Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
daveburt
Posts: 19
Joined: October 30th, 2017, 11:18 pm

Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by daveburt » November 1st, 2017, 5:20 am

Πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσωνται εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν;
πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;
πῶς δὲ ⸀ἀκούσωσιν χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος;

Romans 10:14
Most translations say something like "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" making οὗ indirect, someone heard about or heard of from a third party. But the New American versions make οὗ the direct object of ἤκουσαν, the speaker who is heard. Michael Horton's systematic theology makes a point of the latter; Michael Bird (who wrote a Romans commentary) understands it to be the former.

I understand both options to be legitimate; the former seems to fit the context better, giving οὗ the same role as ὃν, and focusing on the agency of the messenger, but the latter is more powerful rhetorically, linking believing/trusting in Christ with a direct word from Christ, which seems to be in view in v. 17 (ἄρα ἡ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος ⸀Χριστοῦ.).

How should we understand this word οὗ, and why? Are there considerations I'm missing that decide the issue?

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 637
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 1st, 2017, 2:06 pm

This indicates hearing a person directly, rather than merely hearing about a person. [1]
Eko Onggosanusi, Indonesian Journal of Theology 2/1 (July 2014): 1 - 22 KNOWING YET NOT KNOWING: The Irony of the Evangel in Romans 10, page 14.
https://journalteologi.files.wordpress. ... nowing.pdf

See also Blass-Debrunner-Funk §173.

Note: A citation does not necessarily imply agreement.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

daveburt
Posts: 19
Joined: October 30th, 2017, 11:18 pm

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by daveburt » November 2nd, 2017, 9:52 pm

Thanks for the references, Stirling. Blass-Debrunner-Funk §173 raises the additional possibility the thing heard could be the λογος or ρημα itself, though I would have thought that doesn't make much sense in the context with πιστεύειν and ἐπικαλέσαι εἰς.

It seems to me that the 'heard of' idea is a more complex construal, and that 'heard' would be simpler and more natural to hear. This direct object view is taken by commentators Cranfield, Morris, Dunn and Moo. Moo provides a subtler reading which seems to combine aspects of all these options: 'how shall they believe in whom they have not heard'; what must be heard is 'the word that proclaims Christ.'
...the context (see vv. 15, 16, 17) seems to require a reference to the 'word,' the gospel. Therefore Paul may use the genitive to suggest that Christ is the one who is heard in the message of the gospel -- Moo, Romans (NICNT), 663

Robert Crowe
Posts: 102
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by Robert Crowe » November 3rd, 2017, 4:32 am

daveburt wrote:
November 2nd, 2017, 9:52 pm
It seems to me that the 'heard of' idea is a more complex construal, and that 'heard' would be simpler and more natural to hear. This direct object view is taken by commentators Cranfield, Morris, Dunn and Moo. Moo provides a subtler reading which seems to combine aspects of all these options: 'how shall they believe in whom they have not heard'; what must be heard is 'the word that proclaims Christ.'
...the context (see vv. 15, 16, 17) seems to require a reference to the 'word,' the gospel. Therefore Paul may use the genitive to suggest that Christ is the one who is heard in the message of the gospel -- Moo, Romans (NICNT), 663
The object of πιστεύσωσιν has to be understood. The relative refers to this understood object. It is in the genitive because ἀκούω + gen. is usual when it's about a 'person' heard, + acc. when 'what' is heard.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

John Kendall
Posts: 9
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 5:41 pm

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by John Kendall » November 3rd, 2017, 7:26 am

You may find Paul Danove's work to be helpful here. See: https://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestam ... ament/416/.

John
--
John Kendall
Cardiff
Wales

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 637
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 3rd, 2017, 12:29 pm

John Kendall wrote:
November 3rd, 2017, 7:26 am
You may find Paul Danove's work to be helpful here. See: https://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestam ... ament/416/.
Paul L. Danove, the author the 2001 article, subsequently published:

Danove, P. L. (2015). New Testament verbs of communication: A case frame and exegetical study. London ; New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

Other works by Paul L. Danove

https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Auth ... %2C+Paul+L.

Danove, P. L. (2009). Grammatical and exegetical study of New Testament verbs of transference: A case frame guide to interpretation and translation. London ; New York: T & T Clark.

Danove, P. L. (2005). The rhetoric of the characterization of God, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples in the Gospel of Mark. New York: T&T Clark.

Danove, P. L. (2001). Linguistics and exegesis in the Gospel of Mark: Applications of a case frame analysis. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

daveburt
Posts: 19
Joined: October 30th, 2017, 11:18 pm

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by daveburt » November 4th, 2017, 12:18 am

Thanks for those -- looks like plenty to read in there. Off the bat that first paper talks about both direct and indirect hearing, but indirect seems to imply a topic, versus direct being a speaker.

Robert, beyond the point the heard being the same as the believed, are you saying that ου would still be a direct object if it were 'indirect' in terms of hearing of/about that person, versus my assumption that that would be something other than a direct object?

Robert Crowe
Posts: 102
Joined: January 8th, 2016, 11:06 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by Robert Crowe » November 4th, 2017, 7:39 am

daveburt wrote:
November 4th, 2017, 12:18 am
Robert, beyond the point the heard being the same as the believed, are you saying that ου would still be a direct object if it were 'indirect' in terms of hearing of/about that person, versus my assumption that that would be something other than a direct object?
Would expect περὶ οὗ if it were 'of/about whom'.
Tús maith leath na hoibre.

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 637
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 4th, 2017, 1:07 pm

John Kendall wrote:
November 3rd, 2017, 7:26 am
You may find Paul Danove's work to be helpful here.
Then again you may not. The question: Is it worth your time to become familiar with the framework? I have made several attempts over the years to read monographs presented using a case-frame theoretical model. I understand both the notation and the general ideas. I read Paul Danove's paper several times. I had some difficulty reconciling his readings of the standard grammars with what the standard grammars actually say.

It's entirely possible that something really profound is being unearthed in this paper, if so I missed out on it. If you want to jump directly to the part which addresses the question at hand, read pages 77-79, pay particularly close attention to rules number two and four on page 79.

I was not able to come up with a satisfactory application of the reformulated rules to the text under consideration. The stumbling block was the classification of οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν. I'm inclined to read the referent of the relative οὗ as the object or topic of perception. I would classify this example as +speaker. As I see it, this doesn't fit any of the rules on page 79.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 637
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Romans 10:14 - πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν;

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 4th, 2017, 2:45 pm

I took a fresh look at the rules on page 79, it looks like rule #2 is the one:
#2. the genitive case if the object is characterized by the feature, [+ speaker] (direct perception)
My main difficulty with this paper is reorienting my perspective so that I can see the problem the way the author of the paper is seeing it. I have been reading the standard reference grammars Robertson, Moulton-Turner, BDF, Zerwick, Smyth for several decades. I have read books written by Paul Danove borrowed from libraries but I haven't studied them at length. Paul Danove is certainly easier to understand than Guy Cooper.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest