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

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Thu May 15 13:34:40 EDT 2008


On May 15, 2008, at 7:59 AM, Steve Runge wrote:

> If QEOS had been the subject of the KAQWS clause, the NP would  
> clearly have been redundant in the main clause. With a change in  
> role from non-subject to subject (which represents a change in  
> initiators) it is very common to encode the change using a NP  
> instead of zero anaphora. The rationale for this would most likely  
> be to avoid ambiguity. If the NP had been omitted in the main  
> clause, one would be left to assume that God is the subject. Changes  
> in initiators are not typically under encoded, more encoding seems  
> preferred.


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 NOU

Steve,

You are overlooking the global VIP status of hO QEOS. In narrative,  
" ... the default encoding of the global VIP as subject, when he was  
in a non-subject role in the precious clause, is no overt  
reference ... " Levinsohn 2000:143.

Once again, I am not arguing that hO QEOS is unnecessary in Rom 1:28.  
The purpose of hO QEOS in Rom 1:28 is not primarily to provide  
information, that is to identify the subject of PAREDWKEN. The tree  
occurrences of PAREDWKEN AUTOUS hO QEOS EN/EIS ... drive home the  
point that it is hO QEOS who PAREDWKEN AUTOUS EN/EIS ... . Paul is  
using a very common rhetorical technique, say it three times with  
variations in what follows EN/EIS.


Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list