[B-Greek] Genitive Usage, 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was "Theologically motivated translation, at times")
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jun 30 06:52:27 EDT 2009
On Jun 29, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Rod Rogers wrote:
> Carl, I suppose I'm in need of a Greek
> lesson. I don't understand what I said that
> is so terribly wrong here from a five case
> system:
>
> I find this account altogether puzzling, not
> least of all for the
> reason that Rod Rogers asserts that the
> genitive EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter
> 3:9 and the genitive QEOU in Mark 11:22 are
> both "Genitive -
> Ablative." But I really find this description
> of the "Genitive -
> Ablative." incomprehensible: " The Genitive -
> Ablative not only marks
> off the boundaries and limits the context
> which is dealt with but can
> also relate to that which is marked off. The
> possessive aspect of the
> Genitive - Ablative deals with that which is
> between the marked off
> boundaries."
>
> As I understand it, both the Genitive and
> Accusative "limit" in some aspect, the
> Genitive as Wallace puts it:In the eight-case
> system, the genitive defines, describes,
> qualifies, restricts, limits, where as the
> Accusative limits as to quantity or extent.
> [Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek
> Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax
> of the New Testament (76). Zondervan
> Publishing House and Galaxie Software.]
>
> I really don't see much to quibble over
> "marking off" and "restricting" or
> "limiting". I also don't see where this
> supports your "faith in God" translation. I'm
> sure I missed something.
>
> Carl you said,
>
> "When I use the term "ablatival genitive," I
> am referring to the
> original PIE ablative case usage which was
> subsumed in the Greek
> genitive case -- the usage indicating
> SEPARATION FROM, most commonly
> found in expressions with the prepositions EK
> and APO but also with
> verbs of separation such as CWRIZOMAI (cf.
> BDF §180. I don't
> understand what all this about "boundaries"
> has to do with the
> ablatival genitive."
>
> I never meant to comment on the Ablative
> Genitive nor did I comment on the "My car
> versus your car" analogy of Wallace. My only
> comment was in regard to Genitive - Ablative
> and that was in a five case context only
> referring to the case ending. Sorry for being
> confusing.
I'm sorry; I evidently misunderstood what Rod meant by "Genitive -
Ablative." Apparently he inended to use that term for all Koine Greek
genitive usages. I didn't realize what he was doing and was surprised
to see him affirming that Mark 11:22 was "ablatival" when he wasn't..
For clarification, I tend to subcategorize Genitive case usages as
"ablatival" if they are rooted in a notion of separation or movement
away, as "partitive" if they are rooted in a notion of paratial or
inclusive reference; most Genitives are actually Adnominal, for which
I tend to use the word "pertinentive" in the sense of "belonging to"
or "concerned with". I think that is pretty clearly what tthe usage in
Mark 11:22 is, whereas I think the usage in 1 Peter 3:9 may indeed be
"ablatival" -- although, as the NET note indicates, there's some room
for doubt about the syntax of that passage.
At any rate, my reading of what Rod wrote was skewed by my
misunderstanding of his usage of the term "Genitive - Ablative." I do
think use of that term is misleading.
I am still inclined to think that the best of Wallace's Genitive-case
subcategories is "Descriptive/Aporetic Genitive." I think that, so far
as the fundamental syntactic function of the adnominal genitive is
concerned, this is where they all belong:
=====
1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic” Genitive) [characterized by,
described by]
a. Definition: The genitive substantive describes the head noun in a
loose manner. The nature of the collocation of the two nouns in this
construction is usually quite ambiguous. ... (GGBB, pp. 79-80)
=====
I do realize that Professor Wallace's plethora of subcategories of the
adnominal genitive reflects his endeavor to factor in "pragmatic"
contextual elements in the particular instances of the adnominal
gentiive found in the GNT. My objection to that -- the substance of
the fundamental disagreement involved in my recent exchange with Eddie
Mishoe -- is that users of GGBB may have missed Wallace's clear
statement of that intention in his introduction, and users of GGBB
that have missed it may be tempted to suppose that these subcategories
represent syntactic distinctions of which the original Greek authors
of the GNT were cognizant. My own preference would be that the reader
of the GNT read the GNT texts that include adnominal genitive phrases
and determine for him/herself what relationship between head noun and
qualifying genitive noun may be implicit; more often than not the
reader won't stop to analyze the genitive phrase, but if and when he/
she does stop to analyze it, the pre-digested subcategories provided
by the grammar reference work may become a constraint upon the
reader's own interpretive enterprise. Of course, that need not be the
case, provided that the reader who consults GGBB attributes to the
reference grammar no more and no less authority than belongs properly
to any particular interpretive commentary. Ultimately the interpretive
choice must be made by the reader.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
> Carl you said,
>
> "Is EPAGGELIAS "ablatival genitive" with
> BRADUNEI? Does BRADUNEI mean
> something akin to English "is slower than" or
> "is behindhand from"? I
> certainly don't think that "with regard to"
> represents an ablatival
> genitive notion."
