[B-Greek] Validity of the Attributed Genitive (LONG)

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Dec 19 07:29:22 EST 2004


At 6:26 AM -0500 12/19/04, Rod Rogers wrote:
>Carl,
>
>Thanks for your comments on the attributed genitive. Although I agree with
>your line of thinking in your response to Barry Joslin's article, I do have
>a question. You say, in response to Barry's "attributed genitive":
>
>Joslin argues the exact opposite, "Finally, one must note the exegetical
>significance of the attributed genitive. This category of genitive is
>indeed exegetically significant, given that when it occurs, the exegetical
>'spotlight' shines on the trailing genitive, rather than on the head noun."
>To me this seems altogether false. And rather than assert, as the epithet
>given the construction would seem to imply, that the genitive noun in these
>phrases is actually the noun to which the quality indicated by the head
>noun is ATTRIBUTED, I would even prefer to say that the genitive noun in
>these phrases is rather the noun of which the quality indicated by the head
>noun is PREDICATED; thus:
>
>I may be missing something here, but many of the "clear" instances of this
>attributed genitive are where the head noun is articular. If the head noun
>is supposed to be adjectival in this construction....then would not the head
>noun be a substantive use of this supposed adjective? Would this not by
>nature argue against the N-g being the driving force in this construction?
>
>Take Mr. Joslin's example of Ephesians 1:7, KATA TO PLOUTOS THS CARITOS
>AUTOU. Even if this was an adjectival use of PLOUTOS, would it not be a
>substantive use thereof and therefore argue against his conclusion that "It
>seems that Paul's emphasis is primarily on grace and secondarily on the
>fullness of it. Rendering the construction this way puts the spotlight on
>grace in which we have been granted redemption."
>
>Am I seeing a mirage or not?

Well, I think you're right to say there's no way that TO PLOUTOS can
function STRUCTURALLY as an ADJECTIVE modifying CARITOS; I think that what
he's arguing is that it this structure is SEMANTICALLY equivalent to the
structure of an adjective modifying the noun that is here genitive. As I've
stated, I think that's a bogus argument. And actually PLOUTOS is a noun,
whether or not it has the article. It seems to me, and I think you are in
agreement that the phrase KATA TO PLOUTOS THS CARITOS has no real kinship
whatsoever with a phrase such as 	KATA THN PLOUSIAN CARIN, where
PLOUSIAN would be attributive in force, but rather is more akin to
something like KATA THN CARIN AUTOU, TOSOUTON ESTIN PLOUSIA EKEINH-- "in
terms of his grace, so very rich that grace is."


