Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι ...

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Stephen C. Carlson Ph.D., Duke University raised an old question today at the other place about Rom 5:15 ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἕνὸς ἄνθρωπου.

Rom. 5:15 Ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα· εἰ γὰρ τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν.

Should we understand ἐν χάριτι ... as a substantive "modifier" of ἡ δωρεὰ or an adverbial with ἐπερίσσευσεν. Sandy and Headlam (ICC) claim that Hellenistic Greek didn't require a repetition of the article ἡ before a constituent functioning as a substantive "modifier" but I wonder about this. The classical usage would have been ἡ δωρεὰ ἡ ἐν χάριτι ... and there are a sufficient number of NT scholars who have taken ἐν χάριτι as an adverbial with ἐπερίσσευσεν, H. A. W. Meyer, others.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Link to the discussion at the other place:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1417&sid=a487ee84b93a70cef24ce96ce7c171ff

[Sinister Petrus]

From what I gather over at the other discussion thread, I'm seeing the linguist/classicist disconnect.

The linguistic approach (that of Patterson) makes no sense to the classicist's approach (that of Carlson). Given my predilections, I'm wont to side with the linguists. Personally, the original Greek is the only legitimate reading. Any understanding in English, be it adverbial or adjectival in nature, is just that: an approximation in English. Both of Carlson's suggested translations are (to my eyes anyway) reasonable approximations, but the second feels like better English to me.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

From what I gather over at the other discussion thread, I'm seeing the linguist/classicist disconnect.

The linguistic approach (that of Patterson) makes no sense to the classicist's approach (that of Carlson). Given my predilections, I'm wont to side with the linguists. Personally, the original Greek is the only legitimate reading. Any understanding in English, be it adverbial or adjectival in nature, is just that: an approximation in English. Both of Carlson's suggested translations are (to my eyes anyway) reasonable approximations, but the second feels like better English to me.

Petrus,

Not sure what framework Patterson is using, his statement that prepositional phrases are always (deep structure??) adverbs doesn't sound like anything I am familiar with. Probably I am misunderstanding his point.

The theoretical discussion has been moved to here.



I tried without much success to find a discussion in the NT grammars about anarthrous phrases ( without an article) in an attributive relationship to a substantive. I found discussions of the absence of the article with certain attributive adjectives, e.g. PAS. But I couldn't locate a discussion of absence of the article with phrases used to "modify" a substantive. I did find discussions of articular prepositional phrases used as substantives and adjectives but the discussion was limited to the positive side, presence of the article before a prepositional phrase which occurs something like 170 times in the traditional Pauline corpus.

It would be easy to just throw up our hands and say anything can happen in Paul's epistles. Certainly wouldn't use Romans as a text for teaching greek syntax.

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[C. S. Bartholomew]

A. T. Robertson has a discussion of this on page 782 (4.)-783 with a number of examples. You can view it here.

See also Blass, Debrunner & Funk #272.

Here are some sample texts.

Eph. 6:5 (some mss. read) Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα ...

Luke 16:10 Ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ ἄδικος καὶ ἐν πολλῷ ἄδικός ἐστιν.

1Tim. 6:17 Τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ θεῷ τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν,

Rom. 15:31 ἵνα ῥυσθῶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπειθούντων ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ καὶ ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ εὐπρόσδεκτος τοῖς ἁγίοις γένηται,

1Cor. 10:18 βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν;

Eph. 2:11 Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου,

Eph. 2:15 τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην

Eph. 4:1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε,

1Th. 4:16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον,

2Cor. 9:13 διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης δοξάζοντες τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς πάντας,

Rom. 16:10 ἀσπάσασθε Ἀπελλῆν τὸν δόκιμον ἐν Χριστῷ. ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοβούλου.

1Cor. 15:18 ἄρα καὶ οἱ κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ ἀπώλοντο.

Examples are also cited from earlier authors,

Herod. Hist. 5:108.1
Ἐν ᾧ δὲ ἡ ἀγγελίη τε περὶ τῶν Σαρδίων παρὰ βασιλέα

Thucyd. 2:52:1
Ἐπίεσε δ' αὐτοὺς μᾶλλον πρὸς τῷ ὑπάρχοντι πόνῳ καὶ
ἡ ξυγκομιδὴ ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν ἐς τὸ ἄστυ, καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον τοὺς
ἐπελθόντας.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[Sinister Petrus]

Not sure what framework Patterson is using, his statement that prepositional phrases are always (deep structure??) adverbs doesn't sound like anything I am familiar with. Probably I am misunderstanding his point...

It would be easy to just throw up our hands and say anything can happen in Paul's epistles. Certainly wouldn't use Romans as a text for teaching greek syntax.

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Well, I've read (and forget where) that prepositions sometimes originate with adverbs (like despite) or from body parts (like behind), and as such they behave in adverbial ways. I suspect that's the point being made.

In the dark recesses of the night when no one is watching, I lament the inclusion of Paul's epistles into the canon.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Not sure what framework Patterson is using, his statement that prepositional phrases are always (deep structure??) adverbs doesn't sound like anything I am familiar with. Probably I am misunderstanding his point...

It would be easy to just throw up our hands and say anything can happen in Paul's epistles. Certainly wouldn't use Romans as a text for teaching greek syntax.

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Well, I've read (and forget where) that prepositions sometimes originate with adverbs (like despite) or from body parts (like behind), and as such they behave in adverbial ways. I suspect that's the point being made.

In the dark recesses of the night when no one is watching, I lament the inclusion of Paul's epistles into the canon.

Petrus,

An aspect of syntax often overlooked by students of NT Greek is deliberate ambivalence. I think Paul was capable of this.

G. L. Cooper (Attic Greek Syntax, v. 1, 50.8.15 pp. 439-44.) in reference primarily to Attic Tragedy (Sophocles) and Thucydides states that both adverbs and prepositional phrases are used attributively with substantives without repetition of the article to make attribution clear. But even when the parallel structure makes attribution “certain” the adverbial nature of these expressions is not entirely lost. Often adverbs and prepositional phrases are used “ ... with deliberate ambivalence between adverbial and adnominal status.” S.Tr 149, S.OT 55, S.EL 61, S.OC 586, Th. 4.10.4, 4.96.3, 6.10.2.

It should be noted that the sparing use of the article in Attic Tragedy makes for a lot of ambiguity in regard to substantives with attributive and predicative constituents.

Thank you,

C. Stirling Bartholomew