[B-Greek] hO QEOS in ROM. 1:28

Elizabeth Kline 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.



Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list