[B-Greek] The validity of the Attributed Genitive
Rod Rogers
rngrogers at mybluelight.com
Tue Dec 14 12:16:58 EST 2004
I've wrestled with this until I have come to a conclusion. The only problem is that I know I'm disagreeing with several Greek "heavy weights". Who knows, maybe everyone on this list too. Anyway, I'd appreciate the List's comments on this.
The text is: Ephesians 1:17
hINA h0 QEOS TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU XRISTOU hO PATHR THS DOXHS DWH hUMIN PNEUMA SOFIAS KAI APOKALUYEWS EN EPIGNWSEI AUTOU
My problem lies not in the understanding of the "idiomatic" English translation but in the path one takes to get there. The whole nature of the "Attributed Genitive" goes against my understanding of interpreting scripture and so this will be a huge obstacle for me to overcome if I am "forced" into swallowing this semantic pill.
Let me give the definition of the "Attributed Genitive" as found in Dan Wallace's GGBB:
"This is just the opposite, semantically, of the attributive genitive. The head noun, rather than the genitive, is functioning (in sense) as an attributive adjective. Although rarer than the attributive genitive, this is not altogether uncommon.??"
Mr. Wallace continues:
"As can be seen in the chart above, with the attributed genitive, the diagram ??flip-flops?? (thus illustrating, inter alia, the limited value of diagrams??). Some grammarians thus refer to this as a ??reverse genitive.????
b. Key to Identification
If it is possible to convert the noun to which the genitive stands related into a mere adjective, then the genitive is a good candidate for this category.
One simple way to do this conversion is to omit the of in translation between the head noun and genitive, and change the head noun into its corresponding adjective. Thus ??newness of life?? becomes ??new life.??"
In our discussion on sentence diagramming recently, I don't recall anyone mentioning the "Attributed Genitive" as grounds for discarding diagramming. The thought of inverting or "flip-flopping" the positions of these nouns I must confess is not something I would naturally be inclined to do. Again, I'm not questioning the conclusion or the interpretation of these constructions, it's just that I'm not so sure the end justifies the means, in this instance. It appears to me that a semantic category has been "invented" (not by Mr. Wallace or anyone in particular) to explain the interpretation that is needed.
My question(s) is, "Is it necessary to disregard contextual inflection, i.e. the head noun vs. the genitive noun (omit the of in translation between the head noun and genitive, and change the head noun into its corresponding adjective). If there were no "Attributed Genitive" category would we be unable to translate this construction? Is it necessary to cast doubt on the ability to diagram this construction in a "normal" way? Why can't the anarthrous use of PNEUMA be sufficient exegetical grounds to prove that Paul was not asking for the Holy Spirit Himself to be given which Paul had already discussed in verses 13,14 and that Paul was "obviously"(?) asking that spiritual wisdom and understanding be given to these believers?"
Is it possible to discard the "Attributed Genitive" instead of "diagramming" and let the grammar AND context play a part in the "exegetical mileage" (as Wallace puts it) we get out of the genitive case? I may look like a piece of Swiss cheese when the bullets stop flying, but I'd still like to hear from ya'll.
It's hard to imagine that this has not been discussed previously, but I honestly don't remember when. If anyone can point me to previous messages in this line of thought I'd appreciate that also.
rod rogers
Bargersville In
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list