Regards,
Jim V.
James H. Vellenga | jvellenga@viewlogic.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-303-5491
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-460-8213
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
http://www.viewlogic.com
"We all work with partial information."
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Sat Feb 3 08:45:56 1996
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 07:17:23 -0600
> To: John Moe <parsonco@netcom.com>
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> Cc: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
>
> On 2/3/96, John Moe wrote:
>
> > I have been wrestling with DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI. I have always
> > taken EK PISTEWS wtih ZHSETAI, but I am wondering why it should not be
> > taken with DIKAIOS. At Gal 3:11 Paul has building his argument on
> > Abraham and quotes Gen 15:6. DIKAIOS EK PISTEWOS is the point he is
> > making there. Is there some gramatical reason that Paul's use of this
> > phrase from Hab. 2:4 should not be taken this way. Since this seems to
> > not be a strick quotation of the Heb or the LXX as we have them, I do
> > not think that either of those should controle the understanding of
> > Paul's N.T. Use.
> > Thanks for any light you can cast.
>
> By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom 1:17 SHOULD be
> construed with ZHSETAI because it is in predicative position. For it to
> mean "the one who is righteous by faith, it should be written hO EK PISTEWS
> DIKAIOS. It has,in fact, always bothered me that Paul's central doctrine
> appears to be based upon a grammatical misconstruction of his LXX proof
> text as cited. As it stands, it would certainly appear to mean that the one
> who is righteous will live (i.e. eschatological life, although I don't
> think that was intended in the original formulation in Hab.) through faith;
> it does NOT appear to mean that faith makes the person righteous and
> THEREFORE that person will live.
>
> I'm glad to see that this problem should be addressed and I am eager to
> hear the views of others.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
> (314) 935-4018
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Sat Feb 3 13:02:11 1996
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 10:25:02 +0400
> To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
> From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
> Carl Conrad wrote;
> >On 2/3/96, John Moe wrote:
> >
> >> I have been wrestling with DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI. I have always
> >> taken EK PISTEWS wtih ZHSETAI, but I am wondering why it should not be
> >> taken with DIKAIOS. At Gal 3:11 Paul has building his argument on
> >> Abraham and quotes Gen 15:6. DIKAIOS EK PISTEWOS is the point he is
> >> making there. Is there some gramatical reason that Paul's use of this
> >> phrase from Hab. 2:4 should not be taken this way. Since this seems to
> >> not be a strick quotation of the Heb or the LXX as we have them, I do
> >> not think that either of those should controle the understanding of
> >> Paul's N.T. Use.
> >> Thanks for any light you can cast.
> >
> >By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom 1:17 SHOULD be
> >construed with ZHSETAI because it is in predicative position. For it to
> >mean "the one who is righteous by faith, it should be written hO EK PISTEWS
> >DIKAIOS. It has,in fact, always bothered me that Paul's central doctrine
> >appears to be based upon a grammatical misconstruction of his LXX proof
> >text as cited. As it stands, it would certainly appear to mean that the one
> >who is righteous will live (i.e. eschatological life, although I don't
> >think that was intended in the original formulation in Hab.) through faith;
> >it does NOT appear to mean that faith makes the person righteous and
> >THEREFORE that person will live.
>
> I think that the reason that some commentators have wanted to see the
> possibility that the "quote" from Hab. was understood by Paul to be the
> "one who is righteous by faith" is that it fits very neatly with the way
> some outline Rom. 1-8. Chapters 1-4 indicate that a person is made right
> with God by faith apart from law, and chps 5-8 deal with the life of a
> person who is right with God.
>
> However, I would agree with Carl that he would surely have written hO EK
> PISTEWS DIKAIOS ZHSETAI or hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI if that is what
> he meant. There are many examples where the genitive (ablative) with the
> prepositions EK, APO, PARA, or hUPO precedes the verb form with which it is
> used. (James 1:13; I John 5:1, Matt. 21:42)
>
> Carlton L. Winbery
> Prof. Religion
> LA College, Pineville, La
> winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Sat Feb 3 17:52:05 1996
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 13:54:10 -0600
> To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
> From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu, John Moe <parsonco@netcom.com>
>
> >On 2/3/96, John Moe wrote:
> >
> >> I have been wrestling with DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI. I have always
> >> taken EK PISTEWS wtih ZHSETAI, but I am wondering why it should not be
> >> taken with DIKAIOS. At Gal 3:11 Paul has building his argument on
> >> Abraham and quotes Gen 15:6. DIKAIOS EK PISTEWOS is the point he is
> >> making there. Is there some gramatical reason that Paul's use of this
> >> phrase from Hab. 2:4 should not be taken this way. Since this seems to
> >> not be a strick quotation of the Heb or the LXX as we have them, I do
> >> not think that either of those should controle the understanding of
> >> Paul's N.T. Use.
> >> Thanks for any light you can cast.
>
> To which Carl Conrad replied:
>
> >By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom 1:17 SHOULD be
> >construed with ZHSETAI because it is in predicative position. For it to
> >mean "the one who is righteous by faith, it should be written hO EK PISTEWS
> >DIKAIOS. It has,in fact, always bothered me that Paul's central doctrine
> >appears to be based upon a grammatical misconstruction of his LXX proof
> >text as cited. As it stands, it would certainly appear to mean that the one
> >who is righteous will live (i.e. eschatological life, although I don't
> >think that was intended in the original formulation in Hab.) through faith;
> >it does NOT appear to mean that faith makes the person righteous and
> >THEREFORE that person will live.
>
> Carl's explanation is on target. The predicative position of EK PISTEWS
> argues against it modifying hOI DIKAIOI.
>
> But I wonder how Carl [or others] might react to the suggestion that we
> have here an exampale of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU, i.e. that EK PISTEWS here has
> a double significance; that rhetorical device would allow you to apply it
> to both phrases. -- Just raising the possibility!
>
> One might ask how each interpretation agrees with Paul in Romans 4, that is
> ask what the phrase might "sum up" in advance.
