I guess I really am having trouble with the term "adverbial genitive of
reference;" I've never heard of such an animal or of a genitive that can't
be explained (at least in so far as it really is a genitive used in a
function derived from its traditional genitive usages, be it true genitive
(pertinentive),ablative, or partitive). In the passages you've cited,
Lk 3:19 PERI PANTWN hWN EPOIHSEN PONHRWN hO hHRWDHS ...
Acts 3:21 AXRI XRONWN APOKATASTASEWS PANTWN hWN ELALHSEN hO QEOS ...
Acts 10:39 hUMEIS MARTURES PANTWN hWN EPOIHSEN ...
Acts 13:38 DIA TOUTO hUMIN AFESIS hAMARTIWN KATAGGELLETAI,
KAI APO PANTWN hWN OUK HDUNHQHTE EN NOMWi MWUSEWS DIKAIWQHNAI ...
Acts 22:10 KAKEI SOI LALHQHSETAI PERI PANTWN hWN TETAKTAI SOI POIHSAI.
Acts 26:2 PERI PANTWN hWN EGKALOUMAI hUPO IOUDAIWN, ...
[Gal 4:1 OUDEN DIAFEREI DOULOU KURIOS PERI PANTWN WN. WN is a ptc. here]
the hWN must function as the object (= hA) of the verb in a relative clause:
EPOIHSEN Lk 3:19 (where hWN EPOIHSEN is sandwiched between PANTWN and PONHRWN
ELALHSEN Acts 3:21
EPOIHSEN Acts 10:39
or the subject (= hA) of the verb in a relative clause
TETAKTAI Acts 22:10
Two of the instances are somewhat different:
(1) Acts 13:38 DIA TOUTO hUMIN AFESIS hAMARTIWN KATAGGELLETAI,
KAI APO PANTWN hWN OUK HDUNHQHTE EN NOMWi MWUSEWS DIKAIWQHNAI ... Here the
noun hAMARTIWN is the antecedent of hWN, but the hWN functions within the
clause of which OUK HDUNHQHTE ... DIKAIWQHNAI as a true relative pronoun, I
believe; what case it should represent is less clear inasmuch as
DIKAIWQHNAI is passive. I'd tentatively argue that it's the object--or
perhaps more appropriately, an acc. of specification--with DIKAIWQHNAI,
"with respect towhich you were unable to get justified"--but still, I think
that hWN here represents an accusative (hAS) referring back to hAMARTIWN.
(2) Acts 26:2 PERI PANTWN hWN EGKALOUMAI hUPO IOUDAIWN, ... Here again I
would want to say that hWN is a real relative pronoun functioning as the
object or accusative of respect of EGKALOUMAI, "with respect to which I am
accused by the Jews ..."
It may well be that we just have two very different ways of understanding
this construction; certainly there's no doubt that there's a conventional
sequence of PANTWN as the genitive object of one or another preposition
followed by a relative clause in which the hWN refers back to the
antecedent signaled by the PANTWN. Is it better described as a genitive by
attraction to the case of PANTWN or as what Carlton prefers to call it, an
"adverbial genitive of reference." but then, is it not functioning
grammatically in a real relative clause?
I want to raise here another grammatical question arising out of the above
that I have been troubled by, although perhaps unjustifiably. I've used the
term above, "accusative of specification" for the hWN which I believe
represents an accusative in Acts 13:38 and Acts 26:2. I am inclined to
think that the term "accusative of specification" is misapplied here (isn't
it more appropriate for an accusative used with an adjective?), and that we
really ought to speak of such accusatives--even if they function with
passive verbs (as here with DIKAWQHNAI and EGKALOUMAI)--direct objects?
These are perhaps not the best examples of what I mean, but I want to bring
up this question again sometime soon, and I thought it might not hurt to
"warn" people that the question is coming at such time as I can better
formulate it.
It would appear that Jonathan has turned over quite a can of worms here. Is
he a "little Greek," as he claims or one of those "little foxes" spoken of
in Solomon's Song, "that creep in and spoil the vineyard?" ;-)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/