[B-Greek] Re: 1 Jn 2:5 hH AGAPH TOU QEOU

Jon Boyd boyd at huxcomm.net
Sat Jun 5 15:56:13 EDT 2004


CAIREIN,

This thread is an example of what makes B-greek so worthwhile--it stretches
our thinking (thanks Carl, Iver, et. al.).  I'm specifically wondering about
Carl's comment that "I am bewildered by the acrobatics engaged in by
interpreters who want to see more in AGAPH TOU QEOU than in English "love of
God" or in PISTIS IHSOU CRISTOU than in English "faith(fulness) of Jesus
Christ. . . I honestly think it is silly to suppose that a Greek speaker or
writer had any notion of a distinction between a subjective and an objective
genitive any more than if we speak of "car care" we give any thought to how
"car" functions in relationship to "care" in that phrase."  

I agree that Greek speakers didn't consciously think "I'm using a subjective
genitive now."  Yet at the same time, wouldn't they have had a definite idea
of what they were trying to communicate when they used a genitive
construction (like AGAPH TOU QEOU)?  The phrase is ambiguous by itself, but
in context wouldn't they have had a more specific idea?  I agree that
Wallace makes this sound like the genitive has this "meaning," when it's the
context that determines the semantics of the phrase.

For example, look at 1 John 4:9-10:
 
EN TOUTWi EFANERWQH hH AGAPH TOU QEOU EN hHMIN, hOTI TON hUION AUTOU TON
MONOGENH APESTALKEN hO QEOS EIS TON KOSMON hINA ZHSWMEN DI' AUTOU. EN TOUTWi
ESTIN hH AGAPH, OUC hOTI hHMEIS HGAPHKAMEN TON QEON ALL' hOTI AUTOS HGAPHSEN
hHMAS KAI APESTEILEN TON hUION AUTOU hILASMON PERI TWN hAMARTIWN hHMWN.
 
It looks to me like John is making the sense of hH AGAPH TOU QEOU explicit
in v. 10 (OUC hOTI hHMEIS HGAPHKAMEN TON QEON ALL' hOTI AUTOS HGAPHSEN
hHMAS), showing that he did have a distinction in mind.  
 
Jonathan Boyd
Huxley, IA 



>One last question, if I may...
>>Are you implying then that the fundamental semantic
>categories a native Koine Greek reader/hearer would
>have understood basically "fall under" your 3 main
>categories (adnominal, partitive, ablative)? And from
>these 3 main categories, a particular context might
>bring out a slight nuance?

Carl wrote:
Not exactly; Koine Greek depends much more upon prepositions in combination
with grammatical case-forms whereas earlier Greek much more commonly used
the genitive case-forms by themselves to convey the distinctions I've noted.
Nevertheless I confess that I am bewildered by the acrobatics engaged in by
interpreters who want to see more in AGAPH TOU QEOU than in English "love of
God" or in PISTIS IHSOU CRISTOU than in English
"faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ." Sometimes the context may help to clarify
whether in a particular instance the writer is concerned more with love
directed toward God or with God's love for humanity, but I honestly think it
is silly to suppose that a Greek speaker or writer had any notion of a
distinction between a subjective and an objective genitive any more than if
we speak of "car care" we give any thought to how "car" functions in
relationship to "care" in that phrase.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list