>
> Edgar Krentz, New Testament
> Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
> 1100 EAST 55TH STREET
> CHICAGO, IL 60615
> Tel: 3112-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Tue Feb 6 05:06:18 1996
> Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 17:11:57 -0500 (EST)
> From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
> Subject: Re-posting on Romans 1:17
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> X-Envelope-To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> X-Vms-To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
> X-Vms-Cc: EHOBBS
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Checking in from my frozen basement this late Sunday afternoon,
> I find a late-Saturday post on Romans 1:17 from Edgar Krentz, and then a second
> post each from Carl Conrad and Carlton Winbery. But a posting by me earlier on
> Saturday afternoon does not seem to have gone out (not even to me); so I will
> re-send it (attached below, to this), for your edification. Let me add a
> response each to Edgar and to Carl;
> Edgar's suggestion that EK PISTEWS might be an example of SYNTAXIS
> APO KOINOU, relating to both the NP preceding and the VP following, was an
> absolute delight to me -- for the simple reason that I had always thought that
> this was my personal discovery decades ago, but since I had never published on
> it, I lacked the right to claim it in public. Now I see that Edgar was right
> in there, too (and perhaps thousands of others). And since I too thought it
> made good sense (and so taught my students the possibility), I leap to Edgar's
> support. (As though Edgar Krentz ever needed my support!)
> And Carl's further post shows that I had not altogether understood his
> earlier posting. He seems to be right where I have found myself for lo! these
> 40+ years of giving seminars on Romans. So I can cease shuddering because of
> my disagreement with him!
> Carl, your former student who worked on Paul's use of the diatribe
> must certainly have made use of Rudolf Bultmann's 1910 dissertation on this
> exact topic. That is a work that deserves more use than it has received. And
> for Paul's use of rhetoric, Hans Dieter Betz's commentary on Galatians in the
> Hermeneia series gives overwhelming evidence. (When we had a celebration in
> NYC at the time of Dieter's commentary being published, someone remarked that
> he always KNEW that when Hermeneia finally got around to publishing a
> commentary WRITTEN in English, and not translated from German, it would be
> written by a German!)
>
> --Edward Hobbs
>
> ---COPY OF YESTERDAY'S FAILED POSTING---
>
> From: LUCY::EHOBBS "Edward Hobbs" 3-FEB-1996 16:41:51.53
> To: IN%"b-greek@virginia.edu"
> Subj: A further (dissenting) reply on Romans 1:17
>
>
> John Moe's extremely insightful (and apparently now inciteful!) inquiry brought
> replies from two excellent scholars on our List. I am impelled to reply as
> well, since this is an extremely important text (and issue).
>
>
> Habakkuk 2:4---
>
> Hebrew: WTSDDYQ B'MUNTHO YHYH:
> But-the-righteous by-his-faith(fulness) shall-live.
>
> LXX: hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS MOU ZHSETAI.
> But the righteous by my faith(fulness) shall-live.
>
> Rom. 1:17--- hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.
>
> (Omitting Hebrew "HIS" and LXX "MY")
>
> Paul drops the HIS (Hebrew) or MY (LXX) to universalize the statement
> in Hab. 2:4. [The fact that W, the Freer MS. of the Minor Prophets, omits
> MOU does not indicate that Paul's LXX lacked the word; it is almost
> certainly a Christian scribe's correction, done VERY early--third century.]
>
> Both Carl and Carlton have suggested ways Paul SHOULD have rewritten
> this text if he thought it meant "The righteous through faith shall live."
> But I would argue that he did not feel free to rewrite the text. Paul
> does not rewrite his citations from the LXX to conform to his grammar.
> E.g., he uses the future ZHSW, not the classical ZHSOMAI, except when
> citing LXX, where he retains the future middle form (classical). See
> Zerwick, Section 226. He almost certainly could read Hebrew, and I would
> be incredulous if I were told that he didn't even bother to look in his
> Bible(s) for one of the two most central texts in his thinking. Hence he
> saw both "HIS" and "MY" as modifiers of "FAITH(FULNESS)", thus a legitimate
> variable he could omit to universalize the text.
>
> (And Carl, I would incline to think of this is the MOTTO for
> Romans, not a "proof text.")
>
> Now, how did Paul understand this text? (I won't refer you to my
> piece on this published just forty years ago, since I can't find it here
> myself.) Carlton put it correctly when he said that some commentators base
> their interpretation (The one who is righteous through faith shall live) on
> the structure of Romans. The modern commentator who fought hardest for
> this was Anders Nygren; his _Romerbrevet_ argued the case at great length
> and with substantial evidence. What question is Paul offering to answer in
> Romans? Is it, "How shall the righteous live? -- Answer: They shall live
> by faith." Or is it, "How can anyone find life, the goal of all human
> striving? I.e., Who shall live? Answer: The righteous through faith shall
> live."
> Ch. 1-4 -- The righteous through faith
> Ch. 5-8 (or 5-15) -- Shall live
> And in each case, he argues first negatively (what righteous through faith
> is not: it is not UNrighteousness, nor is it righteousness through
> law/works) (what life is not: not being under the power of wrath, sin, law,
> or death) then what it IS.
> No point in repeating Nygren (my copies of the original Swedish and
> the ET are in my office, not here in my cold basement, so I couldn't
> anyway, could I?); you can all read him.
> But he convinced me, long ago; and he convinced the RSV translators in
> 1946. Alas, the NRSV went back to Luther's interpretation, and consigned
> Lutheran Bishop Nygren to the margin. But then they usually got Paul
> wrong, I suspect.
>
> A final point on word order: Carl said,
> 'By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom. 1:17 SHOULD be
> construed with ZHSETAI . . . .'
> But as Carl well knows, lots of things in Hellenistic writers,
> including Paul, do not follow classical canons; and this example is
> probably one of them. Whether Paul would have moved EK PISTEWS before
> DIKAIOS if he felt free to re-write his Biblical text, I don't know; but
> I'm somewhat doubtful. The issue isn't whether this text COULD mean "The
> righteous shall live by faith," but whether it HAS to mean that. In my
> opinion, it doesn't--it can quite plausibly be read "The righteous through
> faith shall live," probably with the same ambiguity as that English
> sentence.
