Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T05:03:15.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Consecutive Meaning of EΦ' Ω in Romans 5.12*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Joseph A. Fitzmyer
Affiliation:
(Jesuit Community, Georgetown University, 37th & O Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20057, USA)

Extract

The passage Romans 5.12–21 has long been a crux interpretum, and especially v. 12 in that passage.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 So in ‘The Letter to the Romans’, The Jerome Biblical Commentary (ed. R. E. Brown et al.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968) art. 53, § 56Google Scholar; The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990) art. 51, § 56.Google Scholar

2 I wish at this point to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae of the University of California at Irvine for the help that I derived from its disc. I also want to thank a graduate student of the Biblical Studies department at the Catholic University of America, Rev. Patrick J. Madden, for his assistance in searching for the phrase on this CD-ROM. My gratitude is likewise due to Professors Francis T. Gignac, S.J., of the same university, Alan C. Mitchell, S.J., of Georgetown University, and to G. H. R. Horsley of La Trobe University, who read earlier drafts of this paper and offered criticisms of it. I am indebted also to Professor R. E. Renehan for his criticism of this paper.

3 Specific bibliographical references will be given in notes below. For generic discussions, see Anon. ‘Ueber eph' hσ, bei Römer 5, 12’, TQ 13 (1831) 397444Google Scholar; Branden-burger, E., Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Römer 5, 12–21 (1 Kor. 15) (WMANT 7; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1962) 168–80Google Scholar; Freundorfer, J., Erbsünde und Erbtod beim Apostel Paulus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung über Römerbrief 5, 12–21 (NTAbh 13/1–2; Münster in W.: Aschendorff, 1927) 173214, 232–8Google Scholar; Hoekstra, S., ‘Proeve van verklaring der woorden: eph' hσ pantes hēmarton, Rom. 5.12b’, TTijd 2 (1868) 674Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Man in the New Testament (London: Epworth, 1963) 64 n. 72.Google Scholar

4 In ep. ad Rom. 5.12; CSEL 81. 165: ‘in Adam … quasi in massa’.

5 De pecc. merit, et remiss. 1.10.11; CSEL 60.12.

6 Contra duas ep. Pelagianorum 4.4.7; CSEL 60. 527: ‘in illo homine peccaverunt omnes’. By the phrase ‘in illo’ Augustine did not mean ‘in that all sinned’, understanding quo (or ) as neuter, as Evans, E. (Saint Augustine's Enchiridion [London: SPCK, 1953] 116)Google Scholar believed; see Bonner, G., ‘Augustine on Romans 5,12’, SE 5 [TU 103; Berlin: Akademie, 1968] 242–7)Google Scholar, who sets the matter straight.

7 So de Fraine, J., Adam and the Family of Man (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1965) 142–52Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (TynNTC 6; Leicester: Inter-Varsity/Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985) 126Google Scholar; Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981) 5860Google Scholar; The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research (WUNT 54; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991) 111.Google Scholar

Another form of this interpretation is used by some commentators who translate ⋯φ' as a causal conjunction, but then render it, ‘because all – in Adam – have sinned’. So Bardenhewer, Bisping, Cornely, Freundorfer, Gutjahr, Sickenberger.

8 Cf. Heb 7.9–10.

9 In ep. ad Rom. Horn. 10.1; PG 60. 474, paraphrasing it as ⋯κε⋯νου πεσόντος.

10 Interpr. ep. ad Rom. 5.12; PG 82.100.

11 In ep. ad Rom. 5.12; PG 95. 477, paraphrasing it as δι' ο.

12 Expos, in ep. ad Rom. 5.12; PG 124. 404, paraphrasing it as πεσόντος ⋯κείνου.

13 Comm. in ep. ad Rom. 7; PG 118. 416.

14 ‘Péchés des hommes et péché d'Adam en Rom. v. 12’, NTS 11 (19641965) 217–55Google Scholar, esp. 247; L'Évangile de Dieu, 1.237–49. For a critique of Cambier's understanding, see Danker, F. W., NTS 14 (19671968) 424–5, 429, 436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Christ in the Theology of St Paul (New York: Herder and Herder, 1959) 232.Google Scholar

16 Novum lexicon graeco-latinum in Novum Testamentum … (5th ed.; 2 vols.; Glasgow: A. and J. Duncan, 1817) 1.637Google Scholar: ‘post quern omnes peccarunt’.

