From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 03 2002 - 16:51:28 EST
At 3:05 PM -0600 3/3/02, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:
>>> Rom 7.21: hEURISKW ARA TON NOMON, TWi QELONTI EMOI POIEIN TO KALON, hOTI
>>> EMOI TO KAKON PARAKEITAI
>>>
>>> I think I would understand this sentence just fine if not for the use of
>>> EMOI in TWi QELONTI EMOI POIEIN TO KALON. What is its relationship to TWi
>>> QELONTI? It would seem to me that TWi QELONTI is in apposition to the EMOI
>>> in the epexegetical hOTI clause: "So I find the principle that evil is
>>> present in me, the one who wishes to do good." The first EMOI seems
>>> superfluous and out of place. Any ideas?
>>> ============
> . . . One of the
>sticking points for me, though, is that ,,, QELONTI appears to be
>substantival, >qualified by the article. It
>seems to be in a sort of "reverse apposition" with the EMOI in the hOTI
>clause. I've noticed this type of apposition a few times in Romans in the
>last several days.
>============
Last week we were dealing with another curious item of word-order in 7:10,
also brought to our attention to Steven. My take on that one is reproduced
herebelow because I think the word-order pattern is NOT IRRELEVANT to what
we find in the current instance.
Now I think we have a very similar positioning: here it's TWi QELONTI MOI;
there it was hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN [,] hAUTH. And I think that here too we
have a case of what Steven is with some justification calling "reverse
apposition"--and that it makes for a very powerful statement: "So I find
the operant principle (NOMON): for the one wishing to do what is
good--ME--, that FOR ME what is evil is in my power." (and I think that's
the sense of PARAKEITAI here). I think the EMOI postioned behind TWi
QELONTI and in apposition to it is rhetorically very forceful--and that the
EMOI which comes first in the hOTI clause is also very forceful.
I think that this whole presentation in Rom 7:7-25 requires an analysis
that does full justice to its rhetoric as well as to its syntax.
---------------
>>Rom 7.10: EGW DE APEQANON KAI hEUREQH MOI hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN, hAUTH EIS
>>QANATON
>>
>>The punctuation of UBS4 and NA27 indicate that the editors did not consider
>>hAUTH to be a modifier of ENTOLH. It seems to me that this would entail
>>considering hAUTH as the subject of hEUREQH, with hH ENTOLH "hanging,"
>>somewhat like a nominativus pendens. However, as I understand the pendent
>>nominative, it "hangs" at the beginning of the clause, is the logical
>>(though not syntactical) subject, and is replaced in the sentence by a
>>pronoun IN A DIFFERENT CASE. I have two questions: (1) Is there anything to
>>hinder us from considering hAUTH as a qualifier of hH ENTOLH ("this
>>commandment which was to result in life")? (2) Is it possible for hH ENTOLH
>>to be an independent use of the nominative here ("and the commandment which
>>was to result in life--THIS proved to me to be a commandment resulting in
>>death")? It would seem that if (2) is correct, hAUTH is emphatic to one
>>degree or another. Perhaps "this very commandment" would be a good
>>rendering?
>
>I can't, for my part, see any other way to account for this hAUTH as you
>have expounded it here, Steven; semantically it seems to me that
>
>hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN hAUTH
>= hAUTH hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN
>= hH ENTOLH hAUTH hH EIS ZWHN
>= hAUTH hH EIS ZWHN ENTOLH
>
>i.e. hAUTH is, as the convention for demonstratives requires, in a
>predicative position to hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN,
>
>BUT: it is positioned somewhat oddly FOLLOWING an appended attributive
>phrase that must be construed with hH ENTOLH. I do NOT think that either
>the hAUTH or the hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN should be viewed as "hanging"--I
>think that they must be construed together. Finally I agree with you that
>hAUTH is all the more emphatic in this final position. It may be that the
>editors (there's no note on this verse in Metzger's _Testual Commentary_)
>have understood this hAUTH as a sort of appositive to hH ENTOLH hH EIS ZWHN:
>
>My very free effort to convey the force of the word-order into awkward
>English: "... and it proved to me--the commandment (intended) for
>life--this very commandment-- to be death-dealing."
>
>i.e., I think the word-order of this sentence is quite deliberately
>contorted by Paul so that the word-order itself expresses the vivid and
>shocking sequence of items entering into the lad's awareness in this
>"autobiographical" account of loss of innocence (I'm not offering any
>serious exegetical effort here, nothing more than a suggestion of how I see
>this sentence within its context). I think the rhetoric of this sentence is
>extraordinarily powerful.
------------------
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:37:19 EDT