>
> Just in case you don't know, I shudder to disagree with Carl on
> grammar. But then, I am -- or used to be -- a grammarian myself; so I
> decided to "Sin boldly!" (If sin it be.)
>
> Edward Hobbs
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Wed Feb 7 02:35:36 1996
> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 07:56:31 -0600
> To: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs>
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu, John Moe <parsonco@netcom.com>
>
>
>
> > >On 2/3/96, John Moe wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have been wrestling with DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI. I have always
> > >> taken EK PISTEWS wtih ZHSETAI, but I am wondering why it should not be
> > >> taken with DIKAIOS. At Gal 3:11 Paul has building his argument on
> > >> Abraham and quotes Gen 15:6. DIKAIOS EK PISTEWOS is the point he is
> > >> making there. Is there some gramatical reason that Paul's use of this
> > >> phrase from Hab. 2:4 should not be taken this way. Since this seems to
> > >> not be a strick quotation of the Heb or the LXX as we have them, I do
> > >> not think that either of those should controle the understanding of
> > >> Paul's N.T. Use.
> > >> Thanks for any light you can cast.
>
> > To which Carl Conrad replied:
> >
> > >By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom 1:17 SHOULD be
> > >construed with ZHSETAI because it is in predicative position. For it to
> > >mean "the one who is righteous by faith, it should be written hO EK PISTEWS
> > >DIKAIOS. It has,in fact, always bothered me that Paul's central doctrine
> > >appears to be based upon a grammatical misconstruction of his LXX proof
> > >text as cited. As it stands, it would certainly appear to mean that the one
> > >who is righteous will live (i.e. eschatological life, although I don't
> > >think that was intended in the original formulation in Hab.) through faith;
> > >it does NOT appear to mean that faith makes the person righteous and
> > >THEREFORE that person will live.
>
> > To which Carlton Winbery answered:
> >
> > I think that the reason that some commentators have wanted to see the
> > possibility that the "quote" from Hab. was understood by Paul to be the
> > "one who is righteous by faith" is that it fits very neatly with the way
> > some outline Rom. 1-8. Chapters 1-4 indicate that a person is made right
> > with God by faith apart from law, and chps 5-8 deal with the life of a
> > person who is right with God.
> >
> > However, I would agree with Carl that he would surely have written hO EK
> > PISTEWS DIKAIOS ZHSETAI or hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI if that is what
> > he meant. There are many examples where the genitive (ablative) with the
> > prepositions EK, APO, PARA, or hUPO precedes the verb form with which it is
> > used. (James 1:13; I John 5:1, Matt. 21:42)
>
> > David Moore responded:
> >
> > It may be helpful to take a little more of the context of Habakuk
> > 2:4b. If one takes this context from the Hebrew, rather than the LXX,
> > the message is that the person whose soul is not upright manifests pride,
> > but the righteous shall live by his faith. This is in keeping with
> > Paul's emphasis regarding justification which also contrasts boastful
> > pride with faithful confidence in God.
> >
> > It would seem that "by faith" should be construed with "shall
> > live" rather than "righteous" (See Keil & Delitzsch, _ad loc._). But I
> > don't see that this goes against Paul's message, if one allows that the
> > Apostle had the context of the contrast between the prideful attitude and
> > faith in mind.
>
> > Edgar M. Krentz responded:
>
> > Carl's explanation is on target. The predicative position of EK PISTEWS
> > argues against it modifying hOI DIKAIOI.
> >
> > But I wonder how Carl [or others] might react to the suggestion that we
> > have here an example of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU, i.e. that EK PISTEWS here has
> > a double significance; that rhetorical device would allow you to apply it
> > to both phrases. -- Just raising the possibility!
> >
> > One might ask how each interpretation agrees with Paul in Romans 4, that is
> > ask what the phrase might "sum up" in advance.
>
> This is certainly a problematic Greek sentence, at least in terms of
> ascertaining with confidence exactly how Paul meant or understood the
> citation from Habakkuk to mean.
>
> Let me comment--"hysteron proteron--first to Edgar's points:
>
> 1. I think the suggestion of SUNTAXIS APO KOINOU is definitely
> worth considering, particularly in view of the rhetorical skills Paul
> demonstrates repeatedly, especially in Romans and in 1 Cor (I might mention
> that a former student of mine has done some studies--quite independently of
> any suggestion of mine--of diatribe style in Paul's letters).
>
> 2. I personally think chapter 4 is the pie`ce de re'sistance of
> Paul's discussion of "faith-righteousness"--particularly in the suggestions
> that Abraham's faith in God as creator/redeemer is a proleptic faith in God
> who raises Jesus from the dead. Quite apart from the question that has been
> discussed three or four times previously in this forum, whether Paul is
> talking about faith IN CHRIST (objective genitive) or about faith OF CHRIST
> (subjective genitive), I think chapter 4 makes clear that Paul sees
> Abraham's faith as the paradigm of the faith that wins salvation in that
> its holder is deemed righteous by God, and that Abraham's faith is
> fundamentally a trust in God as creator/redeemer who will keep his
> promises. Therefore, I think that chapter 4 exemplifies what Paul means at
> 1:17 with his citation from Habakkuk--EVEN if this means that Paul
> MISCONSTRUED the Greek of that citation grammatically.
