From: Joseph Brian Tucker (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Aug 11 1999 - 11:02:42 EDT
>>On 08/10/99, ""Joseph Brian Tucker" <firstname.lastname@example.org>" wrote:
>>I came across a rather simple construction in Philippians, that I soon
>>realized required some attention. EPI PASH TH MNEIA hUMON means, "in all
>>the [my]remembrance of you." Is this phrase a subjective genitive "for
>>your remembrance [of me]." This seems contextually possible (4:10). This
>>requires a causal sense of EPI in verses 3 and 5 - and a parallel
>>prepositional clause understanding, as well. (verse 5 EPI THi KOINWNIAi
>>No; MNEIAi, of course, depends upon EPI, but hUMWN depends upon MNEIAi
>>here should, I think, be seen as an "objective" genitive: "at every
>>of you" = "every time I mention you." It's true that in verse 5 the
>>ought rather to be seen as subjective: "your sharing" = "the fact that
>>Does this conflict with Paul's normal usage of MNEIA? In Romans, 1
>>Thessalonians, the reference is to Paul's remembrance of his addressees.
>>Because of the normal epistolary structure of Paul's writings, should
>>PASHi THi MNEIAi hUMWN be taken as an objective genitive?
>>I think the instances of MNEIA in the letters of Paul are all with an
>>objective genitive, i.e., the genitive represents an object of
>>"remembrance" or "mentioning."
>>Gordon Fee opts for, "everytime I remember you." As does Silva.
>>O'Brien opts for, "because of your remembrance of me."
>>I think Fee and Silva are right here; I think that MNEIA more normally
>>means "bringing to consciousness," "calling to mind," or "mentioning"
>>it does "remembrance" in the sense of "thinking graciously about" (a
Dr. Carlton L. Winbery wrote:
>For me the most important factor in determining objective or subjective
>genitive is context. Of course that includes the writers's usage
>At one time I opted for subjective genitive until I noticed verse 7. "For
>me to think this way concerning all of you is right." It seems Paul is
>one doing the remembering.
The distinction between the subject and the object or complement is
determined by word order. The first accusative functions as the subject,
and the second functions as the object or complement. (J. Reed, "The
Infinitive with Two Substantival Accusatives," Novum Testamentum 33:1
In verse 7 the infinitive precedes both accusatives, but is noncopulative.
Here is the verse: KAQWS ESTIN DIKAION EMOI TOUTO FRONEIN hUER PANTWN
hUMWN, DIA TO EXEIN ME EN THi KARDIAi hUMAS "even as it is right for me to
think this concerning all of you, because I have you in [my] heart.
>Another issue is MOI in verse 7. It is interesting that on rare occasions
>the dative of reference functions with the infinitive very much like the
>accusative of reference does with the infinitive in what some call the
>subject accusative. Should we add another catagory for the subject
A dative noun or pronoun can function semantically as the subject of a
dative participle. The dative nominal will be coreferential with another
dative construction in the sentence. The participial construction is to be
translated as an adverbial clause, changing the participle into its
corresponding verb with the dative nominal as its subject (Matt. 8:23
EMBANTI AUTWi EIS TO PLOION HKOLOUQHSAN AUTOi). Therefore, there is a
possibility of considering the subject dative with an infinitive instead of
a dative participle - or am I way off base?
Brian Tucker, M.A.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:35 EDT