>
> I understand the ablative in a sense of
> separation. I'm sure I don't understand all
> that the Ablative may encompass but then I
> never meant to comment on the Ablative
> aspect. I see the Genitive as marking off or
> setting the boundaries of EPAGGELIAS AND
> QEOU. The slowness the Lord is charged with
> is in relation or regards to the promise
> made, his second coming. In the same sense I
> don't think Jesus was telling the disciples
> to have faith in God. They already had faith
> in God. What they did not have was faith that
> would move mountains. That is what I believe
> QEOU was referring to. It was a particular
> type of faith, not faith in general.
>
> Carl you said,
>
> Maybe so, but I find the NET (translates 2
> Peter 3:9 as "The Lord is
> not slow concerning his promise" -- but has a
> translator's note on the
> verse:
>
> Or perhaps, “the Lord is not delaying [the
> fulfillment of] his
> promise,” or perhaps “the Lord of the promise
> is not delaying.”
> The verb can mean “to delay,” “to be slow,”
> or “to be
> hesitant.”
>
> I don't have a problem with any of these
> translations except that I don't think they
> fit well with hWS TINES BRADUTHTA HGOUNTAI. I
> only chose "tardy" to show what the ungodly
> were charging Jesus with.
>
> Carl you said,
>
> I assume tongue in cheek, "I am very much
> tempted to create a new term for a new
> subcategory of adnominal genitive:
> "meditative genitive." Oddly I like this. I
> think too many times scripture is shoved into
> a category without the least thought or
> meditation as to how this word, phrase,
> clause fits into the passage.
>
>
> rod rogers
> bargersville, in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>> Carl Conrad: But the "genitive of
> comparison" is not an adnominal
>>>> genitive; it is essentially an ablatival
> genitive. I agree that
>>>> the preferable English is "better THAN
> ... " but the more
>>>> "literal" English would be "better OF ...
> " but rather "better
>>>> FROM ... "
>>
>> To me this does not take into consideration
> the fact that the
>> Genitive - Ablative first of all is the
> case of "marking off" the
>> boundaries. The Genitive - Ablative not
> only marks off the
>> boundaries and limits the context which is
> dealt with but can also
>> relate to that which is marked off. The
> possessive aspect of the
>> Genitive - Ablative deals with that which
> is between the marked off
>> boundaries. While this is the most often
> aspect of the Genitive -
>> Ablative, it is not the only one we find.
> In 2 Peter 3:9 we find, OU
>> BRADUNEI hO KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS. I
> believe THS EPAGGELIAS is
>> referring to boundaries in which the
> EPAGGELIAS is found not
>> referring to the EPAGGELIAS itself.
> Therefore in 2 Peter 3:9 it
>> reads, "The Lord is not tardy regarding the
> promise". I believe we
>> find the same Genitive in 2 Peter 3:9 as in
> Mark 11:22.
>
> I find this account altogether puzzling, not
> least of all for the
> reason that Rod Rogers asserts that the
> genitive EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter
> 3:9 and the genitive QEOU in Mark 11:22 are
> both "Genitive -
> Ablative." But I really find this description
> of the "Genitive -
> Ablative." incomprehensible: " The Genitive -
> Ablative not only marks
> off the boundaries and limits the context
> which is dealt with but can
> also relate to that which is marked off. The
> possessive aspect of the
> Genitive - Ablative deals with that which is
> between the marked off
> boundaries."
>
> When I use the term "ablatival genitive," I
> am referring to the
> original PIE ablative case usage which was
> subsumed in the Greek
> genitive case -- the usage indicating
> SEPARATION FROM, most commonly
> found in expressions with the prepositions EK
> and APO but also with
> verbs of separation such as CWRIZOMAI (cf.
> BDF §180. I don't
> understand what all this about "boundaries"
> has to do with the
> ablatival genitive.
>
> Nor do I really understand the genitive usage
> of EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter
> 3:9: οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς
> ἐπαγγελίας [OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS
> EPAGGELIAS]. Is
> EPAGGELIAS "ablatival genitive" with
> BRADUNEI? Does BRADUNEI mean
> something akin to English "is slower than" or
> "is behindhand from"? I
> certainly don't think that "with regard to"
> represents an ablatival
> genitive notion. Yet BDF §180: " 2 P 3:9 οὐ
> βραδύνει
> κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ‘the Lord is not
> holding
> back, delaying the fulfilment of his promise’
> also belongs here."
