[b-greek] Rom 2.23

From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Sat Dec 02 2000 - 13:42:46 EST


Everyone,

In Rom 2.23 we find the relative clause hOS EN NOMWi KAUCASAI. My question
is this: In light of the context, should we take this as the equivalent of a
vocative of simple address, which many versions apparently do? The reason I
ask is that in vv. 21-22 we have four substantival participles for which
Gramcord gives variant parsings (i.e., either nominative or vocative). Each
address is followed by a question. When we come to v. 23, we have the same
basic construction (except UBS 4 punctuates v. 23 with a semicolon rather
than with a question mark as in the preceding constructions). It would seem
natural and in keeping with the syntactical construction (not to mention the
rhythm of the passage as a whole) to view this relative clause as the
equivalent of a vocative of simple address (like the preceding participles)
followed by a question. Taking the main clause in v. 23 as a statement
rather than a question doesn't seem to make good sense, since hOS EN NOMWi
KAUCASAI and DIA THS PARABASEWS TOU NOMOU TON QEON ATIMAZEIS are not joined
by a conjunction of any kind, which we would expect (I think) if the thought
were "who boast in the law and dishonor God by transgressing the law," or
who boast in the law but dishonor God by transgressing the law." If
substantival participles may be parsed as vocatives, may relative pronouns
(under certain conditions) be also? This may raise the question of form or
function.

Steve


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.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 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:43 EDT