Mark 11:22

[] Genitive Usage, 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivated translation, at times”) Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Jun 29 06:51:17 EDT 2009

[] Theologically motivated translation, at times [] Genitive Usage,1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”) On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Rod Rogers wrote:>> Cut> >> Mark Lightman: The Greek genitive case can be used indozens of >> ways, and to leave it as simply an ‘of’ idea is often very >> misleading. For example, the genitive case is used with the >> comparative adjective for the idea of comparison. We would >> translate this something like, “His car is better THAN her car.” >> The ‘than’ is the genitive word ‘of.’ But to>> translate it as ‘his car is better OF her car’ doesn’t make any >> sense.> >>> Carl Conrad: But the “genitive of comparison” is not an adnominal >>> genitive; it is essentially an ablatival genitive. I agree that >>> the preferable English is “better THAN … ” but the more >>> “literal” English would be “better OF … ” but rather “better >>> FROM … “> > To me this does not take into consideration the fact that the > Genitive – Ablative first of all is the case of “marking off” the > boundaries. The Genitive – Ablative not only marks off the > boundaries and limits the context which is dealt with but can also > relate to that which is marked off. The possessive aspect of the > Genitive – Ablative deals with that which is between the marked off > boundaries. While this is the most often aspect of the Genitive – > Ablative, it is not the only one we find. In 2 Peter 3:9 we find, OU > BRADUNEI hO KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS. I believe THS EPAGGELIAS is > referring to boundaries in which the EPAGGELIAS is found not > referring to the EPAGGELIAS itself. Therefore in 2 Peter 3:9 it > reads, “The Lord is not tardy regarding the promise”. I believe we > find the same Genitive in 2 Peter 3:9 as in Mark 11:22.I find this account altogether puzzling, not least of all for the reason that Rod Rogers asserts that the genitive EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter 3:9 and the genitive QEOU in Mark 11:22 are both “Genitive – Ablative.” But I really find this description of the “Genitive – Ablative.” incomprehensible: ” The Genitive – Ablative not only marks off the boundaries and limits the context which is dealt with but can also relate to that which is marked off. The possessive aspect of the Genitive – Ablative deals with that which is between the marked off boundaries.”When I use the term “ablatival genitive,” I am referring to the original PIE ablative case usage which was subsumed in the Greek genitive case — the usage indicating SEPARATION FROM, most commonly found in expressions with the prepositions EK and APO but also with verbs of separation such as CWRIZOMAI (cf. BDF §180. I don’t understand what all this about “boundaries” has to do with the ablatival genitive.Nor do I really understand the genitive usage of EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter 3:9: οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας [OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS]. Is EPAGGELIAS “ablatival genitive” with BRADUNEI? Does BRADUNEI mean something akin to English “is slower than” or “is behindhand from”? I certainly don’t think that “with regard to” represents an ablatival genitive notion. Yet BDF §180: ” 2 P 3:9 οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ‘the Lord is not holding back, delaying the fulfilment of his promise’ also belongs here.”Maybe so, but I find the NET (translates 2 Peter 3:9 as “The Lord is not slow concerning his promise” — but has a translator’s note on the verse:Or perhaps, “the Lord is not delaying [the fulfillment of] his promise,” or perhaps “the Lord of the promise is not delaying.” The verb can mean “to delay,” “to be slow,” or “to be hesitant.”A search of the archives for 2 Peter 3:9 or BRADUNEI does not yield any enlightenment (to me, at least) on the relationship between BRADUNEI and EPAGGELIAS, if there is one.> > [omitted material]> > I think Mark Lightman hit the theological nail on the head. As I > said above, I don’t think the text, ECETE PISTIN QEOU, is dealing > with faith in a possessive way as much as it is in marking off what > that faith is. It is a faith which is in regards to God. The whole > passage from v12 through 26 is dealing with faith. It wasn’t that > the Jews did not> “believe” in God. It was that their faith did not affect how they > worshiped God in a positive way. That is why Jesus drove out those > whose motives (and faith) where not> right. Then Jesus moves to the cursing the fig tree and tells his > disciples that if they have faith “as within the framework of God” > or “regarding God”, that is, “that their> faith reflected the character and faithfulness of God”, then they > could move mountains. It wasn’t that the disciples had no faith in > God nor was Jesus saying that the object of their faith was to be in > God. I believe what Jesus was saying was to have faith in a Godly > context, manner.That is what the Jews lacked miserably.Much of this focuses on hermeneutical matters bearing upon the “theologically motivated translation” perhaps, but outside of my concern regarding genitive case usage. I really fail to see how the usage of QEOU here is in any way similar to the usage of EPAGGELIAS in 1 Peter 3:;9, and I certainly don’t see how it can be called “ablatival” (or “possessive” either, for that matter). I am very much tempted to create a new term for a new subcategory of adnominal genitive: “meditative genitive.” Really, however, it is mosst surely an instance of the “aporetic genitive” Wallace’s acccount of the Aporetic Genitive (GGBB, pp. 79-80) is really so good that I think I’ll cite it in toto. It’s really about the best description of the general character o the adnominal or “adjectival” genitive that I know of.========1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic” Genitive) [characterized by, described by]a. Definition: The genitive substantive describes the head noun in a loose manner. The nature of the collocation of the two nouns in this construction is usually quite ambiguous.b. Amplification: This is the “catch-all” genitive, the “drip pan” genitive, the “black hole” of genitive categories that tries to suck many a genitive into its grasp! In some respects, all adjectival genitives are descriptive, yet no adjectival genitive is descriptive. That is to say, although all adjectival genitives are, by their nature, descriptive, very few, if any, belong only to this specific category of usage. This use truly embodies the root idea of the (adjectival) genitive. It is often the usage of the genitive when it has not been affected by other linguistic considerations—that is, when there are no contextual, lexemic, or other grammatical features that suggest a more specific nuance.Frequently, however, it is close to the attributive genitive, being either other than or broader than the attributive use. Hence, this use of the genitive should be a last resort. If one cannot find a narrower category to which a genitive belongs, this is where he or she should look for solace.c. Key to Identification: For the word of insert the paraphrase characterized by or described by. If this fits, and if none of the other uses of the genitive fits, then the genitive is probably a genitive of description.=========In the same category of Wallace’s finest categories is one which we have mentioned before but that should surely not be overlooked, the Nominative Ad Nauseam” (I won’t mention that “nauseam” is misspelled, but never let it be said that Professor Wallace lacka sense of humor):=========V. Nominative ad Nauseum: Also known as the aporetic nominative (from the Greek word ἀπορέω, “I am at a loss”), this is the category one should appeal to when another slot cannot be found. The title is descriptive not of the nominative but of the feeling one has in the pit of his/her stomach for having spent so much time on this case and coming up with nothing.=========Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

[] Theologically motivated translation, at times[] Genitive Usage,1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”)

[] Genitive Usage,1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”) Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Mon Jun 29 22:55:43 EDT 2009

[] Genitive Usage, 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivated translation, at times”) [] Genitive Usage, 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”) Carl, I suppose I’m in need of a Greeklesson. I don’t understand what I said thatis so terribly wrong here from a five casesystem:I find this account altogether puzzling, notleast of all for thereason that Rod Rogers asserts that thegenitive EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter3:9 and the genitive QEOU in Mark 11:22 areboth “Genitive -Ablative.” But I really find this descriptionof the “Genitive -Ablative.” incomprehensible: ” The Genitive -Ablative not only marksoff the boundaries and limits the contextwhich is dealt with but canalso relate to that which is marked off. Thepossessive aspect of theGenitive – Ablative deals with that which isbetween the marked offboundaries.”As I understand it, both the Genitive andAccusative “limit” in some aspect, theGenitive as Wallace puts it:In the eight-casesystem, the genitive defines, describes,qualifies, restricts, limits, where as theAccusative limits as to quantity or extent.[Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). GreekGrammar Beyond the Basics – Exegetical Syntaxof the New Testament (76). ZondervanPublishing House and Galaxie Software.]I really don’t see much to quibble over”marking off” and “restricting” or”limiting”. I also don’t see where thissupports your “faith in God” translation. I’msure I missed something.Carl you said,”When I use the term “ablatival genitive,” Iam referring to theoriginal PIE ablative case usage which wassubsumed in the Greekgenitive case — the usage indicatingSEPARATION FROM, most commonlyfound in expressions with the prepositions EKand APO but also withverbs of separation such as CWRIZOMAI (cf.BDF §180. I don’tunderstand what all this about “boundaries”has to do with theablatival genitive.”I never meant to comment on the AblativeGenitive nor did I comment on the “My carversus your car” analogy of Wallace. My onlycomment was in regard to Genitive – Ablativeand that was in a five case context onlyreferring to the case ending. Sorry for beingconfusing.Carl you said,”Is EPAGGELIAS “ablatival genitive” withBRADUNEI? Does BRADUNEI meansomething akin to English “is slower than” or”is behindhand from”? Icertainly don’t think that “with regard to”represents an ablativalgenitive notion.”I understand the ablative in a sense ofseparation. I’m sure I don’t understand allthat the Ablative may encompass but then Inever meant to comment on the Ablativeaspect. I see the Genitive as marking off orsetting the boundaries of EPAGGELIAS ANDQEOU. The slowness the Lord is charged withis in relation or regards to the promisemade, his second coming. In the same sense Idon’t think Jesus was telling the disciplesto have faith in God. They already had faithin God. What they did not have was faith thatwould move mountains. That is what I believeQEOU was referring to. It was a particulartype of faith, not faith in general.Carl you said,Maybe so, but I find the NET (translates 2Peter 3:9 as “The Lord isnot slow concerning his promise” — but has atranslator’s note on theverse:Or perhaps, “the Lord is not delaying [thefulfillment of] hispromise,” or perhaps “the Lord of the promiseis not delaying.”The verb can mean “to delay,” “to be slow,”or “to behesitant.”I don’t have a problem with any of thesetranslations except that I don’t think theyfit well with hWS TINES BRADUTHTA HGOUNTAI. Ionly chose “tardy” to show what the ungodlywere charging Jesus with.Carl you said,I assume tongue in cheek, “I am very muchtempted to create a new term for a newsubcategory of adnominal genitive:”meditative genitive.” Oddly I like this. Ithink too many times scripture is shoved intoa category without the least thought ormeditation as to how this word, phrase,clause fits into the passage.rod rogersbargersville, in> >>> Carl Conrad: But the “genitive ofcomparison” is not an adnominal>>> genitive; it is essentially an ablativalgenitive. I agree that>>> the preferable English is “better THAN… ” but the more>>> “literal” English would be “better OF …” but rather “better>>> FROM … “> > To me this does not take into considerationthe fact that the> Genitive – Ablative first of all is thecase of “marking off” the> boundaries. The Genitive – Ablative notonly marks off the> boundaries and limits the context which isdealt with but can also> relate to that which is marked off. Thepossessive aspect of the> Genitive – Ablative deals with that whichis between the marked off> boundaries. While this is the most oftenaspect of the Genitive -> Ablative, it is not the only one we find.In 2 Peter 3:9 we find, OU> BRADUNEI hO KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS. Ibelieve THS EPAGGELIAS is> referring to boundaries in which theEPAGGELIAS is found not> referring to the EPAGGELIAS itself.Therefore in 2 Peter 3:9 it> reads, “The Lord is not tardy regarding thepromise”. I believe we> find the same Genitive in 2 Peter 3:9 as inMark 11:22.I find this account altogether puzzling, notleast of all for thereason that Rod Rogers asserts that thegenitive EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter3:9 and the genitive QEOU in Mark 11:22 areboth “Genitive -Ablative.” But I really find this descriptionof the “Genitive -Ablative.” incomprehensible: ” The Genitive -Ablative not only marksoff the boundaries and limits the contextwhich is dealt with but canalso relate to that which is marked off. Thepossessive aspect of theGenitive – Ablative deals with that which isbetween the marked offboundaries.”When I use the term “ablatival genitive,” Iam referring to theoriginal PIE ablative case usage which wassubsumed in the Greekgenitive case — the usage indicatingSEPARATION FROM, most commonlyfound in expressions with the prepositions EKand APO but also withverbs of separation such as CWRIZOMAI (cf.BDF §180. I don’tunderstand what all this about “boundaries”has to do with theablatival genitive.Nor do I really understand the genitive usageof EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter3:9: οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆςἐπαγγελίας [OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THSEPAGGELIAS]. IsEPAGGELIAS “ablatival genitive” withBRADUNEI? Does BRADUNEI meansomething akin to English “is slower than” or”is behindhand from”? Icertainly don’t think that “with regard to”represents an ablativalgenitive notion. Yet BDF §180: ” 2 P 3:9 οὐβραδύνεικύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ‘the Lord is notholdingback, delaying the fulfilment of his promise’also belongs here.”Maybe so, but I find the NET (translates 2Peter 3:9 as “The Lord isnot slow concerning his promise” — but has atranslator’s note on theverse:Or perhaps, “the Lord is not delaying [thefulfillment of] hispromise,” or perhaps “the Lord of the promiseis not delaying.”The verb can mean “to delay,” “to be slow,”or “to behesitant.”A search of the archives for 2 Peter 3:9 orBRADUNEI does not yieldany enlightenment (to me, at least) on therelationship betweenBRADUNEI and EPAGGELIAS, if there is one.> > [omitted material]> > I think Mark Lightman hit the theologicalnail on the head. As I> said above, I don’t think the text, ECETEPISTIN QEOU, is dealing> with faith in a possessive way as much asit is in marking off what> that faith is. It is a faith which is inregards to God. The whole> passage from v12 through 26 is dealing withfaith. It wasn’t that> the Jews did not> “believe” in God. It was that their faithdid not affect how they> worshiped God in a positive way. That iswhy Jesus drove out those> whose motives (and faith) where not> right. Then Jesus moves to the cursing thefig tree and tells his> disciples that if they have faith “aswithin the framework of God”> or “regarding God”, that is, “that their> faith reflected the character andfaithfulness of God”, then they> could move mountains. It wasn’t that thedisciples had no faith in> God nor was Jesus saying that the object oftheir faith was to be in> God. I believe what Jesus was saying was tohave faith in a Godly> context, manner.That is what the Jewslacked miserably.Much of this focuses on hermeneutical mattersbearing upon the”theologically motivated translation”perhaps, but outside of myconcern regarding genitive case usage. Ireally fail to see how theusage of QEOU here is in any way similar tothe usage of EPAGGELIAS in1 Peter 3:;9, and I certainly don’t see howit can be called”ablatival” (or “possessive” either, for thatmatter). I am very muchtempted to create a new term for a newsubcategory of adnominalgenitive: “meditative genitive.” Really,however, it is mosst surelyan instance of the “aporetic genitive”Wallace’s acccount of theAporetic Genitive (GGBB, pp. 79-80) is reallyso good that I thinkI’ll cite it in toto. It’s really about thebest description of thegeneral character o the adnominal or”adjectival” genitive that I knowof.========1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic”Genitive) [characterized by,described by]a. Definition: The genitive substantivedescribes the head noun in aloose manner. The nature of the collocationof the two nouns in thisconstruction is usually quite ambiguous.b. Amplification: This is the “catch-all”genitive, the “drippan” genitive, the “black hole” of genitivecategories that triesto suck many a genitive into its grasp! Insome respects, alladjectival genitives are descriptive, yet noadjectival genitive isdescriptive. That is to say, although alladjectival genitives are, bytheir nature, descriptive, very few, if any,belong only to thisspecific category of usage. This use trulyembodies the root idea ofthe (adjectival) genitive. It is often theusage of the genitive whenit has not been affected by other linguisticconsiderations—that is,when there are no contextual, lexemic, orother grammatical featuresthat suggest a more specific nuance.Frequently, however, it is close to theattributive genitive, beingeither other than or broader than theattributive use. Hence, this useof the genitive should be a last resort. Ifone cannot find a narrowercategory to which a genitive belongs, this iswhere he or she shouldlook for solace.c. Key to Identification: For the word ofinsert the paraphrasecharacterized by or described by. If thisfits, and if none of theother uses of the genitive fits, then thegenitive is probably agenitive of description.=========In the same category of Wallace’s finestcategories is one which wehave mentioned before but that should surelynot be overlooked, theNominative Ad Nauseam” (I won’t mention that”nauseam” is misspelled,but never let it be said that ProfessorWallace lacka sense of humor):=========V. Nominative ad Nauseum: Also known as theaporetic nominative(from the Greek word ἀπορέω, “I am at a loss”), this is thecategory one should appeal to when anotherslot cannot be found. Thetitle is descriptive not of the nominativebut of the feeling one hasin the pit of his/her stomach for havingspent so much time on thiscase and coming up with nothing.=========Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University(Retired)

[] Genitive Usage, 1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”) Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Jun 30 06:52:27 EDT 2009