17 In ep. ad Rom. 5.12; PG 74. 784.

18 ‘Ὲφ’ (Rom. 5, 12) chez Cyrille d'Alexandrie et Théodoret’, Studia patristica 4 (TU 79; Berlin: Akademie, 1961) 157–61Google Scholar. Cf. Theodoret, Interp. ep. ad Rom. 5.12; PG 82. 100.

19 Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg, 1949) 214.Google Scholar

20 Der Tod bei Griechen und Juden (Leipzig: Wigand, 1942) 61–2.Google Scholar

21 Der alte und der neue Mensch (BEvT 8; Munich: Kaiser, 1942) 26.Google Scholar

22 Das Bild vom Menschen in biblischer Sicht (Mainzer Universitäts-Reden 3; Mainz: Kupferberg, 1927) 16.Google Scholar

23 Bultmann, R., ‘Adam and Christ according to Romans 5’, Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper (ed. Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F.; New York: Harper & Bros., 1962) 143–65, esp. 153,Google Scholar where he toys with this interpretation, even though he translates it ‘because all sinned’, a meaning that he seems to prefer in TDNT 3.15 n. 69.

24 That the verse was so understood is clear from the transposition διλθεν ό θάνατος read in ms. ψ and by such patristic writers as Chrysostom and Theodoret.

25 Héring, J., Le royaume de Dieu et sa venue: Étude sur l'espérance de Jésus et de l'apôtre Paul (new ed.; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1959) 155–9, esp. 157Google Scholar: ‘c'est pour récolter la mort (⋯φ' ) que tous ont péché’.

26 New Testament Theology (London: SCM, 1955) 270 n. 176Google Scholar: ‘in the direction of’; ‘death, to which they fell man by man through their sin’.

27 See ‘Romans v. 12. Sin under Law’, NTS 14 (19671968) 424–39Google Scholar. He argues that ⋯φ' is the same as ⋯πί τος αύτος νόμοις ⋯φ' οσπερ in Menander Frg. 531.6–7. Cf. ‘Under Contract’, Festschrift to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich (ed. E. H. Barth and R. E. Cocroft; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 91114, esp. 104–5.Google Scholar

28 For a critique of Danker's position, see Porter, S. E., ‘The Pauline Concept of Original Sin, in Light of Rabbinic Background’, TynBull 41 (1990) 330.Google Scholar

29 Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer ausgelegt (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6; Leipzig: Deichert, 1910; 3rd ed. rev. F. Hauck, 1925) 265–8Google Scholar: ‘das relativische ⋯φ' auf den ganzen vorangehenden Satz zu beziehen’, p. 268. Cf. Zahn's, Grundriβ der neutestamentlichen Theologie (2nd ed.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1932) 103Google Scholar: ‘Unter dem Tode ist die ganze Verderbtheit der menschlichen Natur zu verstehen, welche bei dem ersten Menschen infolge seiner Sünde eintrat und von ihm aus auf dem Wege der Fortpflanzung ein allgemeiner Zustand aller Menschen geworden ist, d.h. die Sterblichkeit und der leibliche Tod, aber auch die Störung des normalen Verhältnisses zwischen dem Ich und der leiblichen Natur, die Abhängigkeit des Willens vom Fleisch, die hiedurch bedingte Gottwidrigkeit des gesamten menschlichen Daseins und der damit gegebene Ausschluβ von der belebenden und beseligenden Gemeinschaft mit Gott.’

30 E.g. Demosthenes In Dionysodorum 42.4–5; Diodorus Siculus Bibl. Hist. 2.48.7; Dionysius Halicarnassus Antiq. Rom. 11.6.1.

31 As Porter, S. E. (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament [New York: Lang, 1989] 100,222, 237Google Scholar) has taken it.

32 The Peshitta translates ⋯φ' bĕhᾱy dĕ.

33 See B-A, 582; BAGD, 287; BDF § 235.2 (‘for the reason that, because’), § 294.4; EDNT 2. 22; Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (tr. Smith, J.; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1963) § 127;Google ScholarRobertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; New York: Doran, 1914) 963Google Scholar (‘⋯φ' is causal in Ro. 5:12; 2 Cor. 5:4; Ph. 4:10’).

