From: Carl William Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 13:40:14 EST
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, John Kendall wrote:
> Earlier I wrote <snipped>:
>
> >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?
>
> Sorry, I don't think that this was entirely clear. I may have given the
> impression that I'd go along with Robertson et al on their categorization. I
> don't. My question is about the way they understood things.
>
> I'd use 'objective genitive' terminology only where the head noun implies a
> transitive verb and the genitive noun represents its direct object. But
> Robertson classifies each of the references above as objective genitives (see
> also his Word Pictures) and he's not alone in this. I assume he used the term
> more loosely, so can someone clarify how? Or is it somehow a matter of how he
> understood the sense of the verb implied by TUPOS?
> To reply, please remove the three question marks from my address.
My apologies for misunderstanding what the question actually asked in the
earlier message was. I may not be adding anything this time either. I
don't have Robertson's big book handy, but I have the 10th edition of his
_New Short Grammar of the NT_ and what he has to say in #343f (pp. 227-8)
is perfectly in accordance with what you've given as the way you'd use it,
John. Although he doesn't speak of a transitive verb as implicit in the
noun, the examples he cites (AGAPH TOU CRISTOU, 2 Cor 5:14; PISTIN QEOU,
Mk 11:22, EUERGESIA ANQRWPOU ASQENOUS, Acts 4:9, and PNEUMATOS BLASFHMIA,
Mt 12:31) all fall into that category. Moreover he says, rightly (I
think), "Each example is decided by its own context. In itself the
genitive is neither subjective nor objective."
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT