From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 16 1998 - 06:48:34 EDT
At 5:37 PM -0400 7/15/98, Edward Hobbs wrote:
>Colleagues:
>
>Since the meaning of Romans 1:17 has come up again, and in particular the
>relation of EK PISTEWS to the rest of the sentence, and since I find myself
>in possible disagreement with Carl Conrad (a really rare event), I take the
>liberty of re-posting some material I posted over two years ago on the
>subject. I believe it is still relevant.
I did have, when the current round of discussion on the topic of anarthrous
attributive prepositional phrases began with the discussion of Rom 1:4 and
I raised anew the matter of the Habaakkuk citation in Rom 1:17, a powerful
sense of "dŽjˆ vu" and a vague recollection that this was an item on which
Edward and I held somewhat different views (not so much about the tenor of
Paul's argument in Rom 1:17 as about his Greek grammatical usage!). Now
Edward is very good about dragging out files from the archives and
recycling them; in this instance he cites from May of 1996; I've checked my
archives and find that, in fact, in May of 1996 Edward was recycling an
earlier message of his from February of 1996. There was in February 1996 a
very interesting thread beginning on February 3 and continuing
intermittently for several days on Romans 1:17. I found it instructive to
re-read it last night, and although I considered recycling one of my own
responses from 2/7/96 to Eric Weiss, I've thought better of it. I simply
want to quibble slightly with one or two things Edward has stated (and
re-stated 2x).
>
>--------------------------- [May 1996]
>
>
>Edgar Krentz's suggestion that EK PISTEWS might be an example of SYNTAXIS
>APO KOINOU, relating to both the NP preceding and the VP following, was an
>absolute delight to me -- for the simple reason that I had always thought
>that
>this was my personal discovery decades ago, but since I had never
>published on
>it, I lacked the right to claim it in public. Now I see that Edgar was right
>in there, too (and perhaps thousands of others). And since I too thought it
>made good sense (and so taught my students the possibility), I leap to
>Edgar's
>support. (As though Edgar Krentz ever needed my support!)
> Carl's further post shows that I had not altogether understood his
>earlier posting. He seems to be right where I have found myself for lo!
>these
>40+ years of giving seminars on Romans. So I can cease shuddering because of
>my disagreement with him!
>
>Here is the text Paul is using:
>
> Habakkuk 2:4---
>
>Hebrew: WTSDDYQ B'MUNTHO YHYH:
> But-the-righteous by-his-faith(fulness) shall-live.
>
>LXX: hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS MOU ZHSETAI.
> But the righteous by my faith(fulness) shall-live.
>
>Rom. 1:17--- hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI.
>
> (Omitting Hebrew "HIS" and LXX "MY")
>
> Paul drops the HIS (Hebrew) or MY (LXX) to universalize the statement
>in Hab. 2:4. [The fact that W, the Freer MS. of the Minor Prophets, omits
>MOU does not indicate that Paul's LXX lacked the word; it is almost
>certainly a Christian scribe's correction, done VERY early--third century.]
>
> Both Carl and Carlton have suggested ways Paul SHOULD have rewritten
>this text if he thought it meant "The righteous through faith shall live."
> But I would argue that he did not feel free to rewrite the text. Paul
>does not rewrite his citations from the LXX to conform to his grammar.
>E.g., he uses the future ZHSW, not the classical ZHSOMAI, except when
>citing LXX, where he retains the future middle form (classical). See
>Zerwick, Section 226. He almost certainly could read Hebrew, and I would
>be incredulous if I were told that he didn't even bother to look in his
>Bible(s) for one of the two most central texts in his thinking. Hence he
>saw both "HIS" and "MY" as modifiers of "FAITH(FULNESS)", thus a legitimate
>variable he could omit to universalize the text.
Here I'd raise a minor quibble (at least I think it's minor): for my part I
am incredulous at Edward's suggestion that Paul consulted LXX and Hebrew
texts of Habakkuk when writing this discussion in Romans; I rather think
that reflects modern methods of composition in an era of the printed text.
