1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 14:15:08 EST 1999
Mk 8:35-37, YUCH 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Dear ers,1 John 1:5 reads:hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.Edgar Foster
Mk 8:35-37, YUCH1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Kevin W. Woodruff cierpke at prodigy.net
Mon Dec 20 14:24:36 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Actually the verse is 1 John 1:1 and I think that most would say that is adescriptive genetiveAt 02:15 PM 12/20/1999 EST, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:5 reads:> >hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA >KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> >In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of >connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of >discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)> >What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to >classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and >have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the >wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.> >Edgar Foster> >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: cierpke at prodigy.net>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.Library Director/Reference LibrarianProfessor of New Testament GreekCierpke Memorial LibraryTennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404United States of America423/493-4252 (office)423/698-9447 (home)423/493-4497 (FAX)Cierpke at prodigy.net (preferred)kwoodruf at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate)http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 14:34:07 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? At 2:15 PM -0500 12/20/99, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:5 reads:> >hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA>KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> >In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of>connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of>discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”)> >What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to>classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and>have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the>wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject.I’m almost glad you’ve asked this question, Edgar. Of course I’ve neverheard of the term either, but if I were writing my own grammar (and it’s aLOT easier to criticize others who attempt it), I rather think that I mightuse that term in preference to what I’ve learned to call the”Pertinentive”–the standard usage of the genitive to relate any one nounto any other;it’s a structural designation and doesn’t have a definedsemantic function at all, which means it is commonly used adjectivally; Iwould distinguish it (as I gather some others would not) from an ablativalgenitive where separation is fundamental to a semantic function and from apartitive genitive, where there’s a semantic function also. I don’t thinkthat calling ZWHS a “genitive of connection” tells us a thing about whatthe relationship between ZWH and LOGOS actually is, only that ZWH dependsupon LOGOS and further distinguishes LOGOS as would any sort of descriptiveor delimiting adjective or adjectival phrase.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 15:03:24 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Edgar Foster,Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Daniel Buck dbuck at briercrest.ca
Mon Dec 20 14:56:54 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? —– Original Message —–From: Kevin W. WoodruffSubject: Re: 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?> Actually the verse is 1 John 1:1 and I think that most would say that is a> descriptive genetiveActually may I suggest a couple other alternatives for understanding thesyntax: (1) a genitive of apposition, meaning “the word which is life,”where the “word” is understood as life itself; (2) an attributive genitive,meaning “the life-giving word,” (Gospel of John 6:35 “the bread of life” and8:12); or (3) an objective genitive, meaning “the word about life,” where”life” is the object of the message, that which is spoken about or revealed.The third option seems most appropriate, because when TOU LOGOU is followedby an impersonal genitive, the genitive usually denotes the content of themessage. Note also that in 1:2 “the eternal life” is the object of theapostolic proclamation.Daniel E. BuckBriercrest Bible CollegeAssistant Professor NT/Theologyhttp://www.briercrest.ca
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 15:23:43 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? At 2:03 PM -0600 12/20/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Edgar Foster,> >Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below>with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.> >(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is>life.”>(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”>(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about>life.”> >But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or “pertinentive”genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural, not a semanticcase is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of thesub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies forconveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing todo with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how wein English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions thatthe Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 16:17:32 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? In a message dated 12/20/99 2:16:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Ilvgrammta at aol.com writes:<< 1 John 1:5 reads: hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”) What is a genitive of connection? Is this another category formulated to classify and tag syntactical functions? I’ve looked in other grammars and have yet to find a “genitive of connection.” Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong places, but I would love to know more about this subject. >><A HREF=”http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=smyth+1380&vers=english&display=SMK&browse=1″>Genitive of Connection — Smyth</A>gfsomsel
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 16:25:57 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Daniel Buck,Steven Craig Miller wrote: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.” >>Daniel Buck wrote: << Actually may I suggest a couple other alternatives for understanding the syntax: (1) a genitive of apposition, meaning “the word which is life,” where the “word” is understood as life itself; (2) an attributive genitive, meaning “the life-giving word,” (Gospel of John 6:35 “the bread of life” and 8:12); or (3) an objective genitive, meaning “the word about life,” where “life” is the object of the message, that which is spoken about or revealed. >>It is amazing how you and Brown think so much alike! <grin>-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Mon Dec 20 16:23:39 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? On Mon 20 Dec 1999 (14:15:08), ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:> hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO> EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS.> > In his _First John Reader_ S.M. Baugh writes that THS ZWHS is a> “genitive of connection.” (where the word in the genitive highlights> the subject matter of discourse. In this case, the “word of life.”) Dear Edgar, For my money it’s a Hebraism; a literal rendering into Greek of the Hebrew phrase D:BaR-HaCaYYiYM, “Word-of Life”. Hebrew being short of adjectives, the “construct relationship” can be used to turn a noun into an adjective; here “Word-of Life” for “Living Word”. The writer is claiming to be an eyewitness of the One who is the Word made flesh, the enfleshed LOGOS, identified in verse 3 as Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. The “eternal life” THN ZWHN THN AIWNION (verse 2) is a reference to Christ’s Resurrection, which the writer claims to have seen and heard. ERRWSQE, Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Mon Dec 20 16:30:01 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Mk 8:35-37, YUCH In a message dated 12/20/99 2:16:25 PM Central Daylight Time, Ilvgrammta at aol.com writes:<< 1 John 1:5 reads: hO HN AP’ ARXHS hO AKHKOAMEN hO hEWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN hO EQEASAMEQA KAI hAI XEIRES hHMWN EYHLAFHSAN PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. >> I confess to being very poor at reading Greek in transliteration, but isn’t this 1 John 1.1 rather than 1.5?gfsomsel
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?Mk 8:35-37, YUCH
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Dec 20 16:36:24 EST 1999
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? 1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? To: Carl W. Conrad,SCM: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.” >>CWC: << And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or “pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural, not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of the sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies for conveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing to do with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how we in English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions that the Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that it completely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation given above, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is saying the same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying two different things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And ‘c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection?
