From: virgilsalvage1 (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 27 2001 - 04:29:52 EDT
Yes, I realize that I am somewhat at odds with what Carl stated even
though I quoted most everything I am aware of that he has said recently
concerning the genitive case. Robertson who is helped to understand the
scope of things by means of Winer, does at times differ with him on
matters. Just as I have been literally hand ushered into these realizations
mostly from Robertson by means of what he stated on page 493....but by the
end of the page it seems to me that for some reason he begins to neutralize
much of what he has just said by eventually referring to all these
categories and sub-categories that move us away from such things as
distinction and specification. It starts with the statement, " One other
remark is called for concerning the meaning of the genitive in Greek. It is
that the case does not of itself mean everything that one finds in
translation. The case adheres to it's technical root-idea. The resultant
idea will naturally vary greatly according as the root-conception of the
case is applied to different words and different contexts. But the varying
element is not the case, but the words and the context. The error must not
be made of mistaking the translation of the resultant whole for the case
itself. Thus in Mathew 1:12 we have METOIKESIAN BABULWNOS. It is translated
'removal to Babylon'. "
Robertson goes on to say..." Now the genitive does not mean 'to,' but
that is the correct translation of the total idea obtained by knowledge of
the O.T. What the genitive says is that it is a 'Babylon-Removal' That is
This is where it seems to me in the text of his grammar that we begin to
get moved away from the nature and function of the genitive case and what it
indicates. I'm without explanation for why the preceding was said concerning
METOIKESIAN BABULWNOS ?? The statement was made that..." Now the genitive
does not mean ' to ', but that is the correct translation of the total idea
obtained by knowledge of the O.T."
Well if this is true then we are back to where we don't need to have the
genitive case because it does not indicate anything. All we need is the
context and by the way...other contexts ! I'm particularly bothered and
would challenge the following statement as being contradictory and as
rendering the genitive case useless. ( which I don't agree that it
is...useless that is.) The statement is..."Now the genitive case does not
mean ' to ', but that is the correct translation of the total idea obtained
by knowledge of the O.T." If this were correct, then Mathew wouldn't have
needed or used the genitive case. He would have utilized a statement that
would have done the job with the appropriate preposition. EIS Babylon...or
perhaps PROS...towards Babylon or some such. How easy it would have been for
Mathew to say based on his knowledge of everything happening there and his
knowing about what happened in the O.T. to say.....removal " to " He didn't
and for good reason. The reason for what the genitive case indicates about "
this removal "
The genitive case speaks, as Robertson points out...of specification. He
even said what this specification was and then for some reason abandoned it.
He said...." it was a Babylon-removal." Yes, it was a Babylon-removal.
This means that somehow the removal has to gain the specification, or "
kind " that is Babylon. What I would like to suggest is that we will see
that one of the ways a substantive nearby to a noun may receive this
assignment of " specification " , that is; real and practical distinction,
is from an intensely practical...real exchange and application of reality.
Hence what is represented to receive the distinction from the word in the
genitive case, will, in a real way...."have", that is; end up with that
specification. This has to prove out in this and every case or my theory is
just that, a theory with not much meaning at all.
If the removal is to end up being characterized by Babylon.....first we
have to have a Babylon. Really. There was...really a Babylon. For
generations and generations after Babylon had come into being ..... Babylon
was being constituted. Item after item that did not represent the Living and
true God was established. Everything that was not God and what He was doing
was, I imagine what was found in Babylon. The food...the songs....the
buildings...the people...the sights and sounds....the stand that we are
doing fine without what you think is the true God type of things.
Extrapolate it out. Add in what you know of Babylon. Babylon was a reality
in it's people, it's location, it's practices and it's attitude and resolve.
This is what came to carry away 14 generations of Israel. Babylon
marched against them. Babylon came through their gates. Babylon's everything
came and put it's hands on Israel. Israel's reality changed. Israel became a
carrying away not just with the result that they ended up in Babylon. 'To'
Babylon, as it were. But long before they arrived at Babylon they were a
METOIKESIAN BABULWNOS. They were a removal characterized by...having taken
on the specification of Babylon as to their being carried away. Imagine the
humiliations, the jeers, the mis-treatment. All Babylon. They were all, for
all intents and purposes Babylon. This is the genitive case and we need to
understand it or we will miss much, it seems to me. We don't need the
context to see what the genitive case means...the context needs the function
and structure of the genitive case to provide it with distinction, to flood
it with meaning and reality as to what has happened to it.
Please know with all due respect I say..." This is not a horse and it is
And to A. T. Robertson.....who of course is no longer with us, I mean no
disrespect Sir, please.
You in fact have changed my life before the Lord.
Salt Lake City, Utah
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 - 15:36:57 EDT