>
> Secondly, in response to David Moore, I think it is certainly POSSIBLE that
> Paul is thinking of the larger context of the Habakkuk passage,and I doubt
> not that he knows the passage well. The question is whether he thinks
> primarily in terms of the Hebrew text (and isn't there one reading of the
> sentence cited, "the righteous man will live by MY faithfulness"?) or in
> terms of the LXX text which he actually cites. I personally don't think
> that Paul (perhaps with the great EXCEPTION of Romans 4) interprets OT
> scripture generally in terms of its own context and likely
> historical-contextual intent; in fact, I find rather disturbing his
> applicationn of Genesis proof texts in Galatians especially (I'm thinking
> of the tricks played with SPERMA and the allegorical treatment of Sarah and
> Hagaar), although I think these are very likely standard contemporary ways
> of interpreting scripture. So I'm personally rather dubious about Paul's
> understanding the verse of Habakkuk cited in terms of its fuller
> context--but I wouldn't reject that view dogmatically.
>
> And finally, in response to Carlton Winbery, I would just note, in terms of
> the "normative" grammar (if there is any such thing--and at least there's
> observed common practice), it is not just a matter of an ablatival genitive
> (whereby I declare my allegiance to the 8-case faction!) PRECEDING the
> verb, but rather of the preposition phrase EK PISTEWS being ENCLOSED in the
> article that would be required for the passage to mean "He who by faith is
> righteous shall live." I.e., it should be either hO EK PISTEWS DIKAIOS or
> hO DIKAIOS hO EK PISTEWS.
>
> I trust that this discussion will not stop at this point; I really am
> delighted to see this question being discussed because it turns upon a
> number of significant issues in Paul's thinking, his use of scripture, his
> rhetorical methods, etc.
>
> To recapitulate my own view: Paul took this verse from Habakkuk from the
> LXX because it did neatly summarize his understanding of the faith-stance
> of believer (in Christ) to God as Creator/Redeemer; I think he interpreted
> it in terms of "the one who by faith is righteous"--and that he did so
> without regard to the "niceties" of "normal" Greek grammar.
>
> My regards to all. I sit here at my computer on a bone-chilling Sunday
> morning with the thermometer outside at -8 degrees (I know that most of the
> U.S., more or less, is caught up in this deep freeze, although I would hope
> that Carlton, down in the Cajun country, and David, down in tropical
> Florida, might be somewhat more fortunate, while I know that Edgar in
> Chicago has it very much worse than I do) and wait for a plumber to come
> for some urgent repairs (Ellen Adams will sympathize, I'm sure, if my
> memory fails me not!). And if there's someone in Australia reading this,
> I'd like to trade places with you right now!
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
> (314) 935-4018
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Wed Feb 7 18:37:55 1996
> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 15:01:24 -0600
> To: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: Romans 1:17
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
> On 2/7/96, Eric Weiss wrote--lots and lots and lots:
>
> > I am so glad to see this being discussed. I've been wrestling with it for
> > over a month now, primarily trying to figure out how to translate this verse,
> > including the difficult phrase "EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN," for the reasons Carl
> > Conrad mentions; i.e., it raises the question of whether Paul's key doctrine
> > can be grounded in the Old Testament. I was even thinking of submitting it as
> > a question to b-greek.
>
> I certainly did not mean to imply that I did not think Paul's key doctrine
> can be grounded in the OT; I certainly believe that he has succeeded
> admirably in doing so, particularly in chapter 4 of Romans. What I did mean
> to say was that I personally don't find the kind of argument employed using
> the word SPERMA and using the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians very
> persuasive. That doesn't really bother me particularly because I think the
> method of exegesis we would employ is very different from Paul's and from
> that of the rabbis and sectarian Jewish interpreters of his day.
>
> On the other hand, I think that it is central to Paul's teaching that
> salvation or grace precedes grateful obedience--or put it that obedience is
> the grateful and faithful response of the saved to the savior. I think that
> is already laid out in the formulation of the decalogue with its opening
> reminder of the salvation Israel has received and its implicit indication
> that for this very reason Israel shall observe these norms to govern its
> existence. I think that a lot of the same idea governs Deuteronomy also,
> where Israel is reminded how little it deserves the grace given it by
> Yahweh and where the interpreter of the Law endeavors to base Israel's
> obedience upon gratitude for the salvation already given Israel.
>
>
> > The LXX does read "hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS MOU ZHSETAI" which Hebrews 10:38
> > changes to "hO DE DIKAIOS MOU EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI." I don't think the "MOU"
> > is present (actually or implied) in the Hebrew. Keil and Delitzch (sic?) is
> > worth reading on Habakkuk 2:4 on this point. I think I remember that they
> > say that "by faith" (or "by/because of his faithfulness") goes with "will
> > live," not with "the [one who is] righteous," and then proceed to explain how
> > Paul correctly applied this verse. My "feel" for this verse is like Carl
> > says, that if Paul wanted to say "righteous by faith" he would have written
> > "hO DE EK PISTEWS DIKAIOS," but I haven't been a Greek student long enough
> > nor studied the Pauline (or NT) corpus well enough to say that my "feeling"
> > is based on a sound knowledge of Greek grammar.
>
> I have been misunderstood, at least in part, here. I never said that Paul
> would have written otherwise had he intended a different meaning; rather, I
> said that the "normal" phrasing of the Greek text that Paul cites ought to
> have shown EK PISTEWS in the attributive position to hO DIKAIOS rather than
> in a predicative position. In fact, however, the Greek phrasing is an
> excerpt from a Greek translation of a Hebrew original--and the LXX
> translators notoriously don't observe the "normative" patterns of Greek
> grammar with any great regularity. I find the argument set forth by Edgar
> Krentz and argued further for by Edward Hobbs quite plausibly that Paul
> intended EK PISTEWS to be taken ambiguously and even APO KOINOU with hO
> DIKAIOS and ZHSETAI, even as Eric is suggesting in the next 2 paragraphs
> that I cite here:
>
> > Geza Vermes' translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the Habbakuk commentary,
> > if I remember correctly, translates the pesher as something like "the one who
> > has faith in the Teacher of Righteousness will live" -- which seems to
> > support the fact that the Hebrew can be translated "faith" and not just
> > "faithfulness" as most translations are wont to do.
