[B-Greek] rom 8:17

Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 7 10:52:27 EDT 2005


I've really been struggling with this response by Dr.
Conrad. I have a hard time swallowing the concept that
the Greeks had such a minimalistic undestanding of
this genitive construct. I think their cultural
heritage allowed them to contemplate far more semantic
(deep level) options than those listed by Dr. Conrad.
I suspect that Wallace has only scratched the surface
of how many ways a Greek would understand genitive
constructs from the standpoint of their MEANING.

And now that I've started reading Wallace, I find
myself confused at yet another comment by Dr. Conrad.
I really don't think Wallace has the cart before the
horse; what he is doing is explaining GREEK to ENGLISH
learners. How else is he to explain a deep level
meaning of a Greek phrase without using some English
translation? His translation is nothing more than an
attempt to capture the GREEK. I think this charge
against Wallace is wrong.

Now, I've written the above to learn. Please help me
understand why you have come to these conclusions.
They seem so far off to me that I just had to ask.

I've read some of Young's Greek grammar, and he
concentrates on this "deep level" semantics of Greek
syntactical constructs. What I think Wallace calls the
semantics that are "embedded" with Greek sytax. And
that we have to "unpack" them. 

In English, I can use a phrase that a native speaker
could analyze in many, many ways in a split second.
His culture allows him to sift through many, many
options at lightning speed. That is what I think is
happening with first century Greeks with basic
constructs (and far more for more complex constructs).

Mitch L.

--- "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at ioa.com> wrote:

> I would add what I hope is a clarification to what
> George has already  
> offered as a response to your question. My complaint
> about Wallace is that he is classifying genitive
> (and other)  
> constructions in terms (it seems to me) of how they
> should be
> translated into English or another target language
> rather than in  
> terms of how the Greek speaker/writer conceived
> these
> constructions. But in fact, ALL adnominal genitive
> constructions are  
> essentially the same: the constructions in English
> that come closest to paralleling the actual Greek
> construction of
> 
>      KLHRONOMOI MEN QEOU SUGKLHRONOMOI DE CRISTOU
> 
> are:
> 
>      1. "heirs of God" -- "co-heirs of Christ"
> 
> OR
> 
>      2. "God's heirs" -- "Christ's co-heirs"
> 
> OR
> 
>      "God-heirs" -- "Christ-co-heirs"
> 
> Each of these configurations tells you nothing more
> than that "God"  
> and "Christ" characterize the nouns "heirs" and
> "co-heirs"
> respectively in the same manner as do adjectives,
> but none of these  
> configurations spells out precisely what the
> relationship
> is between "God" and "heirs" and between "Christ"
> and "co-heirs."
> 
> The translators' decision to opt for the phrase
> "co-heirs WITH  
> Christ" instead of "co-heirs OF Christ" might be for
> clarity's sake
> because we don't want to suggest that we inherit
> FROM Christ but  
> rather that LIKE Christ we inherit FROM God. The
> translator
> wants to avoid phrasing that might be misleading to
> one who is  
> reading the phrase in a language other than the
> original.
> 
> 
> On Jun 5, 2005, at 4:49 PM, nicholas runecrow wrote:
> 
> > "Carl has complained (well, I don't know that
> "complained" is quite  
> > the
> > correct word) that some such as Dan Wallace have
> overly distinguished
> > various usages of the cases.  Perhaps your problem
> is that you take  
> > these
> > distinctions too seriously.  Yes, we can
> distinguish various usages  
> > for
> > the genitive (please note the spelling), but to
> the Greek they  
> > would all
> > have been simply genitive.
> >
> > george
> > gfsomsel"
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> > Thanks for the reply George. I am basically
> wondering if there is  
> > something in the Greek construct that pushes for
> two different  
> > distinctions of the genItives. When you say "to
> the Greek, they  
> > would all have been simply genitive" you seem to
> be echoing what  
> > I've said- that there really wouldn't be a reason
> to translate  
> > these two cases with different English words.
> >
> > This is why I am trying to determine why virtually
> all English  
> > translations do make this distinction between the
> two genitives. I  
> > am certainly not at the level of knowledge of
> Greek that most  
> > translators have attained, and so I am left
> wondering what they are  
> > seeing that I am not to cause such a distinction.
> >
> > If I am understanding the thrust of your reply,
> you are saying that  
> > there is no reason for the use of differing
> English translations?
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger!
> Download today -  
> > it's FREE!
>
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/
> 
> > direct/01/
> >
> > ---
> > 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
> cwconrad2 at mac.com
> 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
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the B-Greek mailing list