34 Rom. 5.12–14 alia luce del dialogo rabbinico (RivBSup 4; Brescia: Paideia, 1971).Google Scholar

35 Ἐφ' ⋯ντί το διότι (P. 129, 3). He is so quoted in B-A, 582, which probably derives it from Schwyzer, E., Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechischer Grammatik (2 vols.; HAW II.I/1–2; rev. A. Debrunner; Munich: Beck, 1939, 1950) 2. 681.Google Scholar

36 Quaest. 84 ad Amphiloch.; PG 101. 553: ⋯φ' πάντες ἥμαρτον διότι πάντες ἥμαρτον Καί μυρία μ⋯ν, κα⋯ παρ⋯ τοîς ἕξω, ή τοιαύτη συνθήκη τν λόγων, ‘And legion are (the examples), even in outside [i.e. extrabiblical] (writers), of this sort of collocation of words.’ Then Photius quotes 2 Cor 5.4.

37 ‘Le sens de eph' hŏ en Rom 5,12 et l'exégèse des Pères grecs’, Bib 36 (1955) 436–56, esp. 455Google Scholar; repr. Études sur l'épίtre aux Romains (AnBib 120; Rome: Istituto Biblico, 1989) 185202Google Scholar, esp. 201 (cf. TD 5 [19571958] 54–7)Google Scholar. Cf. ‘Le péché originel en Rom 5,12: L'exégèse des Pères grecs et les décrets du Concile de Trente’, Bib 41 (1960) 325–55Google Scholar. In this judgment N. Bau-mert, M. Black, J. Cambier now agree.

Lyonnet reports that he was unable to find the causal meaning in any of the specialized lexica for Aristophanes, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Epictetus, Plato, Plutarch, Xenophon, or in those for the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists, or Athanasius.

38 Neuer Versuch einer Auslegung der paulinischen Stelle Römer V, 12–21 (Wittenberg: Zimmermann, 1836) 1719.Google Scholar

39 A Grammar of New Testament Greek I: Prolegomena (Edinburgh: Clark) 1 (1908) 107Google Scholar, ‘in view of the fact that’. But N. Turner in vol. 3 (Syntax [1963]) lists it under ⋯πί with the dative meaning cause and translates it ‘because’ (p. 272), influenced by the note in Sanday-Headlam's commentary. However, when he later returns to the problem in Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1965) 116–18Google Scholar, he prefers to render it as a genuine relative clause, ‘under the power of’ whom, ‘within the jurisdiction of’ whom (Adam).

40 See n. 37. Cf. Lafont, G., ‘Sur l'interprétation de Romains v. 15–21’, RSR 45 (1957) 481513, esp. 498–500.Google Scholar

41 Romans (New Century Bible Commentary; 2nd ed.; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott/Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989) 81–2.Google Scholar

42 Ep. 73; PG 66.1440B. See also Hercher, R., Epistolographi graeci (Paris: A. Firmin Didot, 1873) 685.Google Scholar

43 For a critique of Lyonnet's position, see Danker, F. W., NTS 14 (19671968) 437Google Scholar; E. Bran-denburger, Adam, 171–2.

44 ‘The Theological Structure of Romans v. 12’, NTS 19 (19721973) 339–54, esp. 350.Google Scholar

45 Are die Römer (HNT 8; 5th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1971) 62.Google Scholar It is echoed by R. Bultmann, ‘Adam’, 153; Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief übersetzt und erklärt (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963) 230.Google Scholar

46 But Burnet, J. in his commentary The Ethics of Aristotle, Edited with an Introduction and Notes (London: Methuen, 1900; repr. New York: Arno, 1973) 225Google Scholar, says ‘⋯φ' sc. őρῳ … The őροι are neither lines nor points, but dots.’ Yet it is not clear how one is to understand this construction or translate it.

47 E.g. Nic. Eth. 5.4.12 (1132b 6–8); Analyt. pr. 30a 29–31; 31b 4–6; De caelo 273a 27–32; Mechan. 850a 15–17; Meteor, 363b 3–5.

