hWS EX ERGWN in Rom 9.32a
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Fri Apr 19 07:57:22 EDT 2002
on 4/18/02 11:02 PM, Polycarp66 at aol.com at Polycarp66 at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/18/2002 11:15:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net writes:
>> Rom 9.32a: DIA TI? hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL' hWS EX ERGWN
>> My question concerns the use of hWS here. Accordance tags it as a subjective
>> particle. If I understand this correctly, it means that hWS introduces a
>> noun clause. But if so, what slot does it here fill? And can anyone give me
>> some advice as to how to distinguish hWS when it is a subjective particle
>> from hWS when it is a subordinating conjunction? I would have pegged the use
>> in Rom 9.32 as a subordinating conjunction.
> Not a direct answer to your question but some light on subjective tag for
> Sandy&Headlam (Rom. ICC, p.280): "The hWS introduces a subjective idea. St.
> Paul wishes to guard himself from asserting definitely that EX ERGWN was a
> method by which NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS might be pursued. He therefore represented
> it as an idea of the Jews, as a way by which they thought they could gain
> C.E.B. Cranfield (Rom. ICC, p.511) appears to agree with this analysis. I
> also found useful information on this in Danker hWS 3.c (p.1105) or BAGD
> hWS III.3 (p.898) and also BDF #425(3).
> I'm wondering if Logos/Accordance here mean by "subjective particle" that it
> introduces a subject. Here's the passage from BAGD p. 898.
> III. hWS introduces the characteristic quality of a pers., thing, or action,
> etc., referred to in the context.
> 3. a quality wrongly claimed, in any case objectively false EPISTOH hWS DI'
> hHMWN a letter (falsely) alleged to be from us 2 Th 2:2a (Diod. S. 33, 5, 5
> EPEMYAN hWS PARA TWN PRESBEUTWN EPISTOHN they sent a letter which purported
> to come from the emissaries; Diog. L. 10:3 falsified EPISTOLAI hWS
> EPIKOUROU). TOUS LOGIZOMENOUS hHMAS hWS KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS 2 Cor 10:2
> (s. also 1c above). Cf. 11:17; 13:7. Israel wishes to become righteous OUK EK
> PISTEWS ALL' hWS EC ERGWN not through faith but through deeds (the latter way
> being objectively wrong) Ro 9:32 (Rdm.2 26f).
Thanks, Clay and George, for the helpful information. I do still have a few
questions. I think I understand the "subjective" idea better, especially in
light of the comment by Sanday & Headlam. I already understood hWS EX ERGWN
to mean something like "as if by works," meaning in the mind of those who
were pursuing righteousness as such, but did not connect the label
"subjective" to it. I think part of my confusion arose from the definition
of the grammatical tag "subjective" in Accordance: "A subjective particle is
applied to 'hWS' introducing a noun clause such as 'as if.'" What I focused
on was the idea of it introducing a noun clause. So I guess my confusion was
more syntactic than semantic. My understanding of the clause, supplying
implied words, is as follows:
hOTI OUK [EDIWXAN AUTON] EK PISTEWS ALL' [EDIWXAN AUTON] hWS EX ERGWN
"because [they did not pursue it] by faith, but [they pursued it] as if it
were by works" (AUTON and "it" refer to NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS from v. 31)
Since EK PISTEWS seems to be adverbial, modifying understood EDIWXAN, I am
inclined to take hWS EX ERGWN as adverbial as well, subordinate to implied
EDIWXAN. But according to the Accordance definition of "subjective," hWS
here introduces a noun clause. The trouble is, I can't conceive of it as a
noun clause, nor can I understand what slot it might fill as a noun clause.
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
More information about the B-Greek