> >
> > It seems to me that Paul's treatment of Habbakuk 2:4 in Galatians 3:11 must
> > be taken as "the one who is [made] righteous by faith [is the one who] will
> > live" (cf. Galatians 3:12) but that the Romans 1:17 passage can be taken both
> > as "the one who is made righteous by faith is the one who will live" and "the
> > one who is righteous will live by (or "from" or "because of") [his] faith."
>
> Indeed, why not both? "by faith is righteous" AND "will live by faith."
> This could even be the sense of EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN. It is trust and
> commitment in the first place that accounts for the attribution DIKAIOS,
> and it is trust and commitment that enables the believer to live an
> eschatological existence in the Pauline sense of growing in DIKAIOSUNH so
> as to be able to exhibit its "fruits" on the Day of Christ.
>
> I really wonder to what extent Paul is actually building on the context of
> Habakkuk and to what extent he has simply, as Edward Hobbs has said, chosen
> the phrase as a "motto" for the exposition of faith-righteousness that is
> to follow. I somehow think that the last thing to look for in Paul is an
> exploration of what the OT text meant in its original context. Yet
> nevertheless, I really think that the meditation on Abraham's faith in
> Chapter 4 is as profound an exegesis as we'll ever find of that text.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
> (314) 935-4018
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Thu Feb 8 04:20:13 1996
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 96 09:37:51 MET
> From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
> Subject: re: Romans 1:17
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> Cc:
>
> Re: Romans 1: 17
>
> as regards the "difficult phrase EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN" I think one has to
> compare 2 Cor. 2:16: HOIS DE OSMH EK ZWHS EIS ZWHN
> I have not been able to check whether this use of EK - EIS can be found in
> the LXX too.
> I think one has to take into account the stylistic character of this phrase
> EK - EIS, i.e. perhaps we should be careful in inferring theological
> conclusions from this phrase.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Erik van Halsema |Research Assistant Vrije Universiteit
> j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl |Faculty of Theology
> jdfvh@dds.nl |De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> From @mars.itc.virginia.edu:owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Fri May 31 06:11:55 1996
> Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 05:00:49 -0500
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> From: "Wagers, Will" <wagers@iglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
>
> William Dicks writes on 5/31/96:
>
> > In Rom 1:17 Paul quotes from the OT: "O de dikaios ek pistews dzhsetai".
> > Why do almost every translation translate this as "The just/righteous shall
> > live by faith" as opposed to "But the just/righteous by faith shall live".
> > It changes the meaning completely. The first translation will mean that if
> > you are righteous you will live by faith. Whereas, the second will mean that
> > if you are righteous by faith, and not another means, you will live.
>
> I'm afraid I don't see any difference between the two English translations,
> except, perhaps, a slightly archaic and, to us, more ambiguous manner of
> speech in the latter. The REB says, "'Whoever is justified through faith shall
> gain life.'" The NJB reads, "_Anyone who is upright through faith will live._"
> Try "But the righteous, by faith, shall live".
>
> I haven't tried to look it up, but Paul is probably quoting the LXX rather than
> the Old Covenant. In Hk 2:4, "faith" also means "faithfulness": "righteous"
> is contrasted with "proud".
>
> If I read your concern rightly, I think you may be placing to much
> importance, both on this passage, on the significance of the individual words,
> and on the word order of the translation. A lighter reading will be much
> less distressing.
>
> Somehow, I don't think this helps.
>
>
> Will wagers@iglobal.net Reality is the best metaphor.
>
> http://www.iglobal.net/pub/wagers/ousia/Egyptologist.Shtml
> http://www.iglobal.net/pub/wagers/ousia/Indologist.Shtml
> http://www.iglobal.net/pub/wagers/ousia/Mayanist.Shtml
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Fri May 31 08:22:21 1996
> Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 06:13:08 -0500
> To: William Dicks <wd@isis.co.za>
> From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
> At 2:54 AM -0500 5/31/96, William Dicks wrote:
>
> >In Rom 1:17 Paul quotes from the OT: "O de dikaios ek pistews
> dzhsetai".
>
> >Why do almost every translation translate this as "The just/righteous
> shall
>
> >live by faith" as opposed to "But the just/righteous by faith shall
> live".
>
> >It changes the meaning completely. The first translation will mean
> that if
>
> >you are righteous you will live by faith. Whereas, the second will
> mean that
>
> >if you are righteous by faith, and not another means, you will live.
>
>
> I believe we've been through this once before not terribly long ago,
> but before you joined the list. You might find it convenient to consult
> the archives, of which there are two--the first might be easier for
> finding the thread as listings there are searchable by thread, date,
> and author of the message:
>
>
> <fontfamily><param>Courier</param><bigger> B-Greek
> Archive http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/
>
> B-Greek
> digest http://www.gramcord.org/bgreek/index.htm</bigger></fontfamily>
>
>
> Briefly (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if and when found wrong!), Paul
> cited the LXX text which, had it followed "standard" practice to mean
> what Paul read it to mean, would have had EK PISTEWS sandwiched between
> hO and DIKAIOS or else the article should have been repeated before EK
> PISTEWS. Quite simply put, you're right about what the citation OUGHT
> to mean in terms of its word-order; the translations offered are in
> terms of HOW PAUL READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE TEXT in order to use it as a
> proof text for a proposition which (I would guess) he did NOT derive
> from that text but rather, independently, perhaps, as in Galatians,
> where he works it out ealier, from Genesis 15:6).
>
>
> I think this must be a jarring discovery for everyone who has carefully
> learned the distinction between attributive and predicate positioning
> of the article and then comes to Paul's use of this LXX citation. I can
> well remember being thrown for a loop when I first confronted it in
> reading Romans 1: "How can he DO that? That text CAN'T mean what he
> takes it to mean!" I do think Paul's reasoning from OT texts--with the
> masterful exception of Romans 4 on Abraham--calls repeatedly for
> defenses in terms of, "But that sort of argumentation was standard
> practice then." I think if it were offered today it would be called
> eisegesis.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
>
> Department of Classics, Washington University
>
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
>
> (314) 935-4018
>
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
>
> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Fri May 31 09:39:32 1996
> Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 08:37:35 -0500
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
> Subject: re: Romans 1:17
>
> Carl Conrad's summary of the discussion of Rom 1:17 clearly hits the high
> points. The whole string can be accessed (as Carl stated) on the archive
> at http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/. I would add to
> it that it is on the list for 96-2. If you click on the subject index, you
> can find it under re: Rom 1:17. But don't miss the post from Edward Hobbs
> under "A further (Dissenting) Reply on Rom. 1:17" earlier in the list. He
> gives the readings from the Hebrew, LXX, and Paul. He gives a concise
> summary of earlier post as well.