[] Genitive Usage,1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”) [] Theologically motivated translation, at times On Jun 29, 2009, at 10:55 PM, Rod Rogers wrote:> Carl, I suppose I’m in need of a Greek> lesson. I don’t understand what I said that> is so terribly wrong here from a five case> system:> > I find this account altogether puzzling, not> least of all for the> reason that Rod Rogers asserts that the> genitive EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter> 3:9 and the genitive QEOU in Mark 11:22 are> both “Genitive –> Ablative.” But I really find this description> of the “Genitive –> Ablative.” incomprehensible: ” The Genitive –> Ablative not only marks> off the boundaries and limits the context> which is dealt with but can> also relate to that which is marked off. The> possessive aspect of the> Genitive – Ablative deals with that which is> between the marked off> boundaries.”> > As I understand it, both the Genitive and> Accusative “limit” in some aspect, the> Genitive as Wallace puts it:In the eight-case> system, the genitive defines, describes,> qualifies, restricts, limits, where as the> Accusative limits as to quantity or extent.> [Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek> Grammar Beyond the Basics – Exegetical Syntax> of the New Testament (76). Zondervan> Publishing House and Galaxie Software.]> > I really don’t see much to quibble over> “marking off” and “restricting” or> “limiting”. I also don’t see where this> supports your “faith in God” translation. I’m> sure I missed something.> > Carl you said,> > “When I use the term “ablatival genitive,” I> am referring to the> original PIE ablative case usage which was> subsumed in the Greek> genitive case — the usage indicating> SEPARATION FROM, most commonly> found in expressions with the prepositions EK> and APO but also with> verbs of separation such as CWRIZOMAI (cf.> BDF §180. I don’t> understand what all this about “boundaries”> has to do with the> ablatival genitive.”> > I never meant to comment on the Ablative> Genitive nor did I comment on the “My car> versus your car” analogy of Wallace. My only> comment was in regard to Genitive – Ablative> and that was in a five case context only> referring to the case ending. Sorry for being> confusing.I’m sorry; I evidently misunderstood what Rod meant by “Genitive – Ablative.” Apparently he inended to use that term for all Koine Greek genitive usages. I didn’t realize what he was doing and was surprised to see him affirming that Mark 11:22 was “ablatival” when he wasn’t..For clarification, I tend to subcategorize Genitive case usages as “ablatival” if they are rooted in a notion of separation or movement away, as “partitive” if they are rooted in a notion of paratial or inclusive reference; most Genitives are actually Adnominal, for which I tend to use the word “pertinentive” in the sense of “belonging to” or “concerned with”. I think that is pretty clearly what tthe usage in Mark 11:22 is, whereas I think the usage in 1 Peter 3:9 may indeed be “ablatival” — although, as the NET note indicates, there’s some room for doubt about the syntax of that passage.At any rate, my reading of what Rod wrote was skewed by my misunderstanding of his usage of the term “Genitive – Ablative.” I do think use of that term is misleading.I am still inclined to think that the best of Wallace’s Genitive-case subcategories is “Descriptive/Aporetic Genitive.” I think that, so far as the fundamental syntactic function of the adnominal genitive is concerned, this is where they all belong:=====1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic” Genitive) [characterized by, described by]a. Definition: The genitive substantive describes the head noun in a loose manner. The nature of the collocation of the two nouns in this construction is usually quite ambiguous. … (GGBB, pp. 79-80)=====I do realize that Professor Wallace’s plethora of subcategories of the adnominal genitive reflects his endeavor to factor in “pragmatic” contextual elements in the particular instances of the adnominal gentiive found in the GNT. My objection to that — the substance of the fundamental disagreement involved in my recent exchange with Eddie Mishoe — is that users of GGBB may have missed Wallace’s clear statement of that intention in his introduction, and users of GGBB that have missed it may be tempted to suppose that these subcategories represent syntactic distinctions of which the original Greek authors of the GNT were cognizant. My own preference would be that the reader of the GNT read the GNT texts that include adnominal genitive phrases and determine for him/herself what relationship between head noun and qualifying genitive noun may be implicit; more often than not the reader won’t stop to analyze the genitive phrase, but if and when he/ she does stop to analyze it, the pre-digested subcategories provided by the grammar reference work may become a constraint upon the reader’s own interpretive enterprise. Of course, that need not be the case, provided that the reader who consults GGBB attributes to the reference grammar no more and no less authority than belongs properly to any particular interpretive commentary. Ultimately the interpretive choice must be made by the reader.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > Carl you said,> > “Is EPAGGELIAS “ablatival genitive” with> BRADUNEI? Does BRADUNEI mean> something akin to English “is slower than” or> “is behindhand from”? I> certainly don’t think that “with regard to”> represents an ablatival> genitive notion.”> > I understand the ablative in a sense of> separation. I’m sure I don’t understand all> that the Ablative may encompass but then I> never meant to comment on the Ablative> aspect. I see the Genitive as marking off or> setting the boundaries of EPAGGELIAS AND> QEOU. The slowness the Lord is charged with> is in relation or regards to the promise> made, his second coming. In the same sense I> don’t think Jesus was telling the disciples> to have faith in God. They already had faith> in God. What they did not have was faith that> would move mountains. That is what I believe> QEOU was referring to. It was a particular> type of faith, not faith in general.> > Carl you said,> > Maybe so, but I find the NET (translates 2> Peter 3:9 as “The Lord is> not slow concerning his promise” — but has a> translator’s note on the> verse:> > Or perhaps, “the Lord is not delaying [the> fulfillment of] his> promise,” or perhaps “the Lord of the promise> is not delaying.”> The verb can mean “to delay,” “to be slow,”> or “to be> hesitant.”> > I don’t have a problem with any of these> translations except that I don’t think they> fit well with hWS TINES BRADUTHTA HGOUNTAI. I> only chose “tardy” to show what the ungodly> were charging Jesus with.> > Carl you said,> > I assume tongue in cheek, “I am very much> tempted to create a new term for a new> subcategory of adnominal genitive:> “meditative genitive.” Oddly I like this. I> think too many times scripture is shoved into> a category without the least thought or> meditation as to how this word, phrase,> clause fits into the passage.> > > rod rogers> bargersville, in> > > > > > > > > >> >>>> Carl Conrad: But the “genitive of> comparison” is not an adnominal>>>> genitive; it is essentially an ablatival> genitive. I agree that>>>> the preferable English is “better THAN> … ” but the more>>>> “literal” English would be “better OF …> ” but rather “better>>>> FROM … “>> >> To me this does not take into consideration> the fact that the>> Genitive – Ablative first of all is the> case of “marking off” the>> boundaries. The Genitive – Ablative not> only marks off the>> boundaries and limits the context which is> dealt with but can also>> relate to that which is marked off. The> possessive aspect of the>> Genitive – Ablative deals with that which> is between the marked off>> boundaries. While this is the most often> aspect of the Genitive –>> Ablative, it is not the only one we find.> In 2 Peter 3:9 we find, OU>> BRADUNEI hO KURIOS THS EPAGGELIAS. I> believe THS EPAGGELIAS is>> referring to boundaries in which the> EPAGGELIAS is found not>> referring to the EPAGGELIAS itself.> Therefore in 2 Peter 3:9 it>> reads, “The Lord is not tardy regarding the> promise”. I believe we>> find the same Genitive in 2 Peter 3:9 as in> Mark 11:22.> > I find this account altogether puzzling, not> least of all for the> reason that Rod Rogers asserts that the> genitive EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter> 3:9 and the genitive QEOU in Mark 11:22 are> both “Genitive –> Ablative.” But I really find this description> of the “Genitive –> Ablative.” incomprehensible: ” The Genitive –> Ablative not only marks> off the boundaries and limits the context> which is dealt with but can> also relate to that which is marked off. The> possessive aspect of the> Genitive – Ablative deals with that which is> between the marked off> boundaries.”> > When I use the term “ablatival genitive,” I> am referring to the> original PIE ablative case usage which was> subsumed in the Greek> genitive case — the usage indicating> SEPARATION FROM, most commonly> found in expressions with the prepositions EK> and APO but also with> verbs of separation such as CWRIZOMAI (cf.> BDF §180. I don’t> understand what all this about “boundaries”> has to do with the> ablatival genitive.> > Nor do I really understand the genitive usage> of EPAGGELIAS in 2 Peter> 3:9: οὐ βραδύνει κύριος τῆς> ἐπαγγελίας [OU BRADUNEI KURIOS THS> EPAGGELIAS]. Is> EPAGGELIAS “ablatival genitive” with> BRADUNEI? Does BRADUNEI mean> something akin to English “is slower than” or> “is behindhand from”? I> certainly don’t think that “with regard to”> represents an ablatival> genitive notion. Yet BDF §180: ” 2 P 3:9 οὐ> βραδύνει> κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ‘the Lord is not> holding> back, delaying the fulfilment of his promise’> also belongs here.”> > Maybe so, but I find the NET (translates 2> Peter 3:9 as “The Lord is> not slow concerning his promise” — but has a> translator’s note on the> verse:> > Or perhaps, “the Lord is not delaying [the> fulfillment of] his> promise,” or perhaps “the Lord of the promise> is not delaying.”