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>To: "Rod Rogers" <rngrogers at mybluelight.com>
>Cc: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 1:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Validity of the Attributed Genitive (LONG)
>
>
>Subsequent to the exchange which I have cited in part below, I was
>contacted off-list by a lurker who informed me of a paper by Barry Joslin,
>a former student under Dan  Wallace, entitled "The Legitimacy of The
>Attributed Genitive." It is accessible at
>
>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1828
>
>Having had time to read and mull over Mr. Joslin's paper, I am still am not
>satisfied that there's any reason to acknowledge a legitimate subcategory
>of the adnominal genitive to be named "Attributed Genitive."
>
>I can see that there is some grounds to suppose there's an idiomatic usage
>in such "N-Ng" phrases, as Joslin refers to them conveniently. One might
>even argue that they are first found in such expressions as Homer's
>periphrastic naming phrases, "sacred strength of Telemachus," "mighty
>strength of Odysseus," brute-strength of Heracles," "brute-strength of
>Aeneas"--these being equivalent, it has been argued, to "strong
>Telemachus," "mighty Odysseus," "mighty Heracles," and "mighty Aeneas."
>
>(hIERH) IS THLEMACOIO Od 2.409 and 6x in addition
>(KRATERH) IS ODUSHOS Od 23.720
>BIH hHRAKLHOS Il 15.117
>AINEIAO BIH Il 20.307
>
>More often than not such phrases involve abstract nouns of quality followed
>by genitive of that thing or person wherein the quality is said to reside.
>
>The argument about the "attributed genitive" strikes me as a
>20th-21st-century version of the contention between realists and
>nominalists over the ontological status of concepts. Greeks (and speakers
>of many other languages as well) have tended to highlight qualities
>adhering to things or individuals with abstract nouns, many of them formed
>by denominative suffixes in -IA, -THS, KTL or by suffixes added to verbal
>roots such as ANAKAINWSIS, APOKALUYIS, NEKRWSIS, MAKARISMOS.
>
>
>In this case the concepts are AGAPH, ALHQEIA, hAMARTIA, ANAKAINWSIS,
>APOKALUYIS, APOKARADOKIA, ASQENEIA, BAQOS, DIAKRISIS, DIKAIWSIS, DOULEIA,
>DOXA, DUNAMIS, EKLOGH, EULOGIA, QELHMA, KAINOTHS, KATALLAGH, MAKARISMOS,
>NEKRWSIS, PALAIOTHS, PERISSEIA, PIOTHS, PISTIS, PLHRWMA, PLOUTOS, PNEUMA,
>OIKTIRMOS, hUPAKOH, FOBOS, FUSIS. Many but not all of these are abstract
>nouns closely related to adjectives, e.g. ALHQEIA - ALHQHS, ASQENEIA -
>ASQENHS, BAQOS - BAQUS, PALAIOTHS - PALAIOS, PERISSEIA - PERISSOS, PIOTHS -
>PIOS, PLOUTOS - PLOUSIOS. The account offered by those who espouse the
>"attributed genitive" is that these abstract nouns function as adjectives
>that govern the genitive noun that depends upon them.
>
>Joslin has analyzed N-Ng constructions in a selection of Pauline letters
>including Rom, 1&2 Cor, Gal, Eph, Phil, and Col within a context of three
>words. Among these he found several "clear examples" of the "ttributed
>Genitive." I shall consider just a very few of these; anyone who wishes may
>read Joslin's article at the site indicated by the above URL.
>
>Rom 4:19 THN NEKRWSIN THS MHTRAS SARRAS Joslin equates this to "the dead
>womb of Sarah," but I would argue that NEKRWSIS is not an abstract noun
>derived from the adjective NEKROS/A/ON but a verbal noun of the -TIS/-SIS
>type indicating a process. BDAG properly displays as the first sense 'death
>as process, death, putting to death'; secondly 'cessation of a state or
>activity, deadness, mortification'--[i.e., deadness as an end-result of the
>process] and then says of the passage in question, "of the state of being
>unable to bear children because of passage through menopause: the deadness
>of Sarah's womb."
>
>My question here is: do we gain something in exegetical precision by saying
>that THN NEKRWSIN THS MHTRAS SARRAS means "Sarah's dead womb"? Granted, we
>can understand what is meant by that phrase, but it seems to me that the
>choice of the word NEKRWSIS points to the process of atrophy rather than to
>the end-state, like the 'drying-u"p of a well." At any rate, I think that
>the Greek would bear a weaker force, had Paul written THN NEKRAN MHTRAN
>SARRAS.
>
>Rom 4:6 KAI DAUID LEGEI TON MAKARISMON TOU ANQRWPOU hWi hO QEOS LOGIZETAI
>DIKAIOSUNHN CWRIS ERGWN. This Joslin Englishes as "Just as David also
>speaks of the BLESSED MAN to whom God reckons righeousness apart from
>works." I would think it more accurate to David pronounces the blessing
