The Use of the Article in Romans 15:16

[David]

In Romans Paul begins by identifying himself as an apostle set apart for the Gospel of God. He writes Gospel of God as εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (1:1), which, as far as I can find is the only time the Gospel is described in this manner.

Near the end of the letter he makes another statement about himself "a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the Gospel of God." Here he writes Gospel of God as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ. Does his use of the article, τοῦ θεοῦ, refer back to Romans 1:1? Would the meaning be any different if he had omitted the article and written τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ?

[Jason Hare]

In Romans Paul begins by identifying himself as an apostle set apart for the Gospel of God. He writes Gospel of God as εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (1:1), which, as far as I can find is the only time the Gospel is described in this manner.

Near the end of the letter he makes another statement about himself "a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the Gospel of God." Here he writes Gospel of God as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ. Does his use of the article, τοῦ θεοῦ, refer back to Romans 1:1? Would the meaning be any different if he had omitted the article and written τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ?

Hi, David.

We have a lot of “Davids” on the forum. Any way that you could distinguish yourself by adding your last name in your signature?

I don’t think that the article in ὁ θεός needs to refer back to anything, since it has a fixed referent in the minds of Paul and his readers, who were already Christians who believed in a specific God. Paul could suddenly write ὁ θεός without having ever mentioned God before, and it would refer to the same person / being in his mind.

Can you think of any instance of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ without the article?

We see the following in Romans 1 (NA28):

Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν...

This is the opening of a letter, and epistolary openings generally lack articles where we would otherwise expect them. This doesn’t mean that we should read θεοῦ here as if it were indefinite (θεοῦ τινος). It is still referring to the one and only God that Paul believed was the real God, the one that he termed the father of Jesus.

[ Note on fonts: I use Junicode for English and GFS Porson for Greek. ]

[Stephen Carlson]

Always helpful to quote the text:

εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.

And the earlier instance

Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ

The behavior of this term follows the general behavior in Greek that inherently unique referents generally take the article in certain contexts (in 15:16 as the direct object) but not in others (in 1:1 as the object of a preposition). This even applies to the dependent genitive, giving us Apollonius’ Canon. I don’t think there’s anything more special going on.

[Jason Hare]

And just as Stephen quotes from Romans 15:16, we would not think that Paul had an alternative “holy spirit” in view in the last phrase (ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ). It’s still the holy spirit, even without the article.

[David]

Since every use of εὐαγγέλιον after the opening includes the article, I assumed they are anaphoric, pointing back to εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ.

Wasn't sure if the proper way to indicate this was to include the article with both εὐαγγέλιον and θεοῦ, as is done in 15:16 "τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ" or if simply writing τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ would suffice. And if τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ is acceptable, does adding the second article, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ serve to give emphasis?

[Stephen Carlson]

Since every use of εὐαγγέλιον after the opening includes the article, I assumed they are anaphoric, pointing back to εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ.

The dividing line between anaphoric and general knowledge isn't always clear. Generally the further back in the text you go, the less likely it's anaphoric.

Wasn't sure if the proper way to indicate this was to include the article with both εὐαγγέλιον and θεοῦ, as is done in 15:16 "τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ" or if simply writing τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ would suffice. And if τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ is acceptable, does adding the second article, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ serve to give emphasis?

Unlike English, Greek doesn't add the article for emphasis. If anything, omitting an expected article is emphatic, or at least the article is often omitted in emphatic positions in the sentence.

When you have a noun and a genitive, the general practice is that either both get the article or both lack the article. This principle is called Apollonius' Canon. Deviations from this principle are usually marked. Thus we wouldn't expect to see τὸ εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ unless something weird is going on.

[David]

Thank you.

[David]

In looking at other places where Paul wrote "the Gospel of God" I find that phrase in 2 Corinthians 11:7:

ἢ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε ὅτι δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν

How does the sense of τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον in the letter to the Corinthians differ from τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans?

[Barry Hofstetter]

In looking at other places where Paul wrote "the Gospel of God" I find that phrase in 2 Corinthians 11:7:

ἢ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε ὅτι δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν

How does the sense of τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον in the letter to the Corinthians differ from τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans?

It doesn't. It's simply an alternative way of expressing the same concept.

[Stephen Carlson]

In looking at other places where Paul wrote "the Gospel of God" I find that phrase in 2 Corinthians 11:7:

ἢ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑψωθῆτε ὅτι δωρεὰν τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν

How does the sense of τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγέλιον in the letter to the Corinthians differ from τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans?

It’s a matter of emphasis. Putting the genitive before the noun (as long as the genitive is orthotonic, that is, not enclitic such as μου, σου, etc.) is supposed to emphasize the genitive more.