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 20 17:10:04 EST 1999
Mk 8:35-37, YUCH Philippians 2:6 At 3:36 PM -0600 12/20/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>To: Carl W. Conrad,> >SCM: << Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I>present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.>(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is>life.”>(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.”>(c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about>life.”>But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.” >>> >CWC: << And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or>“pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural,>not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most of>the sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies for>conveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing to>do with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how we>in English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions that>the Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>> >Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that it>completely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation given>above, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is saying>the same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying two>different things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And>‘c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I’m saying that those threeinterpretations of the genitive are not items of Greek grammar butstrategies for conversion of what in Greek is unspecified into an Englishthat demands “nicer” or “more transparent” expressions of the possiblemeaning. In fact, I think when we say (you say? Brown says?) “it could be a…”–if we really MEAN that “it COULD be …” — we imply that the Greektext itself doesn’t give us any clue about WHICH of these makes the bestsense. I think that English “of” + a noun is often every bit as vague asthe Greek genitive of a noun linked to another noun. CertainlyGreek-speakers chose to use prepositions when they wanted to distinguishmore sharply how they were using genitive-case forms, but when they didn’t,they sent non-Greek-speakers on a wild-goose chase searching for categoriesinto which to put the genitive uses.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Mk 8:35-37, YUCHPhilippians 2:6
1 John 1:1-Genitive of Connection? Blahoslav Cicel cbmost at iol.cz
Tue Dec 21 04:21:18 EST 1999
Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 Dne Po, 20 prosinec 1999 jste napsal(a):Steven C Miller:> Brown [1982] gives three grammatical interpretations (which I > present below with slight modifications) of (PERI TOU LOGOU) THS ZWHS.(a) It could be an appositive genitive meaning: “about the word which is life.”(b) It could be a qualifying genitive meaning: “about the life-giving word.” (c) It could be a objective genitive meaning: “concerning the word about life.”But Brown’s translation merely gives: “about the word of life.”Carl W Conrad:And rightly so! What’s useful about the term “connective” or”pertinentive” genitive and the recognition that it is only a structural,not a semantic case is that one comes (hopefully) to realize that most ofthe sub-categories of the grammars such as the above are strategies forconveying the Greek construction into a target language and have nothing todo with the “meaning” conveyed by the Greek; these categories show how wein English (or others in other languages) make semantic distinctions thatthe Greek, so far as we know, wasn’t ever thinking about. >>SCM…Although what you say here is often true, I’m not for sure that itcompletely applies in this instance. As for the three interpretation givenabove, I’m unsure what ‘a’ is supposed to mean, unless perhaps it is sayingthe same thing as ‘b.’ But it seems to me that ‘b’ and ‘c’ are saying twodifferent things. ‘B’ seems to refer to a “word” which can give life. And’c’ seems to refer to a “message” about life. Yes?CWC… Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I’m saying that those threeinterpretations of the genitive are not items of Greek grammar butstrategies for conversion of what in Greek is unspecified into an Englishthat demands “nicer” or “more transparent” expressions of the possiblemeaning. In fact, I think when we say (you say? Brown says?) “it could be a…”–if we really MEAN that “it COULD be …” — we imply that the Greekttext itself doesn’t give us any clue about WHICH of these makes the bestsense. I think that English “of” + a noun is often every bit as vague asthe Greek genitive of a noun linked to another noun. CertainlyGreek-speakers chose to use prepositions when they wanted to distinguishmore sharply how they were using genitive-case forms, but when they didn’t,they sent non-Greek-speakers on a wild-goose chase searching for categoriesinto which to put the genitive uses.Blaho:It is interesting to see how people speaking digfferent languages have to havedifferent approach to the translation of greek (or wchichever secondlanguage…). The english speaking poeple MUST to do an exegesis whentranslating PERI TOU LOGOU THS ZWHS. We translate it one to one and have not towork out grammatic categories. It is (in czech) o slove zivota. Let thepreacher makes the exegesis 😉 In german it is similar: vom Wort des Lebens.And Carl is right when stating that the greek says nothing more than the ZWH isconnected with the LOGOS.The exegesis has to see the context. My guess is, that John speaking PERITOU LOGOU THS ZWHS speaks about Jesus. See v.2 and cf with John 1:1-3.Blahopastor, Church of Brothers, Most, Czech rep.
Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6