From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 30 1996 - 18:09:34 EDT
At 2:12 PM -0400 7/29/96, Carlton L. Winbery wrote:
>Tom Launder wrote;
>
>>In my study of Romans 9:14-18, I have encountered an interesting verse that
>>I am not clearly understanding. In 9:16 Paul uses three genitive
>>participles:
>>
>>"ARA OUN OU *TOU QELONTOS* OUDE *TREXONTOS* ALLA *TOU ELEWNTOS* QEOU."
>>
>>NKJV "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God
>>who shows mercy."
>>
>>NIV "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire of effort, but on God's
>>mercy."
>>
>>NASB "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs,
>>but on God who has mercy."
>>
>>In the translations there is an elliptical idea inserted (it is; does
>>depend) which is negated.
>>
>>Thus I have a couple of questions in attempting to understand these
>>participles. My first thought is to understand these as the direct objects
>>of the elliptical verb. Am I right?
>>
>>These are substantive participles which translators translate with "of . .
>>." Is there some genitive relationship that can be understood here?
>>
>>The commentaries I consulted did not offer any help here. WBC Dunn says
>>"the genitive formulation is not specific and should be left vague in
>>translation." This is not too helpful. :)
>>
>Tom, remember that the question in ch. 9 of Romans is about God's promises
>to Israel and his choosing. You are probably right that "It is . . ." is
>understood before each of the negative constructions and following the
>"but". The genitive case is used in each of the participles as a genitive
>of means (some prefer ablative of means, which is rare in the NT; normally
>the genitive is used with agency and the dative with means). So the
>meaning would be "It (God's choosing) is not by willing nor by running but
>by the mercy of God." The question remains as to who is not doing the
>willing or the running. Most translations assume that the willing of man
>or the running of man is being negated. That seems to me to be a safe
>assumption.
In Latin grammar we speak of a predicate genitive that is often used with
an infinitive; the genitive indicates the person or kind of person of whom
the behavior indicated by the infinitive is characteristic. I have no
reference works with me at hand, but I would understand the elliptical
construction of Rom 9:16 thus:
ARA OUN OU(K ESTI TO ELEIN) TOU QELONTOS (ANQRWPOU) OUDE TOU TREXONTOS
(ANQRWPOU) ALLA TOU ELEWNTOS QEOU.
And I'd give a "hyperliteral" translation thus: "So (ARA) being merciful is
NOT, ultimately (OUN), an attribute of the human being who wills nor of the
human being who runs, but rather of God who has mercy."
I would say too that what is negated is not the participles but the
implicit verb, ESTI(N).
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:47 EDT