From: John Kendall (john-kendall@???clara.net)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 08:55:29 EST
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:06:24 -0600 (CST) Carl Conrad wrote <snipped>:
>Maybe that's not the problem, however. I think that
>Glen is right on target here: TUPOS is simply not the sort of verbal noun
>that would take either a subjective or objective genitive.
I hesitate to ask, Carl, but in that TUPOS has a cognate verb (TUPOW - to form,
to model), are you sure about this? I'd always assumed that Titus 2:7's TUPON
KALWN ERGWN was an example of an objective genitive (also Rom 5:14).
I must confess that for a little while I've tied myself up in knots thinking
about the genitives with TUPOS in 1 Cor 10:6; 1 Tim 4:12 and 1 Pet 5:3. This
has partly been due to the influence of Robertson (Grammar p. 500) and number
of older commentators like Ellicott who identify these as objective genitives.
In that Titus 2:7 typfies the semantic relation I'd expect of an objective
genitive with TUPOS, to make sense of Robertson, I've had to assume that the
category also covered some sort of 'indirect' objective genitive relationship
(ie 'patterns for us' - 1 Cor 10:6).
Am I making any kind of sense here, or is this way out of line? Can someone
clarify the way these scholars understood the category?
John
-- John Kendall Cardiff WalesTo reply, please remove the three question marks from my address.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT