[B-Greek] hO QEOS in ROM. 1:28
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu May 15 12:07:10 EDT 2008
On May 15, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Steve Runge wrote:
> It is very common to use a full noun phrase to encode a change in
> roles from subject to non-subject.
ROM. 1:24 DIO PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS ...
ROM. 1:26 DIA TOUTO PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EIS PAQH ATIMIAS ...
ROM. 1:28 KAI KAQWS OUK EDOKIMASAN TON QEON ECEIN EN EPIGNWSEI,
PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EIS ADOKIMON NOUN ...
I have no argument with that. But in the case under discussion the
same verb has been encoded with the same subject and object twice
before in the immediate context in the exact same wording and for that
reason I would agree with Fitzmyer that there is little or no
possibility of misunderstanding who is the agent in PAREDWKEN AUTOUS
[hO QEOS] EIS ADOKIMON NOUN if hO QEOS is omitted as it is in the
first hand of Codex Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus.
I think the explanation for three repetitions of PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO
QEOS is rhetorical and if you don't want to call that over encoding
then fine don't call it that but it looks to me like over encoding.
More information about the B-Greek