[B-Greek] partitive genitive as subject/object
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 9 19:54:54 EST 2007
On Feb 9, 2007, at 11:20 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>> N.Turner (Syntax p208-209) has a useful discussion of AP0/EK with
>> genitive and without a noun functioning as a subject or object of the
>> verb. Turner gives a lot of examples from NT and LXX. He also
>> mentions it in his book on Style (pps. 15, 46, 70, 137, 151f) where
>> he attributes it to semitic influence.
>>
>> In John 6:11 we see EK TWN OYARIWN functioning as an entire clause:
>>
>> JOHN 6:11 ELABEN OUN TOUS ARTOUS hO IHSOUS KAI EUCARISTHSAS DIEDWKEN
>> TOIS ANAKEIMENOIS hOMOIWS KAI EK TWN OYARIWN hOSON HQELON.
>
> Isn't this a bit different? Here EK TWN OYARIWN must surely depend
> upon hOSON's implicit antecedent TOSOUTON?
Carl,
Westcott (1John p153) cites Jn 1:16 & Jn 6:11 as examples that
illustrate the use of EK in 1JN 4:13. Yes it is different which is
why I took an interest in it. Oun was marveling over the missing
direct object in 1JN 4:13 but here we have more than just a missing
object, we have a clause introduced by hOMOIWS KAI which is made of
nothing but EK TWN OYARIWN. There is more than one way to parse this
but I would see hOSON HQELON as adverbial to DIEDWKE TOIS ANAKEIMENOIS.
I was politely reminded off list that N.Turner is considered by some
to be "over the top" when it comes to semitic influence on NT greek.
I was well aware of this but evidence in H.Smyth and G.Cooper for pre-
biblical use of the partitive genitive as a subject/object with the
finite verb is scanty to say the least. Turner may be wrong 90% time
on semitic influence but that does not mean that we should ignore the
other 10%.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list