>upon the man ..." Again the noun MAKARISMOS is verbal; BDAG displays as its
>sense "pronouncement of being in receipt of special favor, blessing." I
>believe that Joslin has misunderstood the clear sense of the Greek and
>essentially diluted it.
>
>Better candidates, I would think, for the "attributed adjective" are those
>wherein the head noun is an abstract derived from an adjective: PERISSEIA
>from PERISSOS/H/ON, KAINOTHS from KAINOS/H/ON, ASQENEIA from ASQENHS/ES.
>
>Rom 5:17 THN PERISSEIAN THS CARITOS, Englished by Joslin as "the ABUNDANT
>GRACE" as equivalent to PERISSHN CARIN
>
>Rom 6:4 hOUTWS KAI hHMEIS EN KAINOTHTI ZWHS PERIPATHSWMEN. Englished as "so
>we too might walk in NEW LIFE" as equivalent to KAINHi ZWHi
>
>Rom 6:19 ANQRWPINON LEGW DIA THN ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS, Englished as "I am
>speaking in human terms because of your WEAK FLESH", where ASQENEIAN THS
>SARKOS is equivalent to ASQENH SARKA
>
>While I would concede that these three N-Ng phrases are to some extent
>semantically equivalent to phrases wherein the Ng is the head-noun and the
>N is an adjective, I don't think they are QUITE equivalent to such phrases.
>Rather the choice to use a noun instead of an adjective in these phrases
>and to append the second noun in the genitive serves to highlight the
>quality indicated by the head noun. I'd say that in these phrases Paul does
>indeed spotlight the head noun, "abundance," "newness," and "weakness."
>
>Joslin argues the exact opposite, "Finally, one must note the exegetical
>significance of the attributed genitive. This category of genitive is
>indeed exegetically significant, given that when it occurs, the exegetical
>'spotlight' shines on the trailing genitive, rather than on the head noun."
>To me this seems altogether false. And rather than assert, as the epithet
>given the construction would seem to imply, that the genitive noun in these
>phrases is actually the noun to which the quality indicated by the head
>noun is ATTRIBUTED, I would even prefer to say that the genitive noun in
>these phrases is rather the noun of which the quality indicated by the head
>noun is PREDICATED; thus:
>
>Rom 5:17 "the grace that is (surprisingly) ABUNDANT"
>Rom 6:4  "In life that turns out to be NEW"
>Rom 6:19 "because the flesh turns out in fact to be WEAK"
>
>
>Joslin's assertion that this construction spotlights the trailing genitive
>runs quite counter to the observation of G.B. Winer, cited early in
>Joslin's article as one of the few who have discussed this so-called
>construction:
>
>"G.B. Winer, for example, in his discussion of adjectives, notes the
>adjectival function of this N-Ng construction. He writes, 'This mode of
>expression [substantive governing a genitive] is not arbitrary, but is
>chosen for the purpose of giving more prominence to the main idea, which,
>if expressed by means of an adjective, would be thrown into the
>background.' Zerwick, too, describes such usage as 'the use of a
>substantive for an emphatic adjective.' Thus, exegetically speaking, this
>particular usage of this genitive construct (later given the name
>'attributed genitive' by Wallace) is purposeful on the part of the author
>due to its force being stronger than a mere adjective."
>
>Winer and Zerwick are right here, in my opinion, to observe that a phrase
>like KAINOTHS ZWHS is NOT really equivalent semantically to KAINH ZWH. And
>it is NOT, after all, ZWH that is emphasized here but KAINOTHS, the fact
>that the ZWH is KAINH. But what this means, I think, is that, if we really
>want to endow this construction with a name of its own, it might make more
>sense to speak of a "predicated noun." My own preference would be to drop
>the whole subcategory and set out to analyze each instance of adnominal
>genitive as we come to it, if it really calls for analysis. In my opinion
>it is a questionable practice to subcategorize the instances of something
>like the adnominal genitive, even as an aid to translation--and it doesn't
>seem to me to be that fruitful exegetically; it is the more questionable if
>it leads one to suppose that in the phrase  EN KAINOTHTi ZWHS the
>highlighted word is ZWHS.
>
>In response to a message of Rod Rogers of 12/14/04,:
>> [material omitted]
>>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 responded on 12/15/04:
>>
>>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/
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

-- 

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