans 4:2, a simple condition

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 09:39:16 EDT


At 8:48 PM -0700 6/1/00, John Wilking wrote:
>To all,
>
>Are there any grammatical reasons for not taking EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN
>EDIKAIWQN ECEI KAUCHMA, Rom. 4:2, as a simple condition?

What reason would there be? Both clauses have indicative verbs; there is no
AN. To be sure this could have been written as a counter-factual condition:
EI GAR ABRAAM EX ERGWN EDIKAIWQH, EICEN AN KAUCHMA ("If, after all, Abraham
HAD been justified by works, he would have bragging rights"), but as it
stands, the result clause depends simply upon the truth of the
condition/premiss.

-- 

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

--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:39:50 EST