48 With a future indicative: Herodotus Hist. 3.83; 5.82; 6.65; 7.153; 7.158; 8.4; Thucydides Pel. War 1.103.1; 1.113.3; 1.126.11; 4.30.4; Aeschines Ag. Ctesiphon 114; Xenophon Sympos. 4.35: Aristotle Nic. Eth. 9.8.9 (1169a 27–8); [Aristotle] Athen. Pol. 14.4.3–5; 34.3.1–3; 3 Mace 3.28; Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 1.30a; 6.85.11–13; 12.521a; Polybius Hist. 1.59.7; Plutarch Consol. ad Apollon. 112B 4; Pausanias Descr. Graee. 2.18.4; Strabo Geogr. 10.4.10; Diogenes Laertius Vitae phil. 10.17.1. This use with the future indicative is also found in papyrus texts from Egypt: P. Tebt. 1.108.4; 2.381.16; P. Hib. 1.77.6 (cited by Moulton-Milligan, 234); O. Deissmann 59.7 (P. M. Meyer, Griechische Texte aus Ägypten [Berlin: Weidmann, 1916] 180); P.Lond. 1727.41; P.KaranisMich 562.17; P.ZenonMich 62.12.

With an infinitive: Herodotus Hist. 1.22; 7.154; Plato Apol. 17 § 29C; Demosthenes Ag. Androtion 45.5; Ag. Aristogeiton 2.13.3; Ag. Dionysodorus 3.2; 5.3; 20.1; 42.4; 49.1; Ag. Neaera 32.4; 124.10; Ag. Spudias 4; Aristophanes Thesm. 1162; Plutus 1000; Aeschines Ag. Ctesiphon 183; Xenophon Anab. 4.2.19; 4.4.6; 6.6.22; Hell. 2.2.20; 2.3.11; 2.4.3–3; 3.5.1; 3.5.24; 6.3.18; Agesilaus 4.1; Menander Frg. 531.1–2; Aristotle Oeconomica 1348b.l-3; Ep. Aristeas 25; Josephus Ant. 10.9.3 § 163; Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 6.272c; Polybius Hist. 1.16.9; 1.31.8; 1.72.5; 1.88.12; 2.46.3; 3.10.3; 3.27.9; 3.62.6; 4.29.7; 4.46.3; 4.76.7; 5.28.2; 5.60.1; 5.67.10; 5.76.9; 7.4.1; 8.25.1; 9.27.11; 11.5.5; 11.29.12; 11.30.3; 18.39.6; 21.26.14; 21.29.14; 22.7.3; 24.4.3; Strabo Geogr. 14.1.22; Appian Samnitica 10.15.3–5; Cassius Dio Hist. Rom. 1.2; 27.3; 56.22.4; P.Apoll. 57.4–5; P.Lond. 1691.17; 1693.8 (where both the infinitive and the future indicative occur together).

With a subjunctive: Cassius Dio Hist. Rom. 36.34.2; 38.32.2; 40.26.1; 41.22.4; Pausanias Descr. Graec. 3.6.6; P.Apoll. 64.3–4; P.Lond. 1727.44, 50.

With an optative: Thucydides Pel. War 5.41.1 (?); Cassius Dio Hist. Rom. 53.25.4.

49 See Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar (rev. G. M. Messing; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1956) § 2279Google Scholar; Goodwin, W. W., Greek Grammar (rev. C. B. Gulick; Boston, MA: Ginn and Co., 1930) § 1477Google Scholar; E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, 2. 681; Kühner, R., Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache (2 parts in 4 vols.; 3rd ed., rev. F. Blass and B. Gerth; Hannover: Hahn, 1890, 1892, 1898, 1904; repr. Darmstadt: Wissen-schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966) 2/2, 505Google Scholar; Goodwin, W. W., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London: Macmillan, 1897) § 610.Google Scholar

50 The NRSV also uses ‘because’, as does the REB. This causal interpretation of 2 Cor 5.4 is stoutly defended by Furnish, V. P., II Corinthians Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City, NT: Doubleday, 1984) 269Google Scholar. It is also used by Lietzmann, H., An die Corinther I.II (HNT 9; rev. W. G. Kümmel; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1969) 120Google Scholar (‘weil’); Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC/BNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 149Google Scholar (‘because’); Lyonnet, S., Exegesis epistulae secundae ad Corinthios (Rome: Biblical Institute, 19551956) 213Google Scholar (‘quatenus’, ‘eo magis quod’). But the RSV seems to handle the phrase as did the Peshitta, which renders that clause simply as Wĕlā Şābēnan.

51 Tischendorf, C., Novum Testamentum graece (8th ed.; 3 parts in 4 vols.; Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869,1872,1890,1894) 2. 589Google Scholar. He notes that Oecumenius commented, ⋯φ' ⋯ντί το ⋯πειδή Cf. PG 118.969.

52 As does the Neovulgata.

53 Thrall, M. E., Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (NTTS 3; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 93–4.Google Scholar

54 Baumert, N., Täglich sterben und auferstehen: Der Literalsinn von 2 Kor 4,12–5,10 (SANT 34; Munich: Kösel, 1973) 195, 386–401Google Scholar. He shows that the causal meaning, ‘weil’, does not suit this passage or many others alleged in BAGD or B-A to mean that.

55 Similarly the REB, S. Lyonnet, Études, 200. The Peshitta renders the last two clauses as ellā rādep dalmā adrek lěmeddem dĕmettţţulāteh adrĕkan(y) Yešŭʿ mĕšiḥă (probably ‘that because of which’).

56 The Vg has ‘in quo et comprehensus sum a Christo Iesu’, whereas the Neovulgata reads, ‘sicut et comprehensus sum’.

57 The Vg and the Neovulgata both use here ‘sicut et sentiebatis’. Similarly the Peshitta, ykannā dĕāp yāsĕpῖn (h)waytŭn.

58 As it is understood by Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, UK: University, 1953) 132.Google Scholar It is perhaps even better understood as ‘in the matter in which you were concerned’, as F. W. Danker has suggested (NTS 14 [1967–68] 434). Cf. S. Lyonnet, Études, 200. Thrall (Greek Particles, 94) has correctly recognized the unsuitability of the causal meaning here: ‘the translation “because” makes very little sense’, but she is hardly correct in saying that ⋯φ' in Rom 5.12 is ‘undoubtedly causal’ (p. 94 n. 4). That begs the question.

59 In this instance, Winer, G. B. (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek [2nd ed., W. F. Moulton; Edinburgh: Clark, 1877] 491Google Scholar) translates ⋯φ' as ‘wherefore’. Yet F. Bizière reads, not ‘⋯φ' , but ⋯φ' ν, and translates it ‘De ce fait’ (Diodore de Sicile, Bibliothèque Historique Livre XIX, Coll. Budé; Paris: ‘Les Belles Lettres’, 1975) 133, which is certainly more accurate. See also Lyonnet, Études, 187; Baumert, Täglich sterben, 388, who have also come to the same conclusion as I.

60 Again see Baumert, Täglich sterben, 388.

61 See Baumert, Ibid.

62 See p. 327 above.

63 The text reads: ⋯λλά γε τοιοτος καί ό φιλόσοφος ίστορεῖται Zηνόδοτς, παιδικ⋯ το Πρόκλου καλεῖσθαι μόνος ⋯ξιωθείς, ⋯φ' δ⋯ καί τ⋯ς μάλιστα ⋯πεῖχεν ⋯λπίδας, ‘Such indeed is the philosopher Zenodotus reported to be, the only one considered worthy to be called the darling pupil of Proclus, on the ground that he offered the highest hopes’ (C. Zintzen, Damascii vitae Isidori reliquiae [Bibliotheca graeca et latina suppletoria 1; Hildesheim: 01ms, 1967] 206).

64 Again see Baumert, Täglich sterben, 391.

65 See p. 326 above.

66 Ausführliche Grammatik, 2/2. 505. Similarly, Schwyzer says, ‘Mit ὥστε berührt sich bedeutungsmässig ⋯φ' (τε), “unter der Bedingung daβ” (vgl. ⋯πί mit Lok. “auf Grundlage von, zum Zweck, unter der Bedingung” …; darum wird der ihm gebiihrende Indikativ [des Futurums] oft durch den Infinitiv ersetzt’; Griechische Grammatik, 2. 681 § 9). Though Schwyzer says this, he nevertheless defines ⋯φ' as ‘weil’ and refers to Phil 3.12, comparing Phil 4.10, for which he gives the meaning ‘denn’, ‘mit relat. Anschluβ’! – Cf. Meisterhans, K., Grammatik der attischen Inschriften (3rd ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1900, repr. 1971) 253 § 28Google Scholar: ‘Für ὥστε = “unter der Bedingung, daβ” tritt mehrfach ⋯φ τε ein, sogar in einer und derselben Formel und Inschrift’. He refers to CIA 2, add. 834; 2.8.51. Stahl, J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit (Indogermanische Bibliothek 1.1.4; Heidelberg: Winter, 1907) 501.1.Google Scholar

A table of occurrences of ⋯φ' with the indicative and with the infinitive in Attic inscriptions can be found in Hermann, E., Griechische Forschungen 1: Die Nebensätze in den griechischen Dialektinschriften … (Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1912) 61–5Google Scholar. This table lists not only the instances of ⋯φ' and ⋯φ' τε, but also those of ὥστε, which again suggests the close relation of consecutive ⋯φ' to result clauses.

