[B-Greek] The validity of the Attributed Genitive
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Dec 15 14:44:01 EST 2004
At 12:16 PM -0500 12/14/04, Rod Rogers wrote:
>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.
I don't know that this ever HAS been discussed on this list previously;
there's been more discussion, certainly, on the "attributive" genitive. I
had to check and read through the relevant section of Wallace to see his
diagram and to see the several examples of this so-termed category. I have
frequently complained about Wallace's 'generous' multiplication of
grammatical categories which he thinks may assist exegesis or translation,
whether or not such categories have anything to do with the way an ancient
writer thought or composed Greek. The discussion covers pages 89-91 of GGBB.
I am inclined to agree with you that there is really no need to postulate a
distinct subcategory of the genitive here. Adnominal genitives constitute a
structural rather than a semantic category; some linkage between the noun
in the genitive and the head noun is indicated, and it is up to the
reader/interpreter to figure out just what that is; I think the Hebrew
"construct-noun" in conjunction with another noun is somewhat similar, and
one might even consider such phrases in English as "love feast"--is this a
deluxe table entertainment enjoyed by lovers, a wholesale indulgence in
satisfying sexual appetites, or what? It seems to me that some traditional
descriptive terms are sufficient, if we need distinct subcategories of the
adnominal genitive, to convey what is involved here: there's the "genitive
of definition" wherein the genitive noun clarifies or more distinctly
defines what is pointed at by the head noun, or there's the "appositional
genitive" wherein the genitive noun is more or less equated with or
synonymous with the head noun. Along the same lines, I've commented often
(ad nauseam?) on this list on use of the terms "subjective genitive" and
"objective genitive" as subcategories that may be useful to translators but
that don't do much to describe the mind-set of the speaker or writer of a
phrase such as hH TOU QEOU AGAPH, which would be just as clear if Englished
as "God love."
These categories, it seems to me, are crutches for translators and
exegetes; they don't diminish the intellectual effort that an exegete or
translator needs to expend on interpretation of the intended sense of such
a phrase.
Nor is the diagramming really much help. For any who don't have access to
Wallace's GGBB p. 89, chart 9, I'll attempt an ASCII reproduction:
body newness
_________________ _______________
/ /
/ of sin / of life
__________________ ________________
= =
body life
_________________ _______________
/ /
/ sinful / new
__________________ ________________
Attributive Genitive Attributed Genitive
Certainly the upper figure corresponds to traditional diagramming; the
problem is that the diagramming does no more than convey the syntactic
structure; it can't resolve all the problems of the semantic relationship
between head noun and genitive in the phrases "body of sin" and "newness of
life."
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list