>
> Carlton Winbery
> Fogleman Prof. Religion
> Louisiana College
> winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
>
>
>
> From @mars.itc.virginia.edu:owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Tue Jul 16 12:26:44 1996
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 11:01:57 EDT
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
> Subject: Romans 1:17 EK P-EIS P Jew/Gentile
>
> I'D APPRECIATE ANY FEEDBACK ON THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS/THOUGHTS.
>
> In his THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE GENTILES: PAUL'S LETTERS TO THE GALATIANS
> AND ROMANS (Hendrickson, 1994), Hendrikus Boers analyzes the structure of
> Romans based on Paul's rhetorical questions in chapters 3-11 and concludes
> that the theme of the letter is not, as is commonly held, in 1:17 (i.e.,
> justification by faith), but in 1:16 (i.e., the gospel is the power of God
> to all who believe, to the Jews first, and to the Hellenes). (pp. 77ff)
>
> Could this conclusion perhaps open the way to the proper understanding of
> Paul's EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN in 1:17, a phrase which has perplexed me for a
> long time (and apparently many translators and commentators as well)? I
> haven't finished it, but it doesn't appear that Boers elaborates on EK
> PISTEWS EIS PISTIN anywhere in his book.
>
> Boers states:
>
> It is important to note that the theme is not simply salvation to
> the Jews as well as gentiles, but to the Jews FIRST, and to the
> gentiles. Paul's formulation in 1:16, "to the Jews first, and to
> the Hellenes," repeated in 2:9 and 10, may be intentionally
> precise: The Jews are the first to receive salvation, and
> gentile salvation is grounded in that of the Jews. (pp. 81-82)
>
> If one of Paul's themes is that the faith that came from (EK/EX) the Jews
> (as the seed of Abraham? cf. 4:16 and John 4:22 "hH SWTHRIA EK TWN IOUDAIWN
> ESTIN") resulted in (EIS) salvation for the gentiles--or, conversely, that
> out of Abraham's faith which he had while uncircumcised (4:10) (i.e., while
> a gentile) salvation came to the Jews--then that may explain the
> back-to-back prepositional phrases in 1:17.
>
> In 3:30 Paul says that God will justify the circumcised (Jews) EK PISTEWS
> and the uncircumcised (gentiles) DIA THS PISTEWS. This is EK/DIA, not
> EK/EIS, and Boers points out on p. 108 that lexically the two prepositions
> at 3:30 can have the same meaning, but maybe Paul used the two different
> prepositions here both for stylistic reasons and to maintain his
> distinction of Jews and gentiles begun with his IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI
> hELLHNI in 1:16 and repeated at 2:9 and 10.
>
> If so, then perhaps Paul used the two different prepositions in 1:17
> because he was also referring to the two different peoples, i.e., Jews and
> gentiles--talking about the faith which comes out of (EK) the Jews and
> results in (EIS) [the same] faith coming to the gentiles--since both Jews
> and gentiles are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. In 1:16 Paul's EIS
> SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI means "resulting in salvation to all who
> believe." Since the EK PISTEWS in 1:17a derives from the EK PISTEWS in
> 1:17b in Paul's quote from Habbakuk 2:4, perhaps the EIS PISTIN in 1:17a is
> based on the EIS [SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi] PISTEUONTI in 1:16.
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Thu Jul 18 11:08:38 1996
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 96 10:50:11 EDT
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
> Subject: Re: Romans 1:17 EK P - EIS P Jew/Gentile
>
> Re: Erik van Halsema's informative response to my query.
>
> It seems that if one interprets the phrase at 2 Cor. 2:16 as
> "something coming from (EK) one group of people, resulting in
> (EIS) the same thing affecting or being brought to another group
> of people," this usage of EK/EIS in a manner parallel to Romans
> 1:17 could support the interpretation I suggested, i.e., the
> faith that came from (EK) the Jews came unto (EIS) or resulted in
> (EIS) faith coming unto the gentiles. I.e. (2 Cor. 2:15-16):
>
> 15. because of-Christ an-aroma we-are to God among
> those being-saved and among those perishing,
> 16. to-whom on-the-one-hand a-fragrance out-of (EK)
> [our? Jesus'?] death unto/resulting-in (EIS) [their]
> death,
> (i.e., the death of Jesus being carried about
> and working in the apostles' bodies is
> JUDGMENT against those perishing, i.e., those
> who do not respond to the gospel)
> to-whom on-the-other-hand a-fragrance out-of (EK) [our?
> Jesus'?] life unto/resulting-in (EIS) [their] life.
> (i.e., the death and resurrection of Jesus is
> LIFE for those being-saved, i.e., those who
> believe the gospel--cf. 2 Cor. 4:10-12)
>
> The agents/bringers ("we") and the recipients ("those
> being-saved"/"those perishing") of the death and life are
> explicitly stated in 2 Corinthians 15-16. None are explicitly
> stated for Romans 1:17--unless, as I have suggested, they are
> stated in 1:16, i.e., Jews and gentiles (Hellenes).
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Mon Jul 22 08:53:15 1996
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 08:34:40 EDT
> From: "James H. Vellenga" <jhv0@viewlogic.com>
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Romans 1:17 EK P-EIS P Jew/Gentile
>
> > From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > If one of Paul's themes is that the faith that came from (EK/EX) the Jews
> > (as the seed of Abraham? cf. 4:16 and John 4:22 "hH SWTHRIA EK TWN IOUDAIWN
> > ESTIN") resulted in (EIS) salvation for the gentiles--or, conversely, that
> > out of Abraham's faith which he had while uncircumcised (4:10) (i.e., while
> > a gentile) salvation came to the Jews--then that may explain the
> > back-to-back prepositional phrases in 1:17.
