AMSpencer wrote:In Romans 2:21-23, Paul addresses the Jew who condemns others for their sin and yet practices the same basic things in his own life. Here are the verses:
ὁ οὖν διδάσκων ἕτερον σεαυτὸν οὐ διδάσκεις; ὁ κηρύσσων μὴ κλέπτειν κλέπτεις; ὁ λέγων μὴ μοιχεύειν μοιχεύεις; ὁ βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς; ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι, διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου τὸν θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις· (Romans 2:21–23)
You will note that the first four addresses in these verses take the form of the article with participle: ὁ διδάσκων, ὁ κηρύσσων, ὁ λέγων, ὁ βδελυσσόμενος.
Then, in the last address, the form changes to a relative pronoun and finite verb: ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι.
What, if anything, is the difference in these two constructions? What is the significance of the fact that Paul changed his construction for the final assertion?
I think "ὃς" is a bit more appropriate for the final phrase, because it is more generic: "Whoever boasts in law, do you dishonour God through the transgression of the law?", whereas the earlier questions are more directed to the relevant groups of persons among the audience: "O you who teach another, do you not teach yourself? O you who proclaim not to steal, do you steal? O you who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? O you who loath idols, do you rob temples?". I also tend to think it is reasonable to consider the last phrase to be a question rather than a statement, because it just seems odd to me for a statement to use both an indefinite relative and a second person construction, whereas questions can have such change in focus. In any case, the positive assertion or rhetorical question does not need an answer, so it would mean essentially the same thing.