> The verb can mean “to delay,” “to be slow,”> or “to be> hesitant.”> > A search of the archives for 2 Peter 3:9 or> BRADUNEI does not yield> any enlightenment (to me, at least) on the> relationship between> BRADUNEI and EPAGGELIAS, if there is one.> >> >> [omitted material]>> >> I think Mark Lightman hit the theological> nail on the head. As I>> said above, I don’t think the text, ECETE> PISTIN QEOU, is dealing>> with faith in a possessive way as much as> it is in marking off what>> that faith is. It is a faith which is in> regards to God. The whole>> passage from v12 through 26 is dealing with> faith. It wasn’t that>> the Jews did not>> “believe” in God. It was that their faith> did not affect how they>> worshiped God in a positive way. That is> why Jesus drove out those>> whose motives (and faith) where not>> right. Then Jesus moves to the cursing the> fig tree and tells his>> disciples that if they have faith “as> within the framework of God”>> or “regarding God”, that is, “that their>> faith reflected the character and> faithfulness of God”, then they>> could move mountains. It wasn’t that the> disciples had no faith in>> God nor was Jesus saying that the object of> their faith was to be in>> God. I believe what Jesus was saying was to> have faith in a Godly>> context, manner.That is what the Jews> lacked miserably.> > Much of this focuses on hermeneutical matters> bearing upon the> “theologically motivated translation”> perhaps, but outside of my> concern regarding genitive case usage. I> really fail to see how the> usage of QEOU here is in any way similar to> the usage of EPAGGELIAS in> 1 Peter 3:;9, and I certainly don’t see how> it can be called> “ablatival” (or “possessive” either, for that> matter). I am very much> tempted to create a new term for a new> subcategory of adnominal> genitive: “meditative genitive.” Really,> however, it is mosst surely> an instance of the “aporetic genitive”> Wallace’s acccount of the> Aporetic Genitive (GGBB, pp. 79-80) is really> so good that I think> I’ll cite it in toto. It’s really about the> best description of the> general character o the adnominal or> “adjectival” genitive that I know> of.> ========> 1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic”> Genitive) [characterized by,> described by]> a. Definition: The genitive substantive> describes the head noun in a> loose manner. The nature of the collocation> of the two nouns in this> construction is usually quite ambiguous.> b. Amplification: This is the “catch-all”> genitive, the “drip> pan” genitive, the “black hole” of genitive> categories that tries> to suck many a genitive into its grasp! In> some respects, all> adjectival genitives are descriptive, yet no> adjectival genitive is> descriptive. That is to say, although all> adjectival genitives are, by> their nature, descriptive, very few, if any,> belong only to this> specific category of usage. This use truly> embodies the root idea of> the (adjectival) genitive. It is often the> usage of the genitive when> it has not been affected by other linguistic> considerations—that is,> when there are no contextual, lexemic, or> other grammatical features> that suggest a more specific nuance.> Frequently, however, it is close to the> attributive genitive, being> either other than or broader than the> attributive use. Hence, this use> of the genitive should be a last resort. If> one cannot find a narrower> category to which a genitive belongs, this is> where he or she should> look for solace.> c. Key to Identification: For the word of> insert the paraphrase> characterized by or described by. If this> fits, and if none of the> other uses of the genitive fits, then the> genitive is probably a> genitive of description.> =========> In the same category of Wallace’s finest> categories is one which we> have mentioned before but that should surely> not be overlooked, the> Nominative Ad Nauseam” (I won’t mention that> “nauseam” is misspelled,> but never let it be said that Professor> Wallace lacka sense of humor):> =========> V. Nominative ad Nauseum: Also known as the> aporetic nominative> (from the Greek word ἀπορέω, “I am at a> loss”), this is the> category one should appeal to when another> slot cannot be found. The> title is descriptive not of the nominative> but of the feeling one has> in the pit of his/her stomach for having> spent so much time on this> case and coming up with nothing.> =========> > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> (Retired)> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] Genitive Usage,1 Peter 3:9 and Mark 11:22: (was “Theologically motivatedtranslation, at times”)[] Theologically motivated translation, at times

