Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Forum rules
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Romans 12:1 wrote:Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, παραστῆσαι (A) τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν (B) θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν.
Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν in the accusative. I get it that the other two accusative phrases mean "present A as B", like in Romans 6:19 ὥσπερ γὰρ παρεστήσατε (A) τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (B) δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν, οὕτως νῦν παραστήσατε (A) τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (B) δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν. or in Acts 9:41 φωνήσας δὲ τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ τὰς χήρας, παρέστησεν (A) αὐτὴν (B) ζῶσαν.

However, the τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν seems to be an abstract reference to the presentation, and would make more sense as ὅ ἐστιν ἡ λογικὴ λατρεία ὑμῶν* or αὕτη ἑστιν ἡ λογικὴ λατρεία ὑμῶν*.

Is there something simple to explain the syntax here?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Romans 12:1 wrote:Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, παραστῆσαι (A) τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν (B) θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν.
Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν in the accusative. I get it that the other two accusative phrases mean "present A as B", like in Romans 6:19 ὥσπερ γὰρ παρεστήσατε (A) τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (B) δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν, οὕτως νῦν παραστήσατε (A) τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (B) δοῦλα τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν. or in Acts 9:41 φωνήσας δὲ τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ τὰς χήρας, παρέστησεν (A) αὐτὴν (B) ζῶσαν.

However, the τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν seems to be an abstract reference to the presentation, and would make more sense as ὅ ἐστιν ἡ λογικὴ λατρεία ὑμῶν* or αὕτη ἑστιν ἡ λογικὴ λατρεία ὑμῶν*.

Is there something simple to explain the syntax here?
Perhaps something as simple as apposition? It seems to me that the idea here is comparable to that of Micah 6:6-8, a suggestion that authentic worship or sacrifice is this kind of self-oblation.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:Perhaps something as simple as apposition?

Apposition to the infinitive (παραστῆσαι)? Or to the whole phrase (παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ)? Or with a part of it (θυσίαν)?

In fact, I tend to think that παραστῆσαι is "used twice" here παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, and that because the construction παραστῆσαι <a noun> <an adjective> usually has only one adjective (Acts 9:41 παρέστησεν αὐτὴν ζῶσαν) that the παραστῆσαι ... θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ requires the repetition of the thought παραστῆσαι ... θυσίαν with each of the adjectives severally. [But that idea has not yet evolved far beyond the amino acids in Oparin's primordial soup.]
cwconrad wrote:It seems to me that the idea here is comparable to that of Micah 6:6-8, a suggestion that authentic worship or sacrifice is this kind of self-oblation.
Well, this "Why is it accusative?" question is actually only an "issue arising". Its genesis is Randall's very absolute comment that
RandallButh wrote:Glad to hear of your wanting to separate στῆσαι from στῆναι. These need partitioning in anyone's brain.
This is a case that, at the initial glimmer of thought, seemed to not require a very strong partition, because if thought of literally the Roman 12:1 request is almost reflexive, but in terms of the Micah passage and many other passages, the Roman's imagery would probably be better thought of literarily. In that case, the partition remains strong and well-defined.

Another thing that I didn't state it up-front, but I'm understanding θυσία in a more concrete sense here than perhaps in other places (θυσία = δῶρον). If θυσία were in a more abstract sense (the act of sacrificing), then I could see that in apposition with λατρεία.

There are a number of possible ways of looking at this, and I'm not sure which part of my thinking I actually agree with, if any of them at all.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Perhaps something as simple as apposition?

Apposition to the infinitive (παραστῆσαι)? Or to the whole phrase (παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ)? Or with a part of it (θυσίαν)?
I always thought the last option.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Another thing that I didn't state it up-front, but I'm understanding θυσία in a more concrete sense here than perhaps in other places (θυσία = δῶρον). If θυσία were in a more abstract sense (the act of sacrificing), then I could see that in apposition with λατρεία.
That would be the logic.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Thank you gentlemen. I've been wondering about that verse on and off since the late 80's. Good to clear it up.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Thank you gentlemen. I've been wondering about that verse on and off since the late 80's. Good to clear it up.
For my part, I've been pondering that verse and its successor off and on for many moons too, but the focus of my pondering is the meaning of the phrase λογικὴν λατρείαν. I've never been wholly convinced by any of the interpretations of the adjective.
In fact, the whole complex of Rom 12:1-2 is fascinating. I've marveled at the ambivalence of the middle-passive imperatives in 12:2
αὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον.
with their emphasis both on the agentive commitment of those offering themselves thus and on the external agency that is to transform their νοῦς either to the culture in which they live or to the will of God.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

For you they're imperatives. For me they're infinitives.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by cwconrad »

cwconrad wrote:For my part, I've been pondering that verse and its successor off and on for many moons too, but the focus of my pondering is the meaning of the phrase λογικὴν λατρείαν. I've never been wholly convinced by any of the interpretations of the adjective.
In fact, the whole complex of Rom 12:1-2 is fascinating. I've marveled at the ambivalence of the middle-passive imperatives in 12:2
αὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον.
with their emphasis both on the agentive commitment of those offering themselves thus and on the external agency that is to transform their νοῦς either to the culture in which they live or to the will of God.For you they're imperatives. For me they're infinitives.
Stephen Hughes wrote:For you they're imperatives. For me they're infinitives.
What? You're reading συσχηματίζεσθε and μεταμορφοῦσθε as scribal orthography for συσχηματίσεσθαι and μεταμορφοῦσθαι?
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

That's the Byzantine textform.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Rom. 12:1 Why is τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν acc.?

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Stephen Hughes wrote:That's the Byzantine textform.
I think it would be best to label quotations from this text as such; otherwise, people (like me) might get confused when looking at their own texts and wondering if the answer is a simple typo on your part.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”