Romans 1:1-5

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Michael BG » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:07 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:01 am
τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
“the appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord”
I don't think "appointed" is the right translation. "Marked out" (as in YLT & Darby) or "defined" might be what Paul intended to be understood.

Cordially, Bernard
“Marked out” would imply that God decided before Jesus was crucified or maybe before he was born that he would resurrect Jesus when he died.

The King James Version, the American Standard Version and the English Standard Version have “declared”, which does not imply this.

ὁρισθέντος can be also translated as appointed, decreed or specified.

The New International Version translates it as “appointed”.

I suppose how one translates the word depends on what one thinks Paul’s theology was. I think you state that Paul believed that Jesus Christ had a pre-existence, while I don’t and I use this verse as part of the evidence for my conclusion.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5858
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:54 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:07 pm
The King James Version, the American Standard Version and the English Standard Version have “declared”, which does not imply this.
As does the NRSV.
ὁρισθέντος can be also translated as appointed, decreed or specified.
Which fits with declared, too.

I think a significant point is the subsequent phrase,

  • " .. with power according to the spirit[a] of holiness .. "
or
  1. ".. with power according to my spirit in the gospel of holiness ..."

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6208
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:12 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:07 pm
Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:01 am
τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
“the appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord”
I don't think "appointed" is the right translation. "Marked out" (as in YLT & Darby) or "defined" might be what Paul intended to be understood.

Cordially, Bernard
“Marked out” would imply that God decided before Jesus was crucified or maybe before he was born that he would resurrect Jesus when he died.

The King James Version, the American Standard Version and the English Standard Version have “declared”, which does not imply this.

ὁρισθέντος can be also translated as appointed, decreed or specified.

The New International Version translates it as “appointed”.

I suppose how one translates the word depends on what one thinks Paul’s theology was. I think you state that Paul believed that Jesus Christ had a pre-existence, while I don’t and I use this verse as part of the evidence for my conclusion.
Possibly of interest: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2494&start=20#p55982 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2494&start=30#p82455.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:51 pm

to Michael BG,
“Marked out” would imply that God decided before Jesus was crucified or maybe before he was born that he would resurrect Jesus when he died.
That's about what Paul wrote, except for the "planned" resurrection. That resurrection was meant, in part, to indicate to humans that Jesus was the Son of God. "marked out": to distinguish (to delimit/to set boundaries for) Jesus from other humans (Paul believed Jesus' alleged resurrection was a first).
The King James Version, the American Standard Version and the English Standard Version have “declared”, which does not imply this.
That was one of my preferred translations, as long as "declared" means "revealed". But, as I recall from a long discussion with Ben on this forum, he convinced me that translation was misleading.
ὁρισθέντος can be also translated as appointed, decreed or specified.[/code]The New International Version translates it as “appointed”.
Apparently, that would be correct if the the case for ὁρισθέντος would be accusative, but it is in genitive case.
My info comes from https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3724&t=KJV Then look for "Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?]"
Their comment about Ro 1:4:
(for although Christ was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was openly appointed (A. V. declared) such among men by this transcendent and crowning event)
I suppose how one translates the word depends on what one thinks Paul’s theology was. I think you state that Paul believed that Jesus Christ had a pre-existence, while I don’t and I use this verse as part of the evidence for my conclusion.
Jesus is said pre-existent by Paul:
Galatians 4:4 implies the Son existed before being sent to earth.
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,"
Also from Romans 8:3, the same:
"by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,"
In 1 Corinthians 10:4
"And did all [Israelites of the Exodus] drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
In 1 Corinthians 8:6
"... one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things"

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Michael BG » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:33 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:12 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:07 pm
“Marked out” would imply that God decided before Jesus was crucified or maybe before he was born that he would resurrect Jesus when he died.

The King James Version, the American Standard Version and the English Standard Version have “declared”, which does not imply this.

ὁρισθέντος can be also translated as appointed, decreed or specified.

The New International Version translates it as “appointed”.
Possibly of interest: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2494&start=20#p55982 and viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2494&start=30#p82455.
Thanks Ben.

