Instant Details for Rom 5:2-3 bis

[Enoch]

Instant details has:

 

καυχώμεθα καυχάομαι Verb pres mid indic 1 plur to boast, glory

Would not the parsing be improved here by changing it to:

καυχώμεθα καυχάομαι Verb pres mid indic or subjunctive 1 plur to boast, glory

?

[JonathanHuber]

Either tag is possible and it's not certain which is correct, but the balance of scholarly opinion seems to favor the indicative. It's connected with a text critical debate over ἔχομεν in verse 1 and the consequent understanding of the flow of thought in this passage.

[Abram K-J]

I thought (but was apparently wrong) that in cases where multiple parsings are possible, Accordance does not make a decision, but offers both options and leaves the decision to the user?

[JonathanHuber]

Some words are given both tags (search for all subjunctives and then look at the analysis sorted by mood), but this apparently hasn't been done exhaustively. Accordance shouldn't have to bother adding dual tags for all of the potentially confusing forms that are actually clear (masculine/neuter distinguished by context), but some people think the context in Enoch's example is clear too, even though other people interpret the form differently. It would be interesting to hear an insider comment on how these decisions are made. Sorry if this topic has already been addressed in the past.

[Helen Brown]

This is the answer of our Greek expert:

When the form is ambiguous, and contextual indicators are insufficient to determine the function, I give alternative tags (like PISTEUETE in John 14:1). In Romans 5:1-2, the form is indeed ambiguous, but the function is clearly indicative. There are two verb forms, ESCHKAMEN and KAUCWMEQA joined by KAI. The first one is unambiguously indicative, and thus the second one will also be indicative. It is uniformly translated as indicative in English translations as a result of this, and therefore I do not give the alternate tagging.

 

[Abram K-J]

Thanks--a helpful explanation.

[Enoch]

This is the answer of our Greek expert:

Well, in an entrance exam to a doctoral program (years ago) I was asked about subjunctive vs indicative in Rom 5:1-2. I defended subjunctive and my examiner evidently agreed with me.

 

Thus, IMHO, all such places should identify the possibilities and let the user make up his mind. It also might save time and money on Accordance' end by eliminating a need to ponder the problem. Also, I don't find it that obvious in John 14. And the ASV footnote, as I recall, gives an alternative imperative. In fact in some such situations, the interpretation may be a denominational bone of contention.

 

And the instant details parsing is mostly of use to those who don't know Greek all that well, and it would help their Greek education for all the possibilities to be given.

 

BTW, Are you sure that καὶ connects ἐσχήκαμεν with καυχώμεθα,

or does καὶ connect καυχώμεθα with ἔχωμεν?

 

I put forth what I think is a possible interpretation/connection below:

 

Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως

εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν [let us have peace] πρὸς τὸν θεὸν

διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν [τῇ πίστει]

εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν,

καὶ καυχώμεθα [and let us boast] ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Enoch