At 2:54 AM -0500 5/31/96, William Dicks wrote:
>In Rom 1:17 Paul quotes from the OT: "O de dikaios ek pistews
dzhsetai".
>Why do almost every translation translate this as "The just/righteous
shall
>live by faith" as opposed to "But the just/righteous by faith shall
live".
>It changes the meaning completely. The first translation will mean
that if
>you are righteous you will live by faith. Whereas, the second will
mean that
>if you are righteous by faith, and not another means, you will live.
I believe we've been through this once before not terribly long ago,
but before you joined the list. You might find it convenient to consult
the archives, of which there are two--the first might be easier for
finding the thread as listings there are searchable by thread, date,
and author of the message:
Courier B-Greek
Archive http://www.entmp.org/cgi-bin/lwgate/B-GREEK/archives/
B-Greek
digest http://www.gramcord.org/bgreek/index.htm
Briefly (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if and when found wrong!), Paul
cited the LXX text which, had it followed "standard" practice to mean
what Paul read it to mean, would have had EK PISTEWS sandwiched between
hO and DIKAIOS or else the article should have been repeated before EK
PISTEWS. Quite simply put, you're right about what the citation OUGHT
to mean in terms of its word-order; the translations offered are in
terms of HOW PAUL READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE TEXT in order to use it as a
proof text for a proposition which (I would guess) he did NOT derive
from that text but rather, independently, perhaps, as in Galatians,
where he works it out ealier, from Genesis 15:6).
I think this must be a jarring discovery for everyone who has carefully
learned the distinction between attributive and predicate positioning
of the article and then comes to Paul's use of this LXX citation. I can
well remember being thrown for a loop when I first confronted it in
reading Romans 1: "How can he DO that? That text CAN'T mean what he
takes it to mean!" I do think Paul's reasoning from OT texts--with the
masterful exception of Romans 4 on Abraham--calls repeatedly for
defenses in terms of, "But that sort of argumentation was standard
practice then." I think if it were offered today it would be called
eisegesis.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
eology at Chicago
1100 EAST 55TH STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60615
Tel: [773] 256-0752; (H) [773] 947-8105
Reply to: FFFF,0000,0000ekrentz@lstc.edu
(office)
orFFFF,0000,0000 emkrentz@mcs.com
(home)