From: Gary S. Shogren (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 24 1996 - 19:39:26 EST
>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 15:36:51 +0400
>To: "Gary S. Shogren" <email@example.com>
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Carlton Winbery)
>Subject: Re: Eph.4:19
>Gary Shogren wrote;
>>ERGASIAN I can see as a nice solid example of an
>>action noun, making AKATHARSIAS an objective (or perchance subjective)
Carlton Winbery replied:
>It is clear that AKAQARSIAS cannot be subjective genitive since those who
>are practicing (ERGASIAN) uncleanness are the ones who have given
>themselves over to wantonness. It is not the uncleanness that is doing it
>but the people about whom Paul is speaking. The objective genitive would
>be the object of the action implied by the noun (or noun substitute) which
>the word in the genitive modifies. The subjective genitive on the other
>hand would have to denote the agent of the action implied by the noun that
>it modifies. Take ERGASIAN and make it into a verb. AKAQARSIAS could be
>the object of such a verb but not the subject of it.
Thanks for the response, and for catching my "slip" with PASHS.
I too think that an objective genitive is the more natural reading, and the
few translations I looked at would agree. I suggested the subjective
genitive as a possibility, because I do wonder whether it's not possible to
make AKAQARSIAS the performer of ERGASIAN, yielding something like: "they
surrendered themselves...unto the working that all uncleanness does..."
This would involve the personification of uncleanness, much as Paul does
with HAMARTIA in Rom. 6:12. But as I say, I like objective better, and I
think a average Greek Christian reading through Eph. 4 would take it that way.
Gary S. Shogren
Biblical Theological Seminary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT