From: John Kendall (john-kendall@???clara.net)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 10:39:24 EST
Earlier I wrote <snipped>:
>I must confess that for a little while I've tied myself up in knots thinking
>about the genitives with TUPOS in 1 Cor 10:6; 1 Tim 4:12 and 1 Pet 5:3. This
>has partly been due to the influence of Robertson (Grammar p. 500) and number
>of older commentators like Ellicott who identify these as objective genitives.
>In that Titus 2:7 typfies the semantic relation I'd expect of an objective
>genitive with TUPOS, to make sense of Robertson, I've had to assume that the
>category also covered some sort of 'indirect' objective genitive relationship
>(ie 'patterns for us' - 1 Cor 10:6).
>Am I making any kind of sense here, or is this way out of line? Can someone
>clarify the way these scholars understood the category?
Sorry, I don't think that this was entirely clear. I may have given the
impression that I'd go along with Robertson et al on their categorization. I
don't. My question is about the way they understood things.
I'd use 'objective genitive' terminology only where the head noun implies a
transitive verb and the genitive noun represents its direct object. But
Robertson classifies each of the references above as objective genitives (see
also his Word Pictures) and he's not alone in this. I assume he used the term
more loosely, so can someone clarify how? Or is it somehow a matter of how he
understood the sense of the verb implied by TUPOS?
-- John Kendall Cardiff Wales
To reply, please remove the three question marks from my address.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT