[b-greek] Rev 19:2c EK+Genitive

From: virgilsalvage1 (virgilsalvage1@msn.com)
Date: Sat May 26 2001 - 23:54:02 EDT

Clayton wrote in part concerning Rev 19:2c...

"Some linguists might argue that EK + genitive has a prototypical semantic
significance and that what is evident in REV 19:2c is a "skewed" use of this
pattern. However, the idea of a prototype and deviations from this
prototype does not seem well suited to explaining texts like the REV 19:2c.
There seems to be no way of relating this use of EK CEIROS AUTHS to any
prototype EK + genitive.

For this reason I would suggest that the lexical values of significant
CEIROS AUTHS) as they are collocated in this context, provide semantic
constraints which color the EK + genitive pattern and that the preposition +
case provides grammatical structural information but is semantically "washed

This combined with the OT examples of the idiom serves to explain how EK
CEIROS AUTHS functions in REV 19:2c. It is not at all clear to me how this
usage could be related to any prototypical semantic significance of EK +
genitive. "

    Firstly, I would like to comment to the statement,

"There seems to be no way of relating this use of EK CEIROS AUTHS to any
prototype EK + genitive."

It would be the better part of wisdom I believe, to start heeding the call
of our moderator C.C., when he says in part from B-Greek Sept.11, 1999..."
Most of the little bags of different colors we put genitives in are NOT
helpful for helping us understand the actual "function" of the noun in the
genitive." He goes on to say...speaking of the subjective and objective
genitives...." They don't constitute defined categories in the Greek at
all." Carl also said on Dec 2nd..2000, " the nigh unto myriad
subclassifications of the adnominal-/adjectival genitive....I think that a
fair portion of what is called Greek Grammar by the Basics is provided to
assist people with their understanding " not of the Greek, but of the target
languages modes of expressing nuances of meaning which Greek....(quotes
mine) " doesn't distinguish. "

    Please don't regard my quoting Carl as having any significance other
than I believe it speaks well to the points that I would like to make. My
quoting him is in no way an indication of his participation nor agreement
with anything I say.

  In another place Carl said when speaking of a noun in the genitive case, "
Well this genitive is not different from any other genitive of one noun
modifying another."

 Another comment Carl made concerning the genitive( I apologize, I do not
have the day and time), his comments were..." I think the numerous
categories laid out for the adnominal genitive in Greek grammars( as opposed
to partitive and ablatival functions ) are " all "(quotes mine) interpretive
categories developed by translators. The adnominal genitive itself is simply
a structual case, indicating that the substantive in the genitive case is
dependent upon another nearby substantive; I don't think "that any semantic
function is inherent at all" in the construction but that the semantic
relationship of the two substantives must be grasped or determined from
context, " if it is to be grasped at all.
   While semantic categories in a grammar may aid an interpreter, I think it
is a fundemental mistake to suppose that they are inherent in the Greek."
" End of quote "

   By the way, I don't quote Carl to attempt to give weight to what I am
about to say, especially since some things I will express will not agree
with some of his points. I just felt for the significance of the statements
quoted above....you all should know where they are from.

   Having provided all that, I would like to refer to Clay's comment of....

"There seems to be no way of relating this use of EK CEIROS AUTHS to any
prototype EK + genitive.

   Yes, I think that's true due in part to what I believe to be true about
Carl's comment of....

"Well this genitive is not different from any other genitive of one noun
modifying another."

   I apply Carl's comment here because I offer that a genitive is a genitive
is a genitive. By so saying, I know I dis-agree with Carl's comment above
concerning the partitive and the ablative.
May I say briefly that if we are talking about part of something or where
something is from, I believe the genitive is recommending to us to consider
"not" the "part" or the "where" but the "something". The "part of" or the
"where from" is the part that will be obvious from the context. It does not

need the genitive for that, it seems to me.

   As to some prototypical semantic signal aiding us in understanding what
is being said in Rev 19:2c, I say what we need is as Carl said..."understand
the structure" of the case.

  What are the parts of the genitive case that would add up to and show us
the structure of the genitive case and what it indicates.

1.) It modifies
2.) It limits ( that is; gives specification to )
3.) It speaks of appurtenance
4.) It speaks of "genus" or "kind"
5.) It speaks of distinction
6.) It speaks of class or kind
7.) Expresses almost any relation with which (nouns) may enter into complex
8.) presents that which has " some obvious point of affinity with the term
9.) It qualifies more forcefully than the adjective, it is more emphatic
10.) The noun near the genitive requires a certain nature on the part of
it's limiting genitive.
11.) It speaks of attribution in one of two ways...a.It may employ a certain

b.It may employ a certain quality

What I propose then concerning the genitive is that in all of these above
mentioned items...something "has" to have occurred in them first and then in
a real way be able to be transferred or shared in some real way with the
nearby substantive, else how could the noun in the genitive case do "any" of
the above mentioned ? We do not, I suggest need "any" of the prototype
semantic signals to understand the genitive's contribution to the thing it
gives specification to. John 21:8 TO DIKTUON TWN ECQUWN... something
happened to the fishes that resulted in the net being identified with and by
them in such a way that John chose the genitive not the accusative to
describe it. I'm not going to get theological concerning what happened there
and I don't need to. The genitive describes the reality. What had to happen
in the noun in the genitive and how it relates to the noun nearby for John
to use the genitive ?

    To the ....TWN DOULWN AUTOU EK CEIROS AUTHS, and applying the parts and
hence as Carl recommends, the structure of the genitive case; lets look at
this statement by John.

    TWN DOULWN...the blood of what kind of ones...ones by way of the
genitive we can understand have gone through significant enough or long
enough experiences to have the actual "genitive" qualification of servant.
AUTOU "Him" He is the One who is characterized by all the things that He was
and had gone through and had been qualified to. TWN DOULWN...real
servants...AUTOU...now, with by means of their real relationship to Jesus,
by means of many things and realities; characterized now not only by the
distinction of servant...but having the distinction of Him. This is real
stuff here.

   EK....coming out of. Starting from a particular place and coming out of
there, resulting in a going out of there. Hence " genitive " These ones are
so far...characterized in a real way that they are servants. They are
characterized by HIM. These are all real items. Now we see they are
characterized by the next noun in the genitive....they have come out and are
going out from and away from...what ? The Hand....whose hand ? The Great
prostitute's hand. If they are coming out of her hand....that means they had
been in her hand. They are now coming out so they must not have wanted or
supposed to have been there. This hand is the hand that has been part of the
body...the who, as it were of who and what this prostitute is. This is the
hand AUTHS....

   All of this phrase is telling us about what had in a real way
characterized the ones whose blood was shed by her. Their blood was shed
because they were who they were and were or had left her grip. She then had
them killed. These were some kind of servants...They were

TWN DOULWN AUTOU EK CEIROS AUTHS kind of servants. No wonder the great voice
in verse 3 exclaimed Hallelujah ! There's a Hallelujah rising up in me right
now too !

Clayton said in closing...

". It is not at all clear to me how this
usage could be related to any prototypical semantic significance of EK +

 To which I respond .... I don't think it can or is supposed to.

Virgil Newkirk
Salt Lake City, Utah

B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:57 EDT