From: Steven Lo Vullo (slovullo@mac.com)
Date: Mon Feb 18 2002 - 21:43:53 EST
on 2/18/02 6:11 PM, Moon-Ryul Jung at moon@sogang.ac.kr wrote:
>> on 2/17/02 9:34 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:
>>
>>> Rom 1.16: OU GAR EPAISCUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION, DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN EIS
>>> SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hELLHNI.
>>>
>>> I get Paul's gist here, but I'm trying to get a handle on exactly what the
>>> adverb PRWTON is modifying. There has to be some sort of ellipsis, but what
>>> is it?
>>
>> Steven,
>>
>> Having read Carl's and Moon's comments I will suggest an alternative
>> approach.
>>
>> ROM. 1:16 OU GAR EPAISCUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION, DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN EIS
>> SWTHRIAN PANTI TW PISTEUONTI, IOUDAIW TE PRWTON KAI ELLHNI.
>>
>> Let's expand this into three parallel constructions:
>>
>>
>> DUNAMIS . . . QEOU ESTIN EIS SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI
>> [DUNAMIS . . . QEOU ESTIN EIS SWTHRIAN] IOUDAIW . . . PRWTON
>> [DUNAMIS . . . QEOU ESTIN EIS SWTHRIAN] ELLHNI
>>
>>
>
> Hmm,
> I think that IOUDIAW TE PRWTON KAI ELLHNI is an apposition or explanation
> of
> PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI. That is, the connotation of ALL is both Jews and
> Gentiles
> rather than every individual. It is based partially on the fact that in
> Romans
> ALL primarily refers to BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES in many places.
>
> To translate, we would have: To all who believe, that is, to the Jews
> first and to the Greek also.
>
> This rendering makes me wonder if "adverbs" should always modify verbs or
> adjectives, but not nouns.
Moon:
The problem I was grappling with in taking PRWTON as a modifier of IOUDAIWi
is that it would then seem to mean something like "first Jew" rather than
"Jew first." It seemed to me there must be some implied verb. And though I
originally thought IOUDAIWi and hELLHNI were appositional to PISTEUONTI, it
occured to me that neither IOUDAIWi nor hELLHNI could stand in apposition to
PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, since neither *on its own* truly referred to the same
class designated by PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, which is broader than either one
alone. Neither of the two alone provide a clarification, description, or
identification of PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI, particularly when you take PRWTON
into consideration. This is why I think each has its own implied clause.
These two considerations pushed me in the direction of Clay's conclusion.
You are right in stating that "all" (or in this case "every" [PANTI])
primarily refers to both Jews and Gentiles, and this is one of the reasons I
concluded that IOUDAIWi and hELLHNI were subsets of PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI,
and as such implied an expansion such as Clay suggests above.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
slovullo@mac.com
---
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 - 15:37:18 EDT