> >
> > In 3:30 Paul says that God will justify the circumcised (Jews) EK PISTEWS
> > and the uncircumcised (gentiles) DIA THS PISTEWS. This is EK/DIA, not
> > EK/EIS, and Boers points out on p. 108 that lexically the two prepositions
> > at 3:30 can have the same meaning, but maybe Paul used the two different
> > prepositions here both for stylistic reasons and to maintain his
> > distinction of Jews and gentiles begun with his IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI
> > hELLHNI in 1:16 and repeated at 2:9 and 10.
> >
> > If so, then perhaps Paul used the two different prepositions in 1:17
> > because he was also referring to the two different peoples, i.e., Jews and
> > gentiles--talking about the faith which comes out of (EK) the Jews and
> > results in (EIS) [the same] faith coming to the gentiles--since both Jews
> > and gentiles are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. In 1:16 Paul's EIS
> > SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI means "resulting in salvation to all who
> > believe." Since the EK PISTEWS in 1:17a derives from the EK PISTEWS in
> > 1:17b in Paul's quote from Habbakuk 2:4, perhaps the EIS PISTIN in 1:17a is
> > based on the EIS [SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi] PISTEUONTI in 1:16.
> >
>
> Let me make this text even more ambiguous by noting that there are one
> or two other players in Paul's drama who also have a PISTIS.
>
> The first is God: See Rom 3.3, THN PISTIN TOU QEOU -- generally
> translated as "God's faithfulness" -- i.e., subjective genitive. And
> the other is Jesus, as in Rom 3.22 "An uprightness of God through a
> PISTIS of Jesus Christ" (DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU). But even if, with
> most translators, you translate this latter as PISTIS in/to Jesus Christ,
> we still have a PISTIS of God.
>
> For convenience in explaining how a PISTIS of God can fit in here, let
> me use the word "commitment" for PISTIS, since "commitment" connotes
> both "faith" (as a mental act of assent) and "faithfulness" (as a set of
> actions by which one follows through). My edition of the American
> Heritage Dictionary defines "commitment" as "a state of being bound
> intellectually [and] emotionally to a particular course of action." And
> that pretty nearly sums up my take on the meaning of PISTIS.
>
> So let me hypothesize that Paul may be talking in part in Romans 1.17
> about God's PISTIS, to which we respond with a PISTIS of our own. Then
> if we see God taking the initiative (or possibly having even a partially
> unrewarded PISTIS, see Romans 3.3), then EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN could
> mean either
>
> from out of [God's] commitment [leading] to a commitment [of our own]
>
> or
>
> from out of [God's] commitment [to the Jews] [leading] to a commitment
> [to the Gentiles]
>
> But how about Paul's quasi-citation of Hab. 2.4, where he says something
> like "the upright from out of a commitment will live"? As previous
> postings to this list have noted, this could be read either "the one who
> is upright from out of a commitment will live" or "the one who is
> upright will live from out of a commitment". Usually we assume that
> this is the commitment of the upright person him(her)self, but the Greek
> does not specifically say that. So this too could be an upright person
> having life (or his uprightness) because of God's commitment.
>
> Previous posts have also noted that in Hab. 2.4, the Hebrew has "emunah"
> with the 3d person masc. possessive--hence, "his" faith or faithfulness.
> Again we usually assume this to be the faith or faithfulness of the
> upright person, but I don't think the Hebrew requires that
> interpretation either. Habakkuk is urging the listener to wait for the
> vision to be unveiled, and so may be saying, in fact, that the upright
> (as opposed to the presumptuous or proud person) will live by depending
> on His (i.e., God's) faithfulness/commitment.
>
> This reading would go along with Romans 3.3: "What if some of the Jews
> disbelieve? Will their disbelief nullify God's commitment?" I.e., in
> this case Paul is focusing on the effects of God's commitment (to which
> we commit ourselves in response), and seeing that as the primary driving
> force, rather than focusing on our commitment first.
>
> Finally, as to Eric's comments of Romans 3.20, one could then read this
> as "God ... will vindicate the circumcision from out of a [His]
> commitment and the uncircumcision through the commitment [that he made
> first to the Jews but then extended to the Gentiles through the Jewish
> Messiah (as Paul regarded him)]."
>
> Let me say that I am not necessarily committed to this view, but I would
> be interested whether other listers agree that this is a possible
> interpretation on the basis of the Greek.
>
> Regards,
> Jim V.
>
> James H. Vellenga | jvellenga@viewlogic.com
> Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-480-0881
> 293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-480-0882
> Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
> http://www.viewlogic.com
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Mon Jul 22 23:27:40 1996
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 22:19:36 +0400
> To: akio itou <akioitojapan@root.or.jp>
> From: "Carlton L. Winbery" <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17 (Feb, 96)
> Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
> akio itou wrote;
> >Personally I have found R.B. Hays' interpretation of Rom 1:17 convincing.
> >According to him, *EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN* means that 'out of Christ's
> >faithfulness into human faith'. Moreover, he argues for the christological
> >intepretation of Hab. 2:4b, i.e. Paul takes *HO DIKAIOS* as referring to
> >Christ.This interpretation has a certain advantage since two *EK PISTEWS*
> >in the same verse can be understood precisely in the same sense.
> > In summary (if I understand him correctly), his interpretation of Rom.
> >1:17 reads as:
> >For the righteousness of God is being revealed in it out of Christ's
> >faithfulness into humn faith, as it is written, 'But the righteous one,
> >i.e. Christ will live out of his own faithfulness.'
> >I am sure that this does not command unanimous consent, whichi simply
> >proves its ambiguity or difficluty of the verse.
