hWS EX ERGWN
Dr. Dale M. Wheeler
dalemw at multnomah.edu
Mon Apr 22 12:09:05 EDT 2002
I'm having real trouble figuring in the following what's mine and what's
yours...but I'll try. However, first of all, I'm not trying to defend
either position, ie., that hWS EX' ERGWN is adverbial (explaining how the
Jews hoped to acquire righteousness) or whether is some sort of nominal
explanatory clause (explaining what they Jews thought about this NOMON
DIKAIOSUNHS as to its nature). How one chooses is based on a lot of other
factors in this passage, as I pointed out...the meaning of Law, the type of
Righteousness being discussed, the meaning of ERGA, etc. It is clear when
you look at the translations and commentaries that these two approaches are
taken by different ones. Which one is correct was not what I was
discussing at all.
Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
>4) As a Noun Clause it is saying, as you said (though you wanted to
>classify it as adverbial):
>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)
>5) Thus, the hWS clause is providing an appositional/adjectival
>explanation, *not* of how they pursued it, but rather the nature of the
>NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS, ie., they thought it was a "law" which was by its
>nature attainable EX' ERGWN.
>Dale, what is the ground that hWS EX ERGWN here is adjectival,
>to AUTON? We can interpret the sentence that way. How can you avoid
>the apparent symmetry between EK PISTEWS and EX ERGWN? Please see my
>comments below about the examples you quoted.
Moon: Its possible that there is symmetry, and thus these two are
adverbial modifiers explaining how they pursued NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS. But,
the hWS may in fact be creating a deliberate discontinuity, and while the
first clause seems clearly adverbial, the second one may have a different
syntactic function and thus mean something different.
>6) BDAG's translation is misleading in terms of where they locate it
>the hWS article, since it sounds like they are saying that the hWS clause
>explains how they pursued it (which means that it should be in category
>I.1.)...but if you compare the definition for the section
>introduces the characteristic quality of a pers., thing, or action, etc.,
>referred to in the context."; ie., a noun clause
>explaining/appositional/adjectival to another word or phrase in the
>context) and other two examples in the section (which are clearly
>explanatory noun clauses), their explanation and translation don't fit:
>The fact that hWS introduces the characteristic quality of a person,
>or action does not mean that the clause hWS introduces is a "noun clause"
>explaining/appositional/adjectival to another word or phrase.
Moon: I take it that, in the structure of the BDAG article, that their
statement introducing "III." means a noun clause, which explains in some
way ("introduces the characteristic quality") another substantive in the
sentence or context, rather than being adverbial and explaining
how/why/when/etc. a verbal action proceeds.
>[By a "noun
>clause", you seem to mean a relative clause. A noun clause would play the
>role of the subject or the object in a sentence. A clause adjectival to
>another word is a relative clause.] The phrase or clause hWS introduces
>would function as adjectival or adverbial depending on the way it relates
>to the rest of the sentence. It does not look different so much from
Moon: In Greek substantival clauses can have subject, object, or
appositional (semantically adjectival/explanatory) function; most times
they will be introduced by some particle (eg., hWS) or conjunction (eg.,
hOTI, hINA). While it is true that in English we almost always use
relative pronoun clauses for the adjectival functions, I'm not sure that a
Greek speaker is looking at them quite the same way...ie., the perform the
same function, but since Greek has relative pronouns as well and chooses
not to use them in these cases, I'd suggest that the Greek mind is
processing the data a little differently. Thus, it is my impression that,
from the standpoint of Greek speakers, these are all substantival clauses,
regardless of whether they are filling the Subject, Object, Object
Complement, or Adjective Slots in a sentence.
> > III. hWS introduces the characteristic quality of a pers., thing, or
> > 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
> > PISTEWS ALL' hWS EC ERGWN not through faith but through deeds (the
> > being objectively wrong) Ro 9:32 (Rdm.2 26f).
>In EPISTOH hWS DI'hHMWN, hWS DI' hHMWN functions as a relative clause
>modifying EPISTOLH. The role of hWS DI' hHMWN is the same as DI' hHMWN
>in the phrase EPISTOLH DI' hHMWN. hWS DI' hHMWN functions as a relative
>clause because DI' hHMWN alone would function as a relative clause.
Moon: This is a good example of a substantive clause (truncated though it
may be); I agree that this is adjectival and that in English we'd translate
with a relative clause...except that with the hWS it means something
>In hWS PARA TWN PRESBEUTWN EPISTOHN, hWS PARA TWN PRESBEUTWN functions
>as a relative clause modifying EPISTOLHN. The same comments as above.
Moon: I agree as above...
>In LOGIZOMENOUS hHMAS hWS KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS, hWS KATA SARKA
>PERIPATOUNTAS functions as predicate to hHMAS. Here it does not function
>as a relative clause modifying hHMAS, but as a predicate expression
>that describes hHMAS. The role of hWS KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS is the
>same as KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS in LOGIZOMENOUS hHMAS KATA SARKA
>PERIPATOUNTAS. hWS does not change the role of KATA SARKA PERIPATOUNTAS
>in the sentence.
Moon: Its still a substantival clause, though in this case you are again
correct that it is filling the Object Complement slot ("considering us to
be like people who walk according to the flesh...")...this one is very
close to the usage in Rom 9:32.
>Your objection to the following treatment is based on the observation that
>hWS introduces an apppositional/adjectival clause. But how do you know
>that is the case here?
>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).
Moon: I don't know for absolute sure that it is a substantival
clause...that's just one of the possibilities. The use of hWS disrupts the
symmetry and thus makes substantival clause a bit more likely than
adverbial, but both are possible..and once again, this is NOT a purely
syntactical decision, it will ultimately be based on what you think Law,
Righteousness, Works, Faith, etc. mean in this context.
My only quibble with BDAG was that they put this in what I view as the
substantival section (= III.) but then they treated/translated it as if it
were adverbial (which should be section I.1. in BDAG...at least the way I
read it). Again, their translation could be correct (= adverbial), I just
think its in the wrong place within the article. I would point out,
however, that if they really believe that the Rom 9:32 use is parallel with
the others in this section, then the clause should be understood
substantivally just like the others.
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Prof., Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan St. Portland, OR 97220
V: 503-2516416 E: dalemw at multnomah.edu
More information about the B-Greek