The ancient manner, I believe, and one that I myself rely on, often to my
own chagrin when it becomes evident that my memory has gone awry, is
relying upon a memorized text. This is what Plato does repeatedly in the
dialogues when citing Homer and other poets, it's what Cicero and many
another ancient author did, and I believe that it is also what Paul was
doing. It has been shown that these citations are not so infrequently at
some variance from the surviving MS text; frequently enough there's a word
altered or added or omitted from what our modern established text shows as
the original. I won't attempt to argue that Paul didn't know Hebrew
(although some of the discrepancies between Acts and Galatians leave open
to question whether Paul really ever studied with Gamaliel), but I really
doubt that he carefully compared the Hebrew and LXX texts of Hab 2:4; I
think he cited the LXX verse from memory without either an AUTOU reflecting
the Hebrew or the MOU of the LXX--I think he cited it as he recalled it and
reflected on it in a manner clearly showing he understood EK PISTEWS to be
understood attributively with hO DIKAIOS.
> Now, how did Paul understand this text? (I won't refer you to my
>piece on this published just forty years ago, since I can't find it here
>myself.) Carlton put it correctly when he said that some commentators base
>their interpretation ("The one who is righteous through faith shall live") on
>the structure of Romans. The modern commentator who fought hardest for
>this was Anders Nygren; his _Romarbrevet_ argued the case at great length
>and with substantial evidence.
> What question is Paul offering to answer in
>Romans? Is it, "How shall the righteous live? -- Answer: They shall live
>by faith." Or is it, "How can anyone find life, the goal of all human
>striving? I.e., Who shall live? Answer: The righteous through faith shall
>live."
> Ch. 1-4 -- The righteous through faith
> Ch. 5-8 (or 5-15) -- Shall live
>And in each case, he argues first negatively (what righteous through faith
>is not: it is not UNrighteousness, nor is it righteousness through
>law/works) (what life is not: not being under the power of wrath, sin, law,
>or death), then what it IS.
> No point in repeating Nygren (my copies of the original Swedish and
>the ET are in my office, not here in my cold basement, so I couldn't
>anyway, could I?); you can all read him.
> But he convinced me, long ago; and he convinced the RSV translators in.
>Alas, the NRSV went back to Luther's interpretation, and consigned
>Lutheran Bishop Nygren to the margin. But then they usually got Paul
>wrong, I suspect.
>
> A final point on word order: Carl said,
>
>>By terms of "normal" Greek grammar, EK PISTEWS in Rom. 1:17 SHOULD be
>>construed with ZHSETAI . . . .
>
> But as Carl well knows, lots of things in Hellenistic writers,
>including Paul, do not follow classical canons; and this example is
>probably one of them. Whether Paul would have moved EK PISTEWS before
>DIKAIOS if he felt free to re-write his Biblical text, I don't know; but
>I'm somewhat doubtful. The issue isn't whether this text COULD mean "The
>righteous shall live by faith," but whether it HAS to mean that. In my
>opinion, it doesn't--it can quite plausibly be read "The righteous through
>faith shall live," probably with the same ambiguity as that English
>sentence.
I readily admit that "lots of things in Hellenistic writers, including
Paul, do not follow classical canons" and that "this example is probably
one of them." On the other hand, I don't think that BDF#272 is in error:
"With prepositional attributives, if in postposition, the repetition of the
article appears to be especially necessary for the sake of clarity." There
are some exceptions that are noted. I think, moreover, that what Paul found
(or more likely recalled from memory) in the LXX was less likely to conform
to grammatical canons than what Paul might have written himself--and I
quite agree that Paul wouldn't have re-composed/re-written/re-translated
the Habakkuk text in some superior Greek format of his own.
> Just in case you don't know, I shudder to disagree with Carl on
>grammar. But then, I am -- or used to be -- a grammarian myself; so I
>decided to "Sin boldly!" (If sin it be.)
My archives show that I urged Edward (off-list) back in February 1996 to
keep on "sinning boldly," and, if disagreement with me is a sin (it
isn't!), I note that he has indeed continued to "sin boldly."
I would add here, however, that, although I am as ready as any other to
hesitate before voicing disagreement with anyone whose judgment I've grown
to respect, it is surely ultimately the rational cogency and persuasiveness
of an argument rather than the identity of the maker of the argument that
should win consent to a proposition.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:53 EDT