Re: EX AUTOU
Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Thu, 10 Apr 1997 06:24:43 -0500
At 6:08 AM -0500 4/9/97, John M. Moe wrote:
>Micheal Palmer wrote:
>>>At 7:23 AM -0600 4/5/97, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
>>>Secondly, while it is certainly true, as Jonathan has said and as Micheal
>>>Palmer has said in a different way, that PNEUMATOS is genitive because EK
>>>must be construed with a genitive, I think it should be added that EK +
>>>genitive may function in Koine in the same way that a partitive genitive
>>>itself functioned as a complement to a verb in earlier phases of Greek. Let
>>>me use a simplistic but not unuseful (I think) example: PINW TOU OINOU is
>>>classical Greek expressing the sense "I'm sipping some wine" while PINW TON
>>>OINON (which one is far less likely to see) would mean something like "I'm
>>>gulping down (whatever) wine (is available). Now it seems to me that the
>>>gospel and the first letter of John in the passage you have cited are
>>>indicating that PNEUMA or the PLHRWMA or the hUDWR ZWON provided to
>>>believers by Jesus are inexhaustible sources from which the believer draws
>>>to sustain ZWHN AIWNION. One partakes of it, i.e, one takes part of it--one
>>>does not take it all nor could one possibly do so. In that sense, then, I
>>>think it is valid to understand the expression EK TOU PNEUMATOS AUTOU in 1
>>>Jn 4:13 as a partitive one.
>
>>Carl's point is born out excellently by an appearance in the New Testament
>>of exactly the same example example he cites from Attic, and it appears
>>exactly as he suggested it would: with the preposition EK followed by the
>>genitive. In Matthew 26:27 (in the Lord's Supper scene) Jesus takes the cup
>>and after giving thanks says
>
> > PIETE EX AUTOU PANTES
> > All of you drink of/from it
> > *NOT* Each one of you drink it all.
>
><Snip>
>
>This raises a point I have been wrestling with for some time. Is EX
>AUTOU, at Mat. 26:27 partitive genitive or is it a simple, straight
>forward use of the preposition? Granted, we have a figure of speech
>here. Logicaly, the cup stands for its contents. But grammaticaly,
>isn't the antecedent of AUTOU, POTHRION? Does the grammar demand the
>understanding "drink out of it?" Or does the figure of speech justify a
>partitive understanding "drink from it?"
"Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer cherce!" In one way I think either
interpretation is grammatically justifiable, but I am much more inclined to
think (a) that idiom favors the partitive meaning, and (b) that the figure
of speech DOES point to the partitive meaning also. With regard to (a) my
guess is that a quick search would discover quite a few partitive usages
where the antecedent is something partaken of--food or drink; I don't say
that there aren't any parallels to the sense "drink out of a vessel," but I
suspect that this is more an English idiomatic usage than a Greek one, and
I'd like to see some parallels for it in the Greek before accepting it
rather than the partitive sense here. Perhaps I'll run a word-check on PINW
in the NT.
Actually, a cursory check through Schmoller's PINW passages shows up
several partitive expressions, it also shows straight accusatives for PINW
POTHRION (where POT. is clearly figurative for the liquid that is drunk),
but there is also 1 Cor 11:28 hOUTWS ... EK TOU POTHRIOU PINETW which
strikes me as having the same ambivalence as your passage.On the other
hand, the most vivid of all is Rev 18:3 which is clearly partitive: EK TOU
OINOU TOU QUMOU THS PORNEIAS AUTHS PEPWKAN ... TA EQNH. I think I'd still
favor the partitive reading in Mt 26:27, although perhaps the alternative
may not be impossible.
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/