Galatias 4:28

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Jim West jwest at highland.net
Thu May 27 15:44:22 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type At 03:29 PM 5/27/99 +0000, you wrote:>Greetings> >I am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phrase EPAGGELIAS >TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source, >etc.)What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in the rabbinic >interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic >interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive plays in >this sentence?What a truly EXCELLENT question! I take it as a simple genitive of source-something like “y’all, brothers, are children of the promise of (made to)Isaac”.I dont think that Paul’s method of reasoning here (i.e., rabbinicmethodology) has anything to do with the grammar.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what typeGal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Thu May 27 15:29:25 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type GreetingsI am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phrase EPAGGELIAS TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source, etc.)What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in the rabbinic interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive plays in this sentence?Thank You for you considerationBrian Tucker, M.A.Riverview, MI

 

Hebrews 1:8Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Jim West jwest at highland.net
Thu May 27 15:44:22 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type At 03:29 PM 5/27/99 +0000, you wrote:>Greetings> >I am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phrase EPAGGELIAS >TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source, >etc.)What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in the rabbinic >interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic >interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive plays in >this sentence?What a truly EXCELLENT question! I take it as a simple genitive of source-something like “y’all, brothers, are children of the promise of (made to)Isaac”.I dont think that Paul’s method of reasoning here (i.e., rabbinicmethodology) has anything to do with the grammar.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what typeGal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Joseph Brian Tucker music at riverviewcog.org
Thu May 27 15:29:25 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 1:8 Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type GreetingsI am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phrase EPAGGELIAS TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source, etc.)What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in the rabbinic interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive plays in this sentence?Thank You for you considerationBrian Tucker, M.A.Riverview, MI

 

Hebrews 1:8Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Thu May 27 16:51:00 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type At 03:44 PM 5/27/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:>At 03:29 PM 5/27/99 +0000, Joseph Tucker wrote:>>Greetings>> >>I am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phrase EPAGGELIAS >>TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source, >>etc.) What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in the rabbinic >>interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic >>interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive plays in >>this sentence?> >What a truly EXCELLENT question! I take it as a simple genitive of source->something like “y’all, brothers, are children of the promise of (made to)Isaac”. This *is* an excellent question, and I think Jim’s interpretation is areasonable one. However, I would like to point out one aspect of theoriginal question that makes me just a little nervous. To me, the wayJoseph asked what “grammatical role” the genitive plays implies that hewants to know the grammatical role *first* so that he can decide how tointerpret it. In reality, it is the other way around. The grammar does notforce any particular interpretation of the genitive in this verse. Contextand other clues to meaning may suggest one or another interpretation. Onceyou make up your mind what the meaning of the genitive seems to be, youknow what label to give it to suit your interpretation.AT Robertson suggests, in his Massive Yellow Tome, that the basic meaningof the genitive is appurtenative; it says that one thing belongs, in somesense, to the other. When you see that genitive, your job is to figure outin what sense it belongs to the other. Jim’s answer is reasonable. So isthe genitive of description: you are not children characterized by the law,you are children characterized by the light, c.f. 1 Thess 5:5. In fact, inthe Galatians 4:28 passage, I think it has both forces, since an analogy isdrawn between physical origin (genitive of source) and being characterizedby the promise versus enslavement to the law (genitive of description), andyou need to grasp both parts to see the analogy.Jonathan

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what typeGal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Mark Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Thu May 27 20:09:39 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type New email list!… As I recall the genitive of possession (how many types of genitives arethere?) shows this type of relationship ex. Children actually possess thepromise, children who possess light etc. It is much more than the OF conceptthat many translators afford. You are children who possess the promise….It is a personal description of something owned– sometimes charactersometimes wrath or in this case a promise.What think ye?Mark MarkhamHeidelberg, Germany—– Original Message —–From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie at sagus.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>;< at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 10:51 PMSubject: Re: Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type> At 03:44 PM 5/27/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:> >At 03:29 PM 5/27/99 +0000, Joseph Tucker wrote:> >>Greetings> >>> >>I am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phraseEPAGGELIAS> >>TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source,> >>etc.) What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in therabbinic> >>interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic> >>interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive playsin> >>this sentence?> >> >What a truly EXCELLENT question! I take it as a simple genitive ofsource-> >something like “y’all, brothers, are children of the promise of (made to)> Isaac”.> > This *is* an excellent question, and I think Jim’s interpretation is a> reasonable one. However, I would like to point out one aspect of the> original question that makes me just a little nervous. To me, the way> Joseph asked what “grammatical role” the genitive plays implies that he> wants to know the grammatical role *first* so that he can decide how to> interpret it. In reality, it is the other way around. The grammar does not> force any particular interpretation of the genitive in this verse. Context> and other clues to meaning may suggest one or another interpretation. Once> you make up your mind what the meaning of the genitive seems to be, you> know what label to give it to suit your interpretation.> > AT Robertson suggests, in his Massive Yellow Tome, that the basic meaning> of the genitive is appurtenative; it says that one thing belongs, in some> sense, to the other. When you see that genitive, your job is to figure out> in what sense it belongs to the other. Jim’s answer is reasonable. So is> the genitive of description: you are not children characterized by thelaw,> you are children characterized by the light, c.f. 1 Thess 5:5. In fact, in> the Galatians 4:28 passage, I think it has both forces, since an analogyis> drawn between physical origin (genitive of source) and being characterized> by the promise versus enslavement to the law (genitive of description),and> you need to grasp both parts to see the analogy.> > Jonathan> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: markhamm at topsurf.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what typeNew email list!…

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Jonathan Robie jonathan.robie at sagus.com
Thu May 27 16:51:00 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type At 03:44 PM 5/27/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:>At 03:29 PM 5/27/99 +0000, Joseph Tucker wrote:>>Greetings>> >>I am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phrase EPAGGELIAS >>TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source, >>etc.) What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in the rabbinic >>interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic >>interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive plays in >>this sentence?> >What a truly EXCELLENT question! I take it as a simple genitive of source->something like “y’all, brothers, are children of the promise of (made to)Isaac”. This *is* an excellent question, and I think Jim’s interpretation is areasonable one. However, I would like to point out one aspect of theoriginal question that makes me just a little nervous. To me, the wayJoseph asked what “grammatical role” the genitive plays implies that hewants to know the grammatical role *first* so that he can decide how tointerpret it. In reality, it is the other way around. The grammar does notforce any particular interpretation of the genitive in this verse. Contextand other clues to meaning may suggest one or another interpretation. Onceyou make up your mind what the meaning of the genitive seems to be, youknow what label to give it to suit your interpretation.AT Robertson suggests, in his Massive Yellow Tome, that the basic meaningof the genitive is appurtenative; it says that one thing belongs, in somesense, to the other. When you see that genitive, your job is to figure outin what sense it belongs to the other. Jim’s answer is reasonable. So isthe genitive of description: you are not children characterized by the law,you are children characterized by the light, c.f. 1 Thess 5:5. In fact, inthe Galatians 4:28 passage, I think it has both forces, since an analogy isdrawn between physical origin (genitive of source) and being characterizedby the promise versus enslavement to the law (genitive of description), andyou need to grasp both parts to see the analogy.Jonathan

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what typeGal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Mark Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Thu May 27 20:09:39 EDT 1999

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type New email list!… As I recall the genitive of possession (how many types of genitives arethere?) shows this type of relationship ex. Children actually possess thepromise, children who possess light etc. It is much more than the OF conceptthat many translators afford. You are children who possess the promise….It is a personal description of something owned– sometimes charactersometimes wrath or in this case a promise.What think ye?Mark MarkhamHeidelberg, Germany—– Original Message —–From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie at sagus.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>;< at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 10:51 PMSubject: Re: Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type> At 03:44 PM 5/27/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:> >At 03:29 PM 5/27/99 +0000, Joseph Tucker wrote:> >>Greetings> >>> >>I am working through Gal 4:28 and I am wrestling with the phraseEPAGGELIAS> >>TEKNA. What is the best way to take this genitive (description, source,> >>etc.) What is the syntaxical significance of its placement in therabbinic> >>interpretation of Paul. Does the fact that Paul was engaging in rabbinic> >>interpretation of Gen 21 impact the grammatical role the genitive playsin> >>this sentence?> >> >What a truly EXCELLENT question! I take it as a simple genitive ofsource-> >something like “y’all, brothers, are children of the promise of (made to)> Isaac”.> > This *is* an excellent question, and I think Jim’s interpretation is a> reasonable one. However, I would like to point out one aspect of the> original question that makes me just a little nervous. To me, the way> Joseph asked what “grammatical role” the genitive plays implies that he> wants to know the grammatical role *first* so that he can decide how to> interpret it. In reality, it is the other way around. The grammar does not> force any particular interpretation of the genitive in this verse. Context> and other clues to meaning may suggest one or another interpretation. Once> you make up your mind what the meaning of the genitive seems to be, you> know what label to give it to suit your interpretation.> > AT Robertson suggests, in his Massive Yellow Tome, that the basic meaning> of the genitive is appurtenative; it says that one thing belongs, in some> sense, to the other. When you see that genitive, your job is to figure out> in what sense it belongs to the other. Jim’s answer is reasonable. So is> the genitive of description: you are not children characterized by thelaw,> you are children characterized by the light, c.f. 1 Thess 5:5. In fact, in> the Galatians 4:28 passage, I think it has both forces, since an analogyis> drawn between physical origin (genitive of source) and being characterized> by the promise versus enslavement to the law (genitive of description),and> you need to grasp both parts to see the analogy.> > Jonathan> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: markhamm at topsurf.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