I think you have complied convincing evidence that ὁρισθέντο should be translated as an action and not just the stating of something which had already existed.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:51 pm
ὁρισθέντος can be also translated as appointed, decreed or specified.[/code]The New International Version translates it as “appointed”.
Apparently, that would be correct if the the case for ὁρισθέντος would be accusative, but it is in genitive case.
My info comes from https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3724&t=KJV
1. It states:
to define
1. to mark out the boundaries or limits (of any place or thing)
2. to determine, appoint
1. that which has been determined, acc. to appointment, decree
2. to ordain, determine, appoint
which doesn’t get us very far and they are only stating how it has been translated not if the translation is correct.

In the link it doesn’t state it is in genitive case, but even if it was I don’t understand how you get from there to stating that the event had already happened, but was just being made public.
Bernard Muller wrote: Then look for "Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?]"
Their comment about Ro 1:4:
(for although Christ was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was openly appointed (A. V. declared) such among men by this transcendent and crowning event)
This seems to be an interpretation not a definition. The definition is “declared”.

As with lots of issues we discuss it comes down to probabilities. For me the way to define the word should be in a way which has the best support, which Ben has provided. It seems to me that it is probably best to define ὁρισθέντος as ‘appointed’ with no implied idea that this is an announcement of something which already existed.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6208
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:18 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:33 pm
Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:51 pm
ὁρισθέντος can be also translated as appointed, decreed or specified. The New International Version translates it as “appointed”.
Apparently, that would be correct if the the case for ὁρισθέντος would be accusative, but it is in genitive case.
My info comes from https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3724&t=KJV
....

In the link it doesn’t state it is in genitive case, but even if it was I don’t understand how you get from there to stating that the event had already happened, but was just being made public.
The participle ὁρισθέντος is in the genitive case, but that has nothing to do with its semantic meaning. (Nor does Thayer's say that it does. Thayer makes, to the contrary, a theological argument based on Jesus already being the son of God before the resurrection. The grammar has nothing to do with that.)

Part of the problem with the English translation "to determine" is that this word has two different meanings in English: (A) to determine something already known ("the scientists determined that the skeletal remains belonged to a female"), and (B) to determine something for the first time ("the SRY gene determines whether a person is born male or female"). The question is how far these two meanings go in Greek. I did suggest an instance of this verb in Josephus which may come close to what Bernard needs for Romans 1.4, and I am sure there could be others, but all of those LXX instances point either in the opposite direction or in neither direction; none point Bernard's way.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:55 pm

This seems to be an interpretation not a definition. The definition is “declared”.
As with lots of issues we discuss it comes down to probabilities. For me the way to define the word should be in a way which has the best support, which Ben has provided. It seems to me that it is probably best to define ὁρισθέντος as ‘appointed’...
to declare definition according to Google"
"say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
"“I was under too much pressure,” he declared"
synonyms: proclaim, announce, make known, state, communicate, reveal, divulge, mention, talk about, raise, moot, air, bring into the open, voice, articulate, pronounce, express, vent, set forth, make public, publicize, disseminate, circulate, publish, broadcast, promulgate, trumpet, blazon; informal come out with, shout from the rooftops; literary noise abroad, blazon abroad; rare preconize
"she loses no opportunity to declare her political principles""
... with no implied idea that this is an announcement of something which already existed
But in the Romans and Galatians, the Son of God is pre-existent:
Ro 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"
Gal 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Michael BG » Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:11 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:18 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:33 pm
Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:51 pm
Apparently, that would be correct if the the case for ὁρισθέντος would be accusative, but it is in genitive case.
My info comes from https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3724&t=KJV
....

In the link it doesn’t state it is in genitive case, but even if it was I don’t understand how you get from there to stating that the event had already happened, but was just being made public.
The participle ὁρισθέντος is in the genitive case, but that has nothing to do with its semantic meaning. (Nor does Thayer's say that it does. Thayer makes, to the contrary, a theological argument based on Jesus already being the son of God before the resurrection. The grammar has nothing to do with that.)
Thanks Ben, for making it clear that the genitive case doesn’t change the meaning of ὁρισθέντος.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:55 pm
This seems to be an interpretation not a definition. The definition is “declared”.
As with lots of issues we discuss it comes down to probabilities. For me the way to define the word should be in a way which has the best support, which Ben has provided. It seems to me that it is probably best to define ὁρισθέντος as ‘appointed’...
I am sorry that I didn’t make it clear that when I wrote “The definition is ‘declared’”, I meant that Thayer has only the AV definition which is ‘declared’. This in no way meant that I thought ‘declared’ was the best definition. Therefore your references to what ‘declared’ means does not move forward the argument.
Bernard Muller wrote:
... with no implied idea that this is an announcement of something which already existed
But in the Romans and Galatians, the Son of God is pre-existent:
Ro 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"
Gal 4:4 "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"

Cordially, Bernard
I do not wish to discuss whether Paul believed Jesus was pre-existent. I think we may have discussed this at length sometime in the past. John Ziesler in ‘Pauline Christianity’ page 43 states “That God sent Christ (Gal. 4:4f; Rom. 8:3) as the Son does not in itself mean his pre-existence, for the prophets are also sent (Isa. 6:8; Jer 1:6; Ezek. 2:3) and so are Moses, Aaron and Miriam (Mic. 6:4). ‘Sending’ language rather underlines the Son’s commissioning, obedience and special relationship to God.”

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:02 pm

to Michael BG,
As with lots of issues we discuss it comes down to probabilities. For me the way to define the word should be in a way which has the best support, which Ben has provided. It seems to me that it is probably best to define ὁρισθέντος as ‘appointed’...
I don't think most support for the meaning of a Greek word has to determine the meaning of that word in Ro 1:4. Furthermore "mark out" for "define" has support in works of Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, others; Numbers 34:6; Joshua 13:27 according to the Thayer's Lexicon and also somewhere in Josephus' works (as per Ben).

One of the definitions from MacMillan dictionary: "mark out or mark off to show that someone or something is different from others"
Definition of "define" from Google"
"state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
"the contract will seek to define the client's obligations"
synonyms: explain, expound, interpret, elucidate, explicate, describe, clarify; More
give the meaning of (a word or phrase), especially in a dictionary.
make up or establish the character of.
"for some, the football team defines their identity"
2.
mark out the boundary or limits of.
"the river defines the park's boundary"
synonyms: determine, establish, fix, specify, designate, decide, stipulate, settle, set out, mark out, mark off; demarcate, bound, delimit, delineate, circumscribe, set the boundaries/limits of
"the difficulty lay in defining the upper and lower limits of the middle class"
make clear the outline of; delineate.
"she defined her eyes by applying eyeshadow"
synonyms: outline, delineate, silhouette; trace, pencil
"he could see the farm buildings defined against the fields beyond"

I agree the verb is ambiguous is Ro 1:4, but once it is considered that, for Paul, Jesus was the Son of God before his crucifixion, then "ordained" and "appointed" cannot apply.

(For Paul, Christ = Son of God = Lord (Jesus Christ))
And we have
In 1 Corinthians 10:4
"And did all [Israelites of the Exodus] drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."
In 1 Corinthians 8:6"... one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things"
1 Corinthians 15:47 "The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthy: the second man [Jesus] is the Lord from heaven"
That's pre-existence.
I do not wish to discuss whether Paul believed Jesus was pre-existent. I think we may have discussed this at length sometime in the past. John Ziesler in ‘Pauline Christianity’ page 43 states “That God sent Christ (Gal. 4:4f; Rom. 8:3) as the Son does not in itself mean his pre-existence, for the prophets are also sent (Isa. 6:8; Jer 1:6; Ezek. 2:3) and so are Moses, Aaron and Miriam (Mic. 6:4). ‘Sending’ language rather underlines the Son’s commissioning, obedience and special relationship to God.”
But Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Moses, Miriam, Aaron are already on earth as youth or adult before they are sent by God to preach or lead others. However Ro 1:4 & Gal 4:4 do not say that, but imply the Son existed before being sent to earth.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6208
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:1-5

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:16 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:02 pm
to Michael BG,
As with lots of issues we discuss it comes down to probabilities. For me the way to define the word should be in a way which has the best support, which Ben has provided. It seems to me that it is probably best to define ὁρισθέντος as ‘appointed’...
I don't think most support for the meaning of a Greek word has to determine the meaning of that word in Ro 1:4. Furthermore "mark out" for "define" has support in works of Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, others; Numbers 34:6; Joshua 13:27 according to the Thayer's Lexicon and also somewhere in Josephus' works (as per Ben).
The instances in Numbers 34.6 and Joshua 13.27 support the word as defining something new, not as confirming something old. You are trying to get definition #1 in Thayer to line up with your interpretation for Romans 1.4, but it does not; in fact, Thayer himself puts his mention of Romans 1.4 under definition #2.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply