Rom 1:20 νοουμενα καθοραται which prep phrase do they modify

[Alan Patterson]

Can either of νοουμενα or καθοραται modify either prep phrase that immediately precedes them?

Rom 1:20 τα γαρ αορατα αυτου απο κτισεως κοσμου τοις ποιημασιν νοουμενα καθοραται η τε αιδιος αυτου δυναμις και θειοτης εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους

For example, are any of the below eliminated syntactically?

1a νοουμενα απο κτισεως κοσμου

1b νοουμενα τοις ποιημασιν

2a καθοραται απο κτισεως κοσμου

2b καθοραται τοις ποιημασιν

[cwconrad]

Can either of νοουμενα or καθοραται modify either prep phrase that immediately precedes them?

Rom 1:20 τα γαρ αορατα αυτου απο κτισεως κοσμου τοις ποιημασιν νοουμενα καθοραται η τε αιδιος αυτου δυναμις και θειοτης εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους

For example, are any of the below eliminated syntactically?

1a νοουμενα απο κτισεως κοσμου

1b νοουμενα τοις ποιημασιν

2a καθοραται απο κτισεως κοσμου

2b καθοραται τοις ποιημασιν

It seems to me that the word-order relates both τοῖς ποιήμασιν and ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου to νοούμενα and νοούμενα to τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ; καθορᾶται is the predicate of the subject τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. It's true that both the participle νούμενα and the main verb καθορᾶται are present-tense, but I would understand both of them, in view of the phrase ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, as implying accessibility to observation as ongoing since the time of creation.

So: I would understand the syntax thus: τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοὐ καθορᾶται is the main statement: this is something that has been happening continuously; the participial phrase ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα explains how/why this discernment has been possible.

Now, it may be that the question has arisen because of the clear semantic relationship between νοούμενα and καθορᾶται, both involving discernment and recognition. One might therefore suppose that these two verb forms function together to indicate the combined process of observation and inference and for that reason argue that ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν should be construed with the two verbs together. I don't think I'd argue with that, even if it may seem contradictory to the first paragraph of my response above. This is an instance, I think, of a construction wherein the meaning of the whole is not really in doubt but assignment of which elements of meaning belong -- and in which order -- to which other elements in the whole -- seems rather arbitrary. The reader readily understands what the whole text means, but grammatical analysis of the construction doesn't really seem very helpful to explain the logic: "These invisible attributes are, have been -- readily observed and inferred -- in created things -- ever since the world's creation" or " ... have been discerned and recognized from things created ever since creation began."

[David Lim]

It seems to me that the word-order relates both τοῖς ποιήμασιν and ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου to νοούμενα and νοούμενα to τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ; καθορᾶται is the predicate of the subject τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. It's true that both the participle νούμενα and the main verb καθορᾶται are present-tense, but I would understand both of them, in view of the phrase ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, as implying accessibility to observation as ongoing since the time of creation.

Is it possible that the phrase "απο κτισεως κοσμου" does not have any connotation of time? I understood the whole sentence as "for his invisible [attributes], being comprehended from [the] creation of [the] world [in] the things made, are clearly seen, both his eternal power and divineness, in order that they may be inexcusable." In particular, I took the two adjectival phrases to modify "νοουμενα" as you did, but I assumed that both were simply variations of the same statement of how his eternal power and divineness are comprehended: "they can be clearly seen from the creation of the world and they can be clearly seen in the things made".

[cwconrad]

It seems to me that the word-order relates both τοῖς ποιήμασιν and ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου to νοούμενα and νοούμενα to τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ; καθορᾶται is the predicate of the subject τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. It's true that both the participle νούμενα and the main verb καθορᾶται are present-tense, but I would understand both of them, in view of the phrase ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, as implying accessibility to observation as ongoing since the time of creation.

Is it possible that the phrase "απο κτισεως κοσμου" does not have any connotation of time? I understood the whole sentence as "for his invisible [attributes], being comprehended from [the] creation of [the] world [in] the things made, are clearly seen, both his eternal power and divineness, in order that they may be inexcusable." In particular, I took the two adjectival phrases to modify "νοουμενα" as you did, but I assumed that both were simply variations of the same statement of how his eternal power and divineness are comprehended: "they can be clearly seen from the creation of the world and they can be clearly seen in the things made".

It may be possible, but inasmuch as κτίσεως is further qualified by the genitive κόσμου, I think it more probable that κτίσις refers not to the created world but the event of the world's creation, and that ἀπὸ here does indicate the point in time from which the observation and inference have been accessible.

[David Lim]

It seems to me that the word-order relates both τοῖς ποιήμασιν and ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου to νοούμενα and νοούμενα to τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ; καθορᾶται is the predicate of the subject τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ. It's true that both the participle νούμενα and the main verb καθορᾶται are present-tense, but I would understand both of them, in view of the phrase ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, as implying accessibility to observation as ongoing since the time of creation.

Is it possible that the phrase "απο κτισεως κοσμου" does not have any connotation of time? I understood the whole sentence as "for his invisible [attributes], being comprehended from [the] creation of [the] world [in] the things made, are clearly seen, both his eternal power and divineness, in order that they may be inexcusable." In particular, I took the two adjectival phrases to modify "νοουμενα" as you did, but I assumed that both were simply variations of the same statement of how his eternal power and divineness are comprehended: "they can be clearly seen from the creation of the world and they can be clearly seen in the things made".

It may be possible, but inasmuch as κτίσεως is further qualified by the genitive κόσμου, I think it more probable that κτίσις refers not to the created world but the event of the world's creation, and that ἀπὸ here does indicate the point in time from which the observation and inference have been accessible.

I see, thanks! Interesting that the natural choice of "from" in English leaves both possibilities there too.

[cwconrad]

I see, thanks! Interesting that the natural choice of "from" in English leaves both possibilities there too.

Well, I'm not so sure that "from" should be a "natural choice" in English for the ἀπὸ of ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου. It seems to me that this speaks to the question of equation of simple glosses with Greek words that need to be understood in context. I've looked at several translations and haven't found any that understands ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου other than in temporal sense.

[David Lim]

I see, thanks! Interesting that the natural choice of "from" in English leaves both possibilities there too.

Well, I'm not so sure that "from" should be a "natural choice" in English for the ἀπὸ of ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου. It seems to me that this speaks to the question of equation of simple glosses with Greek words that need to be understood in context. I've looked at several translations and haven't found any that understands ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου other than in temporal sense.

Yes it may not be a "natural choice" in this phrase depending on one's interpretation, but in general the preposition connotes a point of origin from which something comes, and "from" in English is similar. Darby's translation, HCSB, LEB and KJV all use "from", and leave it to the reader to decide whether it is referring to the source of "understanding" or the origin of the "creation" in time. Although of course the source of understanding cannot precede its origin in time, I think the temporal sense is not necessarily the intended one.