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 29 22:56:53 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Greek Lexicon of Secular Literature? At 9:16 PM -0500 8/29/98, Paul F. Evans wrote:>George or Carl,> >Though the idea of a partitive genitive (if I have even expressed that>properly) has been discussed before in this forum, please give me a run down>once more so that I can get it in my mind! I think that we can add the>genitive to Carl’s comment about the complexity of the accusative in most>grammars.In Indo-European languages there is a “partitive” conception that generallyhas some distinct mode of expression; in Greek and Latin it uses thegenitive case endings but is really different from the true genitive, whichis essentially an adjectival case, and also different from the ablativewhich fused with the Greek genitive at an early date, the ablativeexpressing the fundamental notion of separation or apartness. The idea ofthe partitive is “some of X (whatever the word)” or “a part of X.” In olderGreek the “partitive genitive” might be used as the subject or object of averb (as, for instance in French: “Des amis sont venus”–‘Some friendscame’). In classical and Koiné Greek one of the more common partitiveusages is with verbs of perception like AISQANOMAI or AKOUW or evenhAPTOMAI, which normally take a partitive genitive object. A partitivegenitive may express time when it is vague: NUKTOS “during the night” = “atsome time in the night” or with a preposition it may express generalposition, EPI THS QALATTHS “somewhere on the sea” or EPI TOU OROUS”somewhere on the mountain.” I think what makes the genitive case difficultis precisely the fact that the same case ending has come to serve what wereoriginally quite distinct grammatical functions of three different cases, apertinentive (“belonging to”), an ablative (“apart from,” “away from”) anda partitive (“some/a part of”).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 OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUGreek Lexicon of Secular Literature?

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Paul F. Evans evans at wilmington.net
Sat Aug 29 22:16:18 EDT 1998

Greek Lexicon of Secular Literature? Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU George or Carl,Though the idea of a partitive genitive (if I have even expressed thatproperly) has been discussed before in this forum, please give me a run downonce more so that I can get it in my mind! I think that we can add thegenitive to Carl’s comment about the complexity of the accusative in mostgrammars.Paul & Loala EvansWilmington First Pentecostal Holiness ChurchE-mail: evans at wilmington.netWeb-page: http://wilmingtonfirst/localchurches/wilmington.net—–Original Message—–From: dalmatia at eburg.com <dalmatia at eburg.com>To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Cc: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 10:37 AMSubject: Re: Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU>Carl W. Conrad wrote:> >> I also still think that QEOU has to be understood as an objective>> genitive and that ECETE here means “continue to grasp firmly, keepholding>> tight (your faith in God).”> >The more I think about this construction, the more I like the>partitive idea. There is no article for QEOU, and while that is no>big evidence for a whole lot, it does suggest a generic reading, which>would not be the case were it to read TOU QEOU. The force of QEOU>would then become almost adverbial or adjectival [Godly]. The read,>on this approach, would then be: “Be having [maintain vigorously]>faith [that you have received] from God.”> >And as well I like the simplicity of the implicit ‘that you have>received’ modifying PISTIN. Is this eisegesis?> >George> >—>******************************************>Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415>George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.com> >Have you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!>http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.html> >Last Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!>http://www.lcanimal.org> >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: $subst(‘PurgeID’)>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>

Greek Lexicon of Secular Literature?Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Aug 27 19:32:14 EDT 1998

Ressurection LAILAPS At 11:30 AM -0500 8/27/98, Steve Long wrote:>I was digging around looking for other examples of ECETE in Mark and found>one other that was imperative in Mark 9:50, ECETE EN EAUTOIS ALA. Would it>change the meaning to say ECETE ALA EAUTOU? Does this help us? Mark’s using>a dative, but the word order is slightly different, couldn’t he have said>ECETE EN QEW PISTIN, or ECETE PISTIN EN QEW? If it doesn’t change the>meaning, why did he do it? (I know it was just to keep me awake at nights,>yeah, that’s it!)No, these would not be grammatical or idiomatic: a prepositional phrasecannot function adjectivally unless it is enclosed in article(s): e.g.ECETE PISTIN THN EN QEWi, and I don’t think you’d want to take the EN QEWias adverbial directly governing ECETE. Moreover, with a noun like PISTISthat expresses a verbal notion, the grammatical and idiomatic way toindicate the object of faith