[B-Greek] PNEUMATI THEOU: Meaning of Genitive
Jeffrey T. Requadt
jeffreyrequadt_list at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 17 23:23:36 EDT 2007
For example, Wallace refers to what he calls "Genitive of Apposition
(Epexegetical Genitive, Genitive of Definition)" on page 95-101: "The
substantive in the genitive case refers to the same thing as the substantive
to which it is related. The equation, however, is not exact. The genitive of
apposition typically states a specific example that is a part of the larger
category named by the head noun. It is frequently used when the head noun is
ambiguous or metaphorical (hence the name 'epexegetical genitive' is quite
appropriate)." He gives the following examples:
"the land of Egypt", "the sign of circumcision", "the breastplate of
righteousness". As 'clear examples' he cites Luke 22:1, hH hEORTH TWN
AZUMWN, "the feast of unleavened bread" (although I'm not sure I would agree
on that one); John 2:21, ELEGEN PERI TOU NAOU TOU SWMATOS AUTOU, "he was
speaking concerning the temple of his body"; Rom 4:11, KAI SHMEION ELABEN
PERITOMHS, "and he received the sign of circumcision"; 2 Pet 2:6, POLEIS
SODOMWN KAI GOMORRAS, "the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah"; Rev 1:3, TOUS
LOGOUS THS PROFHTEIAS, "the words of the prophecy". I would agree that from
grammar alone one cannot tell how the genitive relates to its head noun,
only that it does actually relate to it.
Jeffrey T. Requadt
Tucson, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of George F Somsel
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:37 PM
To: Deborah Millier; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] PNEUMATI THEOU: Meaning of Genitive
I was not maintaining that the use of a genitive indicates that it is the
same entity. What I was maintaining and continue to maintain is that the
use of the genitive does not thereby indicate a separate entity though it
may. I could find uses where it is unquestionable that the genitive does
not indicate a separate entity. I can also find instances where there is a
clear distinction between the entity indicated by the genitive and that to
which the genitive refers. The point is that it is a poor argument to
maintain that because a genitive is used there are thereby two entities or
even a distinguishable part of an entity. This is grammatical
over-reaching. So, no, I do not agree with you.
george
gfsomsel
Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: Deborah Millier <deborahmillier at yahoo.com>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:38:11 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] PNEUMATI THEOU: Meaning of Genitive
Hi B-Greek Listers!
Jerry Reimer wrote:
> It is the expositor/exegete's decision
> as to what the function of the genitive
> case is in any given context. Thus,
> eventually, it is largely if not entirely
> a subjective matter and the theological
> agenda of the translator will generally
> come through.
Hi Jerry. Your comments only speak to the matter of
distinguishing between, say, a genitive of possession
and/or a genitive of origin. Etc. I disagree that even
that is a primarily subjective matter, although I
agree that subjectivity may come into play in
especially nuanced distinctions.
However, as far as the logic of language is concerned,
it is safe to say that ALL genitives AUTOMATICALLY
distinguish between one thing and
another(s), or else there would be no point of
reference/comparison. All genitives basically fall
into this formula: Y of X. Therefore Y is in
relationship to X and cannot logically be exactly the
same thing.
Do you see the point now?
George Somsel wrote:
> If one maintains that the Spirit here
> must be distinct from God, how
> then would he understand 1 Cor 2.11
>
> TIS GAR OIDEN ANQRWPWN TA TOU ANQRWPOU
> EI MN TO PNEUMA TOU ANQRWPOU TO EN AUTWi
Hi George. I am pretty sure from your past postings
that you believe that the Bible generally purports
some sort of distinction between the Spirit and God
(hence "PNEUMATI THEOU"). In other words PNEUMATI
THEOU does not mean "The Spirit Who is It/Himself
God."
What you may have [mis]understood from Laurence's
initial post on this thread is that the other party in
his dialog (me) was claiming that the Spirit is not
Deity or organically related to God-proper. That is
not at all my claim. Actually, in Laurence's and my
dialog, I am claiming some sort of a distinction as in
the form of a subdivision of..., a component of...,
that which is possessed by..., etc. (Typical genitive
stuff.) But not two completly different entities
without organic relation to each other. This is a
linguistic matter more than a theological one.
So, going back to your (George's) illustration of a
person's hand and the person, one could say that the
hand is a component of the person. But if the hand
were removed, the person would not cease to exist.
Therefore, the hand (Y) is in relationship to the
person (X), but not exactly the person. It is the hand
*of* the person, the Y *of* the X, that is in view.
Would you agree in essence with that formulation,
George?
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael Millier
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/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
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/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