[b-greek] Re: Rom 2.23

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 02 2000 - 20:34:32 EST


At 12:42 PM -0600 12/2/00, Steven R. Lo Vullo wrote:
>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.

This is an interesting question; it calls to my mind immediately the
discovery that hO QEOS in the LXX and in NT passages citing it often seems
to be used as a vocative. And yet that would hardly seem possible unless
QEOS even with the article were understood as a proper name rather than a
generic noun. What are probably later LXX documents often have a vocative
form QEE or W QEE, which also implies that QEOS is understood as a proper
name, as I don't think it would ever have been understood in the culture of
classical Greek polytheism.

Yet it seems to me that something different is involved in these verses in
Romans 2: all of these substantival participles must be understood with an
elliptical subject SU to which they supply an attribute; although it's not
expressed in the Greek, it is surely implicit; in English it must be made
explicit--and the same is true of that relative clause which must have an
implicit SU as its antecedent; nor can you get away in English with "Who
boast in the Law, do you ...? You have to supply the antecedent in
translation whereas it can be left elliptical in the Greek.

21 hO OUN DIDASKWN hETERON SEAUTON OU DIDASKEIS? hO KHRUSSWN MH KLEPTEIN
KLEPTEIS? 22 hO LEGWN MH MOICEUEIN MOICEUEIS? hO BEDELUSSOMENOS TA EIDWLA
hIEROSULEIS? 23 hOS EN NOMWi KAUCASAI, DIA THS PARABASEWS TOU NOMOU TON
QEON ATIMAZEIS?
--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
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