>
> Maybe so, but I find the NET (translates 2
> Peter 3:9 as "The Lord is
> not slow concerning his promise" -- but has a
> translator's note on the
> verse:
>
> Or perhaps, “the Lord is not delaying [the
> fulfillment of] his
> promise,” or perhaps “the Lord of the promise
> is not delaying.”
> The verb can mean “to delay,” “to be slow,”
> or “to be
> hesitant.”
>
> A search of the archives for 2 Peter 3:9 or
> BRADUNEI does not yield
> any enlightenment (to me, at least) on the
> relationship between
> BRADUNEI and EPAGGELIAS, if there is one.
>
>>
>> [omitted material]
>>
>> I think Mark Lightman hit the theological
> nail on the head. As I
>> said above, I don't think the text, ECETE
> PISTIN QEOU, is dealing
>> with faith in a possessive way as much as
> it is in marking off what
>> that faith is. It is a faith which is in
> regards to God. The whole
>> passage from v12 through 26 is dealing with
> faith. It wasn't that
>> the Jews did not
>> "believe" in God. It was that their faith
> did not affect how they
>> worshiped God in a positive way. That is
> why Jesus drove out those
>> whose motives (and faith) where not
>> right. Then Jesus moves to the cursing the
> fig tree and tells his
>> disciples that if they have faith "as
> within the framework of God"
>> or "regarding God", that is, "that their
>> faith reflected the character and
> faithfulness of God", then they
>> could move mountains. It wasn't that the
> disciples had no faith in
>> God nor was Jesus saying that the object of
> their faith was to be in
>> God. I believe what Jesus was saying was to
> have faith in a Godly
>> context, manner.That is what the Jews
> lacked miserably.
>
> Much of this focuses on hermeneutical matters
> bearing upon the
> "theologically motivated translation"
> perhaps, but outside of my
> concern regarding genitive case usage. I
> really fail to see how the
> usage of QEOU here is in any way similar to
> the usage of EPAGGELIAS in
> 1 Peter 3:;9, and I certainly don't see how
> it can be called
> "ablatival" (or "possessive" either, for that
> matter). I am very much
> tempted to create a new term for a new
> subcategory of adnominal
> genitive: "meditative genitive." Really,
> however, it is mosst surely
> an instance of the "aporetic genitive"
> Wallace's acccount of the
> Aporetic Genitive (GGBB, pp. 79-80) is really
> so good that I think
> I'll cite it in toto. It's really about the
> best description of the
> general character o the adnominal or
> "adjectival" genitive that I know
> of.
> ========
> 1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic”
> Genitive) [characterized by,
> described by]
> a. Definition: The genitive substantive
> describes the head noun in a
> loose manner. The nature of the collocation
> of the two nouns in this
> construction is usually quite ambiguous.
> b. Amplification: This is the “catch-all”
> genitive, the “drip
> pan” genitive, the “black hole” of genitive
> categories that tries
> to suck many a genitive into its grasp! In
> some respects, all
> adjectival genitives are descriptive, yet no
> adjectival genitive is
> descriptive. That is to say, although all
> adjectival genitives are, by
> their nature, descriptive, very few, if any,
> belong only to this
> specific category of usage. This use truly
> embodies the root idea of
> the (adjectival) genitive. It is often the
> usage of the genitive when
> it has not been affected by other linguistic
> considerations—that is,
> when there are no contextual, lexemic, or
> other grammatical features
> that suggest a more specific nuance.
> Frequently, however, it is close to the
> attributive genitive, being
> either other than or broader than the
> attributive use. Hence, this use
> of the genitive should be a last resort. If
> one cannot find a narrower
> category to which a genitive belongs, this is
> where he or she should
> look for solace.
> c. Key to Identification: For the word of
> insert the paraphrase
> characterized by or described by. If this
> fits, and if none of the
> other uses of the genitive fits, then the
> genitive is probably a
> genitive of description.
> =========
> In the same category of Wallace's finest
> categories is one which we
> have mentioned before but that should surely
> not be overlooked, the
> Nominative Ad Nauseam" (I won't mention that
> "nauseam" is misspelled,
> but never let it be said that Professor
> Wallace lacka sense of humor):
> =========
> V. Nominative ad Nauseum: Also known as the
> aporetic nominative
> (from the Greek word ἀπορέω, “I am at a
> loss”), this is the
> category one should appeal to when another
> slot cannot be found. The
> title is descriptive not of the nominative
> but of the feeling one has
> in the pit of his/her stomach for having
> spent so much time on this
> case and coming up with nothing.
> =========
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> (Retired)
> ---
> 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