Lyonnet (Études, 191), having cited two examples of ⋯φ' from Demosthenes, says of them, ‘En tous ces exemples, on le voit, bien loin de prendre le sens de őτι ⋯φ' se rapproche de ὥστε, si bien que l'Index Demosthenicus range ces emplois dans la même catégorie que ceux de ὥστε’ But having said that, Lyonnet does not pursue the suggestion that ⋯φ' might have a consecutive meaning. Preuss, S. (Index Demosthenicus [Leipzig: Teubner, 1892] 328)Google Scholar lists ⋯φ' under ὥστε IV, but almost all the examples express a condition on which something is done, except Demosthenes, Ag. Aristogeiton 2 § 13, which may be an example of the consecutive meaning.

Cf. BDF § 235.4, which notes that ⋯πί with the dative can express purpose or result; similarly BDR § 235.4, ‘Zweck, Folge (klass.)’.

Though Liddell-Scott-Jones, (A Greek-English Lexicon [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1940] 747Google Scholar) explains ⋯φ' ⋯φ' τε as ⋯π⋯ τούτῳ ὥστε and refers to ⋯πί it then lists on p. 622 Rom 5.12 under B.III.3 ‘of the condition upon which a thing is done’, and translates it as ‘wherefore’. This is probably wrong. Note that the KJV introduces Rom 5.12 with ‘wherefore’ (= δι⋯ τοτο), but then translates ⋯φ' as ‘for that all have sinned’, as F. T. Gignac has called to my attention.

67 I have checked the following texts in standard editions. The translations are my own and seek to bring out as literally as possible the sense of the writer. I have often checked my translations against those in the Loeb Classical Library or against translations in other modern languages.

68 So BDF § 391.3 explains the use of ὥστε with the infinitive in Luke 4.29 (ὥστεκατακρημνίσαι αὑτόν ‘to throw him over it’), where mss. A, C, ψ and the Koine text-tradition read rather είς τό Cf. Luke 9.52, where there is a variant reading of ώς; also Matt 10.1; 27.1; Luke 20.20; Acts 19.10; Heb 13.6. Cf. BDR § 391.3 and n. 7. See also Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolomäerzeit … (Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter) 2/1 (1926) 214Google Scholar; he too speaks of the ‘beabsichtige Folge’ and lists many instances of ⋯φ' in this sense with the future indicative and one with the infinitive (P. Hibeh 77.6). Cf. Higgins, M. J., ‘New Testament Result Clauses with Infinitive’, CBQ 23 (1961) 233–41Google Scholar; Muraoka, T., ‘Purpose or Result? Ωστε in Biblical Greek’, NovT 15 (1973) 205–19.Google Scholar

69 This construction of consecutive ⋯φ' with the infinitive is also found in Polybius Hist. 9.28.7 (‘so that he did damage only to you’). It may also occur in Diogenes Laertius Vitae philos. 6.10.4; 6.91.3, where translators often use simply ‘whereupon’. This meaning would also suit some instances of ⋯φ' with the indicative: Cassius Dio Hist. Rom. 67.8.4; 77.5.1.

70 A reference to decocta, ‘boiled (water)’, a chilled drink that Nero invented; see Pliny, Nat. Hist. 31.23.40; Suetonius, Neronis vita 48.3.

71 Even though C. E. B. Cranfield prefers to interpret ⋯φ' as ‘because’, he caught the right sense of the clause, when he wrote that one must ‘understand ἥμαρτον as referring to men's sinning in their own persons but as a result of the corrupt nature inherited from Adam’ (SJT 22 [1969] 331). Though it is undoubtedly better to speak of the tainted nature inherited from Adam, Cranfield recognizes this situation as a ‘result’, for which the evidence of this paper argues.

72 Byrne, B., Reckoning with Romans: A Contemporary Reading of Paul's Gospel (Good News Studies 18; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1986) 116.Google Scholar