>
> Edward Hobbs posted an informative note in February:
>
> >>>>>>John Moe's extremely insightful (and apparently now inciteful!)
> >>>>>>inquiry brought replies from two excellent scholars on our List. I
> >>>>>>am impelled to reply as well, since this is an extremely important
> >>>>>>text (and issue).
>
> Habakkuk 2:4---
>
> Hebrew: WTSDDYQ B'MUNTHO YHYH:
> But-the-righteous by-his-faith(fulness) shall-live.
>
> LXX: hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS MOU ZHSETAI.
> But the righteous by my faith(fulness) shall-live.
>
> Rom. 1:17--- hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.
>
> (Omitting Hebrew "HIS" and LXX "MY")
>
> Paul drops the HIS (Hebrew) or MY (LXX) to universalize the statement
> in Hab. 2:4. [The fact that W, the Freer MS. of the Minor Prophets, omits
> MOU does not indicate that Paul's LXX lacked the word; it is almost
> certainly a Christian scribe's correction, done VERY early--third century.]
>
> Both Carl and Carlton have suggested ways Paul SHOULD have rewritten
> this text if he thought it meant "The righteous through faith shall live."
> But I would argue that he did not feel free to rewrite the text. Paul
> does not rewrite his citations from the LXX to conform to his grammar.
> E.g., he uses the future ZHSW, not the classical ZHSOMAI, except when
> citing LXX, where he retains the future middle form (classical). See
> Zerwick, Section 226. He almost certainly could read Hebrew, and I would
> be incredulous if I were told that he didn't even bother to look in his
> Bible(s) for one of the two most central texts in his thinking. Hence he
> saw both "HIS" and "MY" as modifiers of "FAITH(FULNESS)", thus a legitimate
> variable he could omit to universalize the text.
>
> (And Carl, I would incline to think of this is the MOTTO for
> Romans, not a "proof text.")
>
> Now, how did Paul understand this text? (I won't refer you to my
> piece on this published just forty years ago, since I can't find it here
> myself.) Carlton put it correctly when he said that some commentators base
> their interpretation (The one who is righteous through faith shall live) on
> the structure of Romans. The modern commentator who fought hardest for
> this was Anders Nygren; his _Romerbrevet_ argued the case at great length
> and with substantial evidence. What question is Paul offering to answer in
> Romans? Is it, "How shall the righteous live? -- Answer: They shall live
> by faith." Or is it, "How can anyone find life, the goal of all human
> striving? I.e., Who shall live? Answer: The righteous through faith shall
> live."
> Ch. 1-4 -- The righteous through faith
> Ch. 5-8 (or 5-15) -- Shall live
> And in each case, he argues first negatively (what righteous through faith
> is not: it is not UNrighteousness, nor is it righteousness through
> law/works) (what life is not: not being under the power of wrath, sin, law,
> or death) then what it IS.
> No point in repeating Nygren (my copies of the original Swedish and
> the ET are in my office, not here in my cold basement, so I couldn't
> anyway, could I?); you can all read him.
> But he convinced me, long ago; and he convinced the RSV translators in
> 1946. Alas, the NRSV went back to Luther's interpretation, and consigned
> Lutheran Bishop Nygren to the margin. But then they usually got Paul
> wrong, I suspect.
>
> A final point on word order: Carl said,
> 'By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom. 1:17 SHOULD be
> construed with ZHSETAI . . . .'
> But as Carl well knows, lots of things in Hellenistic writers,
> including Paul, do not follow classical canons; and this example is
> probably one of them. Whether Paul would have moved EK PISTEWS before
> DIKAIOS if he felt free to re-write his Biblical text, I don't know; but
> I'm somewhat doubtful. The issue isn't whether this text COULD mean "The
> righteous shall live by faith," but whether it HAS to mean that. In my
> opinion, it doesn't--it can quite plausibly be read "The righteous through
> faith shall live," probably with the same ambiguity as that English
> sentence.<<<<<<<
>
> I agree that the sentence in Rom. is ambiguous. I agree with Edward that
> Paul is most likely thinking of "made righteous by faith." That is a
> dominating theme in the first half of Romans.
>
> I would reject the notion that hO DIKAIOS could refer to Christ. That
> seems out of keeping for both Hab and Rom, not that Paul would be
> controlled by the meaning of the original Hebrew.
>
> We should remember that the primary subject of this paragraph which extends
> over two verses is TO EUAGGELION. It is the gospel that Paul has not lost
> confidence in. It is by the gospel (EN AUTWi vs 17) that the DIKAIOSUNH
> QEOU is being revealed. It is revealed from faith (the faithful proclaimer
> - this is why Paul felt compelled to go to Spain) to faith (PANTI TWi
> PISTEUONTI). This is in keeping with the basic reasons Paul was compelled
> to write the letter in the first place.
>
>
> Carlton L. Winbery
> Prof. Religion
> LA College, Pineville, La
> winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
> winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
> winbrow@aol.com
>
>
>
> From owner-b-greek@virginia.edu Mon Jul 22 21:59:52 1996
> To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
> From: akio itou <akioitojapan@root.or.jp>
> Subject: Re: Rom 1:17
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:43:34 +0900
>
> Dear Greeks!
> Personally I have found R.B. Hays' interpretation of Rom 1:17 convincing.
> According to him, *EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN* means that 'out of Christ's
> faithfulness into human faith'. Moreover, he argues for the christological
> intepretation of Hab. 2:4b, i.e. Paul takes *HO DIKAIOS* as referring to
> Christ.This interpretation has a certain advantage since two *EK PISTEWS*
> in the same verse can be understood precisely in the same sense.
> In summary (if I understand him correctly), his interpretation of Rom.
> 1:17 reads as:
> For the righteousness of God is being revealed in it out of Christ's
> faithfulness into humn faith, as it is written, 'But the righteous one,
> i.e. Christ will live out of his own faithfulness.'
> I am sure that this does not command unanimous consent, whichi simply
> proves its ambiguity or difficluty of the verse.
>
> Yours,
> Akio.
>
>