This is starting to make more sense. I invested in a Romans commentary. :-)
A couple of tidbits. Regarding νόμος,
7:7–8 Paul begins the first two verses of 7:7–13 with a question, an answer, and an explanation. Two linguistic features in these two verses appeared earlier in Paul’s letter to Rome (and will continue to appear throughout this passage and beyond): (1) Paul uses νόμος (“law”) and ὁ νόμος (“the law”) interchangeably to mean the Mosaic law, using the noun twice in its anarthrous form and twice in its articular form in these two verses, and (2) he uses ἁμαρτία (“sin”) and ἡ ἁμαρτία (“the sin”) as a personified power that has come into human experience through Adam and is in opposition to God and his will.
["Anarthrous" refers to a noun not preceded by the article (ὁ or ἡ in this case)]
Also, regarding ἐντολῄ and more,
Two other distinctive linguistic features are highlighted in these verses for the first time: (1) Paul’s particularizing “the law” by his focus on a specific “commandment” (ἡ ἐντολῄ), which speaks against “covetousness” or “covetous desire” (ἐπιθυμία), and (2) his references to himself in a specifically personal manner by his use of the first-person singular aorist verb ἔγνων (from γινώσκω, “I know”), the first-person singular pluperfect verb ᾔδειν (from οἶδα, “I know”), and the first-person dative singular personal pronoun ἐμοί (“in me”), with these uses of the personal pronoun “I” and its verbal suffixes developed more fully in 7:9–13 (and then more fully still in 7:14–25).
So I seem to have been rather off-course. That is not unusual, when the text is this complex.
These Greek texts of Paul's letters express his thoughts in ways that English cannot do in a comparable number of words. Bible publisher do not -- and realistically cannot -- translate many such passages "well". That task is left to technical commentaries like this one, that work from the original language texts. These excerpts are, by the way, from _New International Greek Testament Commentary: Romans_ by Richard N. Longenecker.
I see that I have a rather long way to go with chapter 7, but some of the confusion created by condensing the Greek into English is already beginning to clear away. I don't expect to find anything especially new and profound, but it would be great to be able to read it as it was intended to be read. I have already done that with certain other passages. I memorized Mt. 6:9-13 in the Greek.
Learning the Greek at this level is something that is available to many, for a commitment of time and practice. And a bit of money. You don't have to learn the language at a seminary class level. There are software tools that can make it accessible for personal use without nearly as much study and memorization. I've wanted to learn since teenage, but it took me over 40 years to actually get around to it.
It is rather exciting to actually be able to read the Greek text. Not fluently from the start, but it's more like learning a piece of music. I sing in my church's choir (alto), and I can usually sight-sing the alto of classic hymns with 4-part harmony right off, but I often have to familiarize myself with the more complex harmonies found in many anthems before I can read them easily. When there are unusual intervals, I sometimes have to repeat those parts until I have learned them. It feels very much like what I have been doing with the Greek.
And now it's time to get ready and go off to choir practice. Both of these activities involve time commitments!
Rather challenging? Yes. "I was" in "I was alive once without the law" is emphatically singular, and I wouldn't put much stock in a comment that says otherwise. I see a little bit of a rhyming pattern in the Greek words used to connect then/now segments of the passage, and I wonder about that. The entire passage needs to be viewed as a whole, and that is difficult to do. Paul and his long thoughts!
I think there may be more clues in vv. 14-20 and following, but I could spend all day with this just trying to connect things, and I don't have all day. To make things more interesting, Paul here employs two very different words translated "do". One may have a meaning more toward "undertaking to do" while the other may be more toward actually accomplishing a thing. I don't know. My mind says "go have lunch".
This is starting to make more sense. I invested in a Romans commentary. :-)
A couple of tidbits. Regarding νόμος,
7:7–8 Paul begins the first two verses of 7:7–13 with a question, an answer, and an explanation. Two linguistic features in these two verses appeared earlier in Paul’s letter to Rome (and will continue to appear throughout this passage and beyond): (1) Paul uses νόμος (“law”) and ὁ νόμος (“the law”) interchangeably to mean the Mosaic law, using the noun twice in its anarthrous form and twice in its articular form in these two verses, and (2) he uses ἁμαρτία (“sin”) and ἡ ἁμαρτία (“the sin”) as a personified power that has come into human experience through Adam and is in opposition to God and his will.
["Anarthrous" refers to a noun not preceded by the article (ὁ or ἡ in this case)]
Also, regarding ἐντολῄ and more,
Two other distinctive linguistic features are highlighted in these verses for the first time: (1) Paul’s particularizing “the law” by his focus on a specific “commandment” (ἡ ἐντολῄ), which speaks against “covetousness” or “covetous desire” (ἐπιθυμία), and (2) his references to himself in a specifically personal manner by his use of the first-person singular aorist verb ἔγνων (from γινώσκω, “I know”), the first-person singular pluperfect verb ᾔδειν (from οἶδα, “I know”), and the first-person dative singular personal pronoun ἐμοί (“in me”), with these uses of the personal pronoun “I” and its verbal suffixes developed more fully in 7:9–13 (and then more fully still in 7:14–25).
So I seem to have been rather off-course. That is not unusual, when the text is this complex.
These Greek texts of Paul's letters express his thoughts in ways that English cannot do in a comparable number of words. Bible publisher do not -- and realistically cannot -- translate many such passages "well". That task is left to technical commentaries like this one, that work from the original language texts. These excerpts are, by the way, from _New International Greek Testament Commentary: Romans_ by Richard N. Longenecker.
I see that I have a rather long way to go with chapter 7, but some of the confusion created by condensing the Greek into English is already beginning to clear away. I don't expect to find anything especially new and profound, but it would be great to be able to read it as it was intended to be read. I have already done that with certain other passages. I memorized Mt. 6:9-13 in the Greek.
Learning the Greek at this level is something that is available to many, for a commitment of time and practice. And a bit of money. You don't have to learn the language at a seminary class level. There are software tools that can make it accessible for personal use without nearly as much study and memorization. I've wanted to learn since teenage, but it took me over 40 years to actually get around to it.
I've learned only a few basics of the Greek so far...hopefully I can add to what I know over time! Thanks for sharing!
It is rather exciting to actually be able to read the Greek text. Not fluently from the start, but it's more like learning a piece of music. I sing in my church's choir (alto), and I can usually sight-sing the alto of classic hymns with 4-part harmony right off, but I often have to familiarize myself with the more complex harmonies found in many anthems before I can read them easily. When there are unusual intervals, I sometimes have to repeat those parts until I have learned them. It feels very much like what I have been doing with the Greek.
And now it's time to get ready and go off to choir practice. Both of these activities involve time commitments!
Rather challenging? Yes. "I was" in "I was alive once without the law" is emphatically singular, and I wouldn't put much stock in a comment that says otherwise. I see a little bit of a rhyming pattern in the Greek words used to connect then/now segments of the passage, and I wonder about that. The entire passage needs to be viewed as a whole, and that is difficult to do. Paul and his long thoughts!
I think there may be more clues in vv. 14-20 and following, but I could spend all day with this just trying to connect things, and I don't have all day. To make things more interesting, Paul here employs two very different words translated "do". One may have a meaning more toward "undertaking to do" while the other may be more toward actually accomplishing a thing. I don't know. My mind says "go have lunch".