[B-Greek] Some thoughts on the Dative case

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 31 08:34:41 EDT 2006


On Jul 31, 2006, at 1:21 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

> ACTS 15:1 KAI TINES KATELQONTES APO THS IOUDAIAS EDIDASKON TOUS
> ADELFOUS hOTI, EAN MH PERITMHQHTE TWi EQEI TWi MWUSEWS, OU DUNASQE
> SWQHNAI.
>
> Barrett (ICC Acts) and Parsons/Culy (Acts Handbook) seem to be in a
> muddle about what to call this dative. Lets forget about giving it a
> lable/name (who cares?). Would someone like to explain how this
> dative is functioning in this context. The gloss "in accordance
> with ..." seems to be  standard, but what can we say about this
> dative beyond creating an overly specific category which IMHO
> accomplishes nothing (e.g. Parsons/Culy "dative of rule", after
> D.Wallace).
>
> I have the grammars there is no need to quote them. What for example,
> would a linguist from the functional school say about TWi EQEI TWi
> MWUSEWS?
>
> Of course non-linguists are welcome to speak up as well.
>
> I really didn't have any problem with this dative when I read it
> initially, the problem arrived when I looked into Barrett, Parsons/
> Culy, ...

I'm not sure that I can respond to this better than Randall Buth has  
already done, but I've been thinking a lot about the as yet  
unanswered question thrown out (one thinks of Heidegger's category of  
"Geworfenheit" -- I think that's what it was called?) by Chet Creider  
several days ago (July 27: [B-Greek] The use of EN in 2 Cor 8:7).

I am far from wanting to pigeonhole within or add to what Randall  
refers to as "the other 753 kinds of datives." Nevertheless, I think  
we can be a little bit less vague than that celebrated line of verse,  
"A dative is a dative is a dative ... " My own not-very-original  
introductory remarks on the Dative Case to my students was as follows:

	The Dative normally indicates a person whom an action or a statement  
concerns.  It can readily be associated with the English preposition  
"to" or "for."
	Two other distinct functions have come to be associated with the  
Greek Dative Case:
		(a) Locative indicates position in space or time — "at," "in," or  
"on."
		(b) Instrumental-Sociative (some call it "instrumental-comitative")  
indicates the person or instrument associated with a statement or  
action. It can readily be associated with the English  			preposition  
"with"—as in, "he came with  his father" or "he shot the deer with a   
bow."

Many will recognize this as the antiquated "eight-case" system; I  
don't disguise the fact that it is based on Greek linguistic history,  
but I think this distinction of usages is basic enough to be useful,  
however simplistic it may be. I'd be content to characterize TWi EQEI  
TWi MWUSEWS in Acts 15:1 as an "instrumental-sociative" dative and I  
wouldn't balk at Englishing the phrase as "by the conventional  
practice of Moses." I think that's clear enough as a modifier of the  
verb PERITEMNW. Certainly "in accordance with" sounds a bit more  
highfalutin', but the sense is clear for anyone who knows what is  
meant by "the conventional practice of Moses."

Where the Koine dative really becomes tricky is in phrases initiated  
by EN. This may have something to do with Semitic influence and  
probably does (EN functioning like Heb. "B'" or like Heb. "L'").  
Where we see it most commonly in the GNT is in the "instrumental" EN  
PNEUMATI ("by/with {holy} spirit}. I think that Chet Creider has  
nicely characterized possibilities with regard to EN hUMIN in 2 Cor  
8:7 as "dative/accusative" and "locative." I would think that the  
"dative/accusative" alternative would correspond to usage derivative  
from Heb. "L'" but at any rate, I wouldn't hesitate to accept Chet's  
suggestion that EN hUMIN here would be equivalent to hUMIN or PROS  
hUMAS with a verb like LEGW or LALW. I don't remember exactly where  
it was, but I remember being dumbfounded when looking through some  
apocryphal work (Enoch?) and finding EN + dative regularly used with  
verbs of speaking to indicate the person spoken to.

I am inclined to think that Beginning NT Greek grammars do an  
inadequate job of presenting the dative, but maybe the "shady area"  
of EN + dative is about as transparent as the usage of KAQWS In Eph  
1:4 (I wondered when this came up a couple days ago if we might not  
do just as well Englishing KAQWS as "like" in the fashion of  
colloquial American idiom). In any case, the passage that Chet was  
inquiring about is sorely complicated by a variety of textual  
variants that are evidently derivative from both (a) common  
pronunciation of hHMIN and hUMIN, and (b) confusion about what that  
phrase (THi EX hHMWN EN hUMIN AGAPHi) might really mean.

I'm doing no more than conjecture myself, but I wonder whether this  
phrasing isn't a way of avoiding the ambiguity of the "subjective"  
and "objective" genitive. Imagine if the above phrase were written  
THi hHMWN hUMWN AGAPHi: wouldn't that be splendid "our love for you"  
or "your love for us"? That is to say, perhaps EX hHMWN is intended  
to specify more precisely what could and quite commonly is expressed  
by a "subjective" genitive, and then also EN hUMIN is intended to  
specify more precisely what could and quite commonly is expressed by  
an "objective" genitive. That's pure guesswork, but it does seem to  
make some sense to me.

I would attempt to work through the convolutions of the textual  
alternatives which Chet has gone on to cite and discuss. That's a TC  
question for which I'm not qualified.


On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Chet Creider wrote:
> This is a question about how the Greek in 2 Cor 8:7 is to be  
> construed.  The
> question is followed by a brief appendix on the history of the  
> understanding
> of the Greek as evidenced in selected translations.  It is not a  
> question,
> however, about the translation of the Greek -- once the Greek is  
> understood,
> the way it may be translated is not of any particular interest.
>
> The passage: ALL' hWSPER EN PANTI PERISSEUETE, PISTEI KAI LOGWi KAI  
> GNWSEI
> KAI PASHi SPOUDHi KAI THi EX hHMWN EN hUMIN AGAPHi, hINA KAI EN  
> TAUTHi THi
> CARITI PERISSEUHTE
>
> It is THi EX hHMWN EN hUMIN AGAPHi which is the subject of my  
> question,
> and more specificically EN hUMIN.  There are two possible readings  
> here,
> one "dative/accusative" and one locative.  (I write "dative/ 
> accusative"
> because what is meant here is the sense in which hUMIN is the  
> object of
> love and I do not know whether the dative is simply the default for  
> this
> noun or if there would be another way of expressing the object sense
> (another preposition, the genitive case); compare English "love of
> you"/"love for you".)


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