[B-Greek] Genitive in Romans 6:6c
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 15 13:21:04 EDT 2006
On Jul 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, yancywsmith wrote:
>
> 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.
If that were what's going on, you'd have a point. But I never said
that the ablatival genitive construed with verbs was itself obsolete;
rather, I said: "prepositions have come to be employed regularly with
some verbs and in some contexts when the sense is ablatival or
partititive." And I think that's the case with KATARGEW/KATARGOUMAI.
I keep reiterating my insistence that Koine Greek is a language in
flux; I think that verb-usage and complements is a significant point.
PAUW/PAUOMAI clearly DOES continue to be used with ablatival
genitive, as do some other verbs. I think that the burden of proof
regarding such usage with KATARGEW/KATARGEOMAI rests upon those who
would argue hAMARTIAS as an ablatival genitive in Rom 6:6c on the
basis of that text alone.
> 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.
just hAMARTIAS, not hHAMARTIAS.
> 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
>
>
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/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list