 

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what typeNew email list!…

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Jason Lee jllee at mailcity.com
Fri May 28 02:24:10 EDT 1999

 

IXTHUS correction to my previous email about TA in Mark 2 When the case by itself is not clear enough, or when it is not easily reduced to more concrete terms (I do not think, however, the idea of the genitive in Gal 4:28 is unclear), other functional words like adverbs and prepositions can come in to help out. In fact, classical grammarians like Smyth told us that was how prepositions came about, to resolve certain ambiguity (or to enhance a specific aspect) of the case notion. Not that preposition ‘governs’ the case but ‘enhances’ its flavor. It is correct to say that EPAGGELIAS TEKNA has the genitive flavor of source, description, characteristics, and kind, as it is clearly contrasted in Rom 9:8 TA TEKNA THS EPAGGELIAS (alluding to Isaac) versus TA TEKNA THS SAPKOS (alluding to Ishmael). But one can consider a bit more the context in Galatians and find the author’s treatment (and thoughts) of the promise. In Gal 3:29 one finds KAT’ EPAGGELIAN, ‘according to promise,’ and in Gal 4:23 DI’ EPAGGALIAS, ‘through promise.’ To bundle these connotations together, a genitive abstraction will work very well, thus EPAGGELIAS TEKNA. But notice how KATA and DIA are bundled in Gal 4:23 – KATA ISAAK EPAGGELIAS TEKNA ESTE ‘according to Issac of promise children you are.’ The placement of EPAGGELIAS in between ISAAK and TEKNA serves to link Isaac to the children through the promise (or vice versa). I think had the word order being KATA ISAAK TEKNA EPAGGELIAS ESTE or something else, the association will be a little less effective. As Isaac was born of the promise, so are you the children through grace under the covenant of promise (and not through the covenant of law according to the flesh). Promise is the source/characteristics of both Isaac and the children (the believers in Christ through grace). The word order of an inflected language can be quite pictorial, for another example see Acts 1:5.Jason

 

IXTHUScorrection to my previous email about TA in Mark 2

Gal 4:28 EPAGGELIAS what type Jason Lee jllee at mailcity.com
Fri May 28 02:24:10 EDT 1999

 

IXTHUS correction to my previous email about TA in Mark 2 When the case by itself is not clear enough, or when it is not easily reduced to more concrete terms (I do not think, however, the idea of the genitive in Gal 4:28 is unclear), other functional words like adverbs and prepositions can come in to help out. In fact, classical grammarians like Smyth told us that was how prepositions came about, to resolve certain ambiguity (or to enhance a specific aspect) of the case notion. Not that preposition ‘governs’ the case but ‘enhances’ its flavor. It is correct to say that EPAGGELIAS TEKNA has the genitive flavor of source, description, characteristics, and kind, as it is clearly contrasted in Rom 9:8 TA TEKNA THS EPAGGELIAS (alluding to Isaac) versus TA TEKNA THS SAPKOS (alluding to Ishmael). But one can consider a bit more the context in Galatians and find the author’s treatment (and thoughts) of the promise. In Gal 3:29 one finds KAT’ EPAGGELIAN, ‘according to promise,’ and in Gal 4:23 DI’ EPAGGALIAS, ‘through promise.’ To bundle these connotations together, a genitive abstraction will work very well, thus EPAGGELIAS TEKNA. But notice how KATA and DIA are bundled in Gal 4:23 – KATA ISAAK EPAGGELIAS TEKNA ESTE ‘according to Issac of promise children you are.’ The placement of EPAGGELIAS in between ISAAK and TEKNA serves to link Isaac to the children through the promise (or vice versa). I think had the word order being KATA ISAAK TEKNA EPAGGELIAS ESTE or something else, the association will be a little less effective. As Isaac was born of the promise, so are you the children through grace under the covenant of promise (and not through the covenant of law according to the flesh). Promise is the source/characteristics of both Isaac and the children (the believers in Christ through grace). The word order of an inflected language can be quite pictorial, for another example see Acts 1:5.Jason

 

IXTHUScorrection to my previous email about TA in Mark 2

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>