anarthrous noun in Romans 10:4
jwest at Highland.Net
Thu Feb 4 17:44:26 EST 1999
At 09:05 PM 2/4/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I am sorry if you get this message twice. My mailer keeps trying to send
the message to bgreek without the hyphen.
>In Romans 10:4, NOMOU is anarthrous: TELOS GAR NOMOU CRISTOS EIS
>DIKAIOSUNHN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI. Accordingly, one commentary says that
>Paul is talking about law in general and not the Law of Moses. Can a case
>be made for NOMOU being definite?
All of the commentaries I checked (Kasemann, Dunn, Wilckens, Alford) so take
it (i.e.- as definite). The grammars (Blass-Debrunner, Robertson,
Moulton/Turner) dont even list Rom 10:4 in the index (so that it is not very
special, unique, or unusual). Likewise the versions I checked (Danish,
French, German, Italian, and Hebrew) all have the definite article...
> I notice that none of the nouns here
>have articles, yet CRISTOS is definite. Can we assume that TELOS is
>definite? Would it be unusual for NOMOU, which modifies TELOS, to be
>definite in this case?
Christ is the end of the Law..... That is the plain meaning of the Greek
>David R. Mills
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
jwest at highland.net
More information about the B-Greek