[B-Greek] Habbakuk 2:4b - objective genitive?

Eric S. Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 18 12:07:18 EST 2009


But it's not a verb. It's a noun. And it has the same grammatical and syntactical and 
morphological construction as that for which an objective genitive understanding of the 
phrase EK PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU (i.e., by/from faith in Jesus Christ) - which happens 
to be the most common (until recently) understanding of the phrase (versus the subjective 
genitive) - is argued.
 
So why do you suggest that I am attempting to invent something? Are those who argue for 
an objective genitive in EK PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU attempting to invent something?
 
- - -
Eric S. Weiss 

--- On Fri, 12/18/09, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Habbakuk 2:4b - objective genitive?
To: "Eric S. Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>, "b-greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 10:51 AM







I think you are attempting to invent a new category (or perhaps to "redefine" a category) to cover this situation so that it can be considered correct..  The objective genitive would be in the genitive would most likely be an accusative, i.e. if it were governed by a verb rather than a noun it would be in the accusative.  That is different from the usage which you are attempting to foist upon it.  It is simply a misreading of the Hebrew text and therefore an error.
 george
gfsomsel 



… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________ 






From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
To: b-greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 9:20:12 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Habbakuk 2:4b - objective genitive?

> Again, I doubt that.  In Rom 1.17; Gal 3.11 and in Heb 10.38 when "Paul" quotes this he 
> stops short of giving the pronoun.  I'm inclined to think this was deliberately done in order 
> to avoid any controversey regarding the text.  I think Paul (not here including the 
> humorously labelled "Paul") was well aware that the Hebrew did not read "my" but rather 
> "his."  I imagine that the author of Hebrews, whoever he may have been, was likewise 
> aware of this since he too avoids the problem.
> 
> george
> gfsomsel 
 
Okay. But assuming for the sake of argument that the Greek reader/NT expositor of 
Habbakuk 2:4 (including Paul) assumed or understood the MOU to be acceptable (Can we 
absolutely rule out the possibility that the Hebrew vorlage for the LXX, or a targumic 
interpretation of it, might have had "my" instead of "his"?), can it be translated as an 
objective genitive? If so, why is the possessive genitive seemingly automatically assumed 
(at least by Brenton and NETS)?
 
- - -
Eric S. Weiss 

--- On Fri, 12/18/09, Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Habbakuk 2:4b - objective genitive?
To: "b-greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 9:52 AM







George:
 
I know the textual problem vis-a-vis the Hebrew that the LXX displays (i.e., "his" versus 
"my").
 
But my question is not whether or not the LXX got the Hebrew right, but how the LXX of 
Habakkuk 2:4b can be understood or read or used by the reader or by an expositor like 
Paul.
 
My question - which arose from an attempt to translate/explicate this section of Romans 1 
and its relationship to Paul's teachings on PISTIS and DIKAIOSUNH - is whether or not 
MOU in the LXX of Hab 2:4b can be understood or translated as an objective genitive. If so, 
I think this potentially nuances Paul's use of the phrase in Romans 1:17 and elsewhere, 
and tangentially could be a factor in the PISTIS CRISTOU discussion, IMO.
 
- - -
Eric S. Weiss



      
---
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