Romans 1:2. Grammar enquiry

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Post Reply
davidstansfield
Posts: 23
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Romans 1:2. Grammar enquiry

Post by davidstansfield »

Romans 1:2
ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις (which he promised beforehand through the prophets of him in the holy scriptures)

Hello,
Continuing my uncommon translation of Rom 1:1 as “… having been separated into …”: can the common translation of Rom 1:2, “which he promised beforehand…”, refer back to this separation? Specifically, is the morphology and syntax of ὃ προεπηγγείλατο compatible with the wider phrase, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ?
David R. Stansfield
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2089
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Romans 1:2. Grammar enquiry

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

davidstansfield wrote: September 25th, 2020, 12:58 am Romans 1:2
ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις (which he promised beforehand through the prophets of him in the holy scriptures)

Hello,
Continuing my uncommon translation of Rom 1:1 as “… having been separated into …”: can the common translation of Rom 1:2, “which he promised beforehand…”, refer back to this separation? Specifically, is the morphology and syntax of ὃ προεπηγγείλατο compatible with the wider phrase, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ?
Look at the context:

Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ1, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, 2  προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις...

The natural antecedent for the neuter pronoun ὅ is εὐαγγέλιον. Your suggestion is essentially impossible.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
davidstansfield
Posts: 23
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:2. Grammar enquiry

Post by davidstansfield »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: September 25th, 2020, 8:41 am The natural antecedent for the neuter pronoun ὅ is εὐαγγέλιον.
Thank you,
Ok…
The answer to my question, ‘can the common translation of Rom 1:2’ refer back to this separation (directly), is no.

FYI, my proposed translation of εἰς in Rom 1:1, stands.
With the focus on the gospel, the meaning is that the promised, prophesied gospel anticipated this…
David R. Stansfield
davidstansfield
Posts: 23
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:2. Grammar enquiry

Post by davidstansfield »

The precision of the pronoun ὅ for εὐαγγέλιον, helps. Thank you!
davidstansfield wrote: September 28th, 2020, 7:00 pm FYI, my proposed translation of εἰς in Rom 1:1, stands.
With the focus on the gospel, the meaning is that the promised, prophesied gospel anticipated this…
Anticipated what…?
Per e.g. Gal 3:8 (NRSV), “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.’”

The gospel concerning the Son is summarised in 1:3-4.

Something about the ‘into’, was anticipated…
David R. Stansfield
Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”