Re: Nominative for Genitive?

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Mon Jun 10 1996 - 09:45:59 EDT

Late last week I responded to the query herebelow--that probably should
have been put to the list originally--from Alan Craig, and suggested it be
shared with the list, as others of you may have a comment on this. He
assented to that and I am now doing so.

In addition I have just consulted BDF and find, under the heading "More
serious incongruencies (solecisms)" the following (#136): _Revelation_
exhibits a quantity of striking solecisms which are based especially on
inattention to agreement (a rough style), in contrast to the rest of the NT
and to the other writings ascribed to John ..."

In the course of checking BDF I also note something which several other
list-subscribers undoubtedly already know: my comment on PLHRHS in John
1:14 is in error: it's not a solecism; rather PLHRHS has become an
indeclinable adjective when followed by a genitive (BDF#137).

>Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 06:20:28 -0500
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <>
>Subject: Re: Nominative for Genitive?
>At 5:08 AM -0500 6/6/96, MR A R CRAIG wrote:
>>Mr. Conrad:
>>According to "A Students Dictionary for Biblical and Theological
>>Studies," by F. B. Heuey, Jr. and Bruce Corley (Zondervan: 1983), page
>>175, Revelation 2:13, 3:12; 7:4; 8:9; and 14:12 are examples of where
>>we have a nominative used for a genitive.
>>Do you know of any other examples within the NT and/or other resources
>>in which I might find either a discussion of such or a listing of them?
>It would appear to be a barbarism from the hand of an author whose native
>tongue is not Greek; the only thing at all comparable to it is the final
>phrase in John 1:14 (PLHRHS XARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS), which, as a nominative,
>can only be construed with hO LOGOS in the first clause--which seems an
>intolerable hyperbaton or inversion of word-order without any obvious
>rhetorical effect, so that one wonders if we have a nominative (PLHRHS)
>intended to serve as an appositive to MONOGENOUS in the preceding phrase.
>This magnificent sentence is very difficult for translators to carry over
>into decent English. Metzger doesn't comment on this in his Textual
>Commentary. I'll check AT Robertson when I get to my office this morning.
>At any rate, my own take on the instances in Revelation is that they are
>simply bad grammar.
>Regards, cwc

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:44 EDT