[B-Greek] Genitive in Romans 6:6c
yancywsmith
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Sat Jul 15 09:32:27 EDT 2006
I think the point is well taken that in NT Greek the ablatival
genitive is being replaced by APO and EK with the genitive and is
therefore rare. However, I find that simply making a rule that, in
the case of KATARGEW, the ablatival genitive is impossible a petitio
principi. The passive, or as you suggest, middle transformation, is
also found in Rom 7:2, 6 and appears to generate a real semantic
difference, "freed from." It is still found with some verbs, e.g. hO
PAQWN SARKI PEPAUETAI hHAMARTIAS (1 Pet. 4:1). This particular usage
is rare in the NT and KOINH Greek. However, it provides an example of
a word with similar semantic value in the passive using a ablatival
genitive adverbial complement. On the other hand, SWMA THS
hHAMARTIAS is remarkably difficult to construe with KATARGHQH, (see
the very diverse interpretations of this cryptic phrase in the
commentaries) which would naturally lead some like Theodoret or
myself to consider alternative grammatical construals. Part of this
may be a theological proclivity to see "body" as as representing the
[good] creation of God over against hO PALAIOS ANQRWPOS as
representing the evil inclination "the old man [in solidarity with
Adam]." I admit that the presence of a phrase like hOMOIWMATI SARKOS
hHAMARTIAS in Rom 8:3 weakens my case, nevertheless, I don't see how,
on purely grammatical, historical or even semantic grounds hHAMARTIAS
could not be construed with KATARGHQH. Given that a native speaker,
albeit a minority voice, read the phrase in precisely that way, viz.,
hINA ARGON GENHTAI THi hAMARTIAi TO SWMA. I may well be wrong to
construe it that way, but I cannot see how grammatical considerations
are the determining factor here.
On Jul 15, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> I certainly don't find anything questionable in the examples cited by
> Iver nor in their interpretation. Moreover, after a careful review of
> the instances of KATARGEW in the GNT, I think that Iver is right on
> target in saying that an "ablatival" usage of the genitive with this
> verb is not found among them. Linguistic history is as much a factor
> here is semantics and syntax: prepositions have come to be employed
> regularly with some verbs and in some contexts when the sense is
> ablatival or partitives -- and that's true with the genitive as well
> as with the dative -- think of the (surprising -- to one more
> familiar with classical Attic) instances of EN + dative that are
> instrumental rather than locative.
>
> Text: Rom 6:6 TOUTO GINWSKONTAS, hOTI hO PALAIOS hHMWN ANQRWPOS
> SUNESTAURWQH, hINA KATARGHQHi TO SWMA THS hAMARTIAS, TOU MHKETI
> DOULEUEIN hHMAS THi hAMARTIAi
>
> " ... since we understand that our old self has been crucified (in
> company with Christ) so that our sinful self may cease to function --
> so that we are no longer slaves to Sin."
>
> With regard to the verb KATARGEW, I would consider it among those
> verbs that are essentially middle (ergative) and it probably should
> be lemmatized KATARGOUMAI. The active KATARGEW is essentially the
> causative for KATARGOUMAI; KATARGHQHN is simply the aorist of
> KATARGOUMAI. It can be Englished as a passive (e.g. "be rendered in
> effective") but there's really no difference in meaning from the
> intransitive middle "become ineffectual."
>
> On Jul 15, 2006, at 7:50 AM, George F Somsel wrote:
>
>> I find this almost incomprehensible. How can one begin with
>> semantics (meaning) before one has first determined what is
>> actually being said (syntax).
>>
>> ______________
>>
>>
>> Iver Larsen <iver at larsen.dk> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> george
>> gfsomsel
>> _________
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> ---
>> 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 (Retired)
> 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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list