From: Adrian Warnock (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Apr 09 2001 - 03:31:08 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Warnock" <email@example.com>
To: "Al Jacobson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Biblical Greek"
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: [b-greek] further to james 1.1 does romans 2.5 help?
> thanks for this email response Al sorry about my lazy transliteration
> folks!, I am new to the list and greek but interested in both!
> This genitive business still confuses me tho- it seems to me that its
> actually ambiguous- how do we KNOW that the interpretation you have given
> correct- how would the writers have put it if they wanted to state that
> Jesus was God and master of James the servant. And on a more general note
> how on earth do we tell which of the many different types of genitive a
> certain example is- or are we reading things into the greeek we shouldnt
> is the whole point that the genitive is slightly ambiguos and simply
> some kind of assocication between two nouns without really defining as we
> would in English what that relationship is. Take for example the old
> chestnut of subjective vs objective genitive- how can we know for sure
> one is meant in a given situation- should we instead just admit that all
> really know is that it is a genitive of association as it were?
> adrian warnock
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Al Jacobson" <email@example.com>
> To: "B-Greek" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Adrian Warnock"
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 10:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [b-greek] further to james 1.1 does romans 2.5 help?
> > Adrian wrote:
> > <ejn hJmevra/ ojrgh`" kai; ajpokaluvyew" dikaiokrisiva" tou` qeou` 6
> > <here three nomintive nouns appear with and after the first, the link
> > <God at the end of the first seem to make it clear that they all reflect
> > <different aspects of the same thing- does this help us think James 1.1
> > could
> > <be interpreseted in a similar way?
> > <adrian
> > You mean "genitive nouns" don't you Adrian?
> > I have ignored this thread for the most part up to now, so I assume
> > I contribute has been said better by others (or even refuted ably by
> > others). But I'm tired of working on my normal work so I'll venture my
> > cents in this discussion. I do this without having been fed by any of
> > real meat that has been offered. See what perverse responses innocent
> > will get you, Adrian?
> > Strictly speaking, in the phrase you quoted DIKAIOKRISIAS modifies
> > (describes, further delineates) APOKALUPSEWS. The day is one of wrath
> > also one of revelation of the just sentence of God. The dative noun
> > is modified (limited, described, delineated or however you want to say
> > by ORGHS and APOKALUPSEWS. APOKALUPSEWS with its modifiers form one
> > substantival phrase with respect to hHMERA. (Interestingly, however, in
> > version of the Byzantine/Majority text platform there is a KAI between
> > APOKALUPSEWS and DIKAIOKRISIAS. That WOULD make three genitive nouns
> > modifying hHMERA.)
> > In James 1:1, IAKWBOS and its predicate nominative (or some would say
> > appositive" (or whatever), DOULOS, form a structural parentheses of
> > around the words between. All of the intervening words modify
> > explain, etc.,etc.)DOULOS. So one could use the following shorthand
> > not a professional linguist as you can plainly see):
> > Noun/(N or NP) + <genitive>/Modifier/(M)(QEOU)
> > Conjunction/(C)
> > <genitive>/M(consisting of three words: KURIOU, IHSOU XRISTOU).
> > I haven't been following the thread, but I'm guessing the questions have
> > been whether QEOU AND KURIOU refer to the Father and the Son,
> > or whether they refer to one and the same person, namely IHSOU XRISTOU.
> > Perhaps some on the listserve have already cited word studies of
> > collocations like this in support of their opinions. If the work(s)
> > stud(y)(ies) this very collocation or some very similar collocation of
> > words, and if it is somehow absolutely, irrefutably clear from some of
> > contexts in which the collocation is found that one
> > interpretation/translation is superior to the other, I certainly think
> > weighty evidence. (Otherwise one might simply have a whole bunch of
> > where there is the same question, but not necessarily any insight into
> > answer.) My own instinct, based solely at this point upon nothing but
> > my years of reading Greek lead me to believe is the natural
> > its context, is that QEOU and KURIOU refer to 2 distinct persons.
> > As to your suggestion that the construction in Romans 2:5 helps, what do
> > think? To me it would tend to support the position I have taken in the
> > preceding paragraph since two separate and distinct concepts are
> > the same noun. In Romans, the day is described as one both of wrath and
> > the revelation of God's just verdict. These are two separate aspects of
> > day that are not semantically the same thing, since one does not
> > imply the other. In James, James is a servant who is both a servant of
> > (as Christ in the Gospels often refers to His heavenly Father) and a
> > of the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, one does not necessarily imply the
> > from a linguistic or grammatical point of view. Theology enters in here
> > that's where I'll stop.
> > Having said that, I'm certain I could make an argument for the position
> > QEOU and KURIOU refer to the same person, namely IHSOU XRISTOU. But I
> > not really believe my own argument.
> > abj
> > Allen B. Jacobson
> > 2024 2nd Avenue East
> > Hibbing, MN 55746
> > 218.262.1070
> > email@example.com
> > B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> > You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> > leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> > To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:54 EDT