[B-Greek] Genitive in Romans 6:6c

Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sat Jul 15 07:27:24 EDT 2006


> <quote>
> I won't go beyond KATARGEW here, but you are correct in assuming that
> I consider your interpretation impossible on purely grammatical
> grounds. In looking at all occurrences of the verb (in the GNT), it
> seems clear that the verb is semantically divalent, i.e. it takes an
> agent and patient. A third valency can be added by the use of a
> prepositional phrase (but not simply by a genitive noun). Confer DIA
> in Rom 3:31, APO in Rom 7:2,6, Gal 5:4,  EN in 2 Cor 3:14. The dative
> in 2 Th 2:8 functions in the same way as a prepositional phrase with
> EN and indicates means. Of course, if the verb is passive as in Rom
> 6:6 and many other places, the patient is expressed syntactically as
> subject and the agent unspecified.
> <end quote>

[EK:]>
> Perhaps I misunderstand but this paragraph appears to contain a
> formal contradiction.
>
> "A third valency can be added by the use of a prepositional phrase
> (but not simply by a genitive noun)."
>
> "The dative in 2 Th 2:8 functions in the same way as a prepositional
> phrase with EN and indicates means."
>
> 2TH. 2:8 KAI TOTE APOKALUFQHSETAI hO ANOMOS, hON hO KURIOS [IHSOUS]
> ANELEI TWi PNEUMATI TOU STOMATOS AUTOU KAI KATARGHSEI THi EPIFANEIAi
> THS PAROUSIAS AUTOU,
>
> If it is true that a case w/o a preposition cannot function
> adverbially this is the first time I have heard of it. Again, I may
> be missing your point entirely.
>
>
> Elizabeth Kline

Yes, I did not say that a genitive can never function adverbially, although I don't use that kind of vocabulary. It has 
very little descriptive power.

We need to look at the genitive and dative as separate cases, and we also need to look at which verbs we are dealing 
with and what is the semantic relationship between the verb and the nominal phrases.
It is also important to note the difference between classical and Koine Greek, since the use of prepositions is much
more common in the latter (see BDF 169-181).

I find it helpful to start from semantics rather than just syntax. I make a distinction between primary semantic roles
and secondary roles. Secondary roles are additional and optional, while primary roles are required, although they can be
left implicit in some contexts. Let me illustrate by an example of a verb that requires the genitive case for a primary 
role,
such as METECW:
BAGD explains this verb as "share, have a share, participate w. gen. of the thing in or of someth."
Compare:
1 Co 10:21 OU DUNASQE TRAPEZHS KURIOU METECEIN KAI TRAPEZHS DAIMONIWN
(You cannot share [in] the Lord's table and (also) [in] demons' table)
The agent is "you" and the patient is one or other of these "tables" - a metonymy)

Heb 5:13 PAS GAR hO METECWN GALAKTOS (for every one who is drinking milk)
The agent is PAS and the patient is milk (in genitive, governed by the META of the verb).

1 Cor 10:30 EI EGW CARITI METECW
(if I eat/partake with thanksgiving)
The agent is "I" and the patient is not specified, but implied from the previous context. The dative CARITI adds a 
secondary
semantic role, indicating an attendant circumstance or manner (BDF 198: "associative dative"). It is equivalent to a 
preposition with EN.

There is a so-called "genitive of separation" (BDF 180), but BDF says that this "has been driven out for the most part
by APO and EK." APALLOTRIOW (Eph 2:12, 4:18) is an example. It is a small group of verbs that take such genitives and
most of them have APO as part of the verb. KATARGEW does not belong to this group, and there is no way the genitive 
hAMARTIAS in Rom 6.6 can be considered a primary role for the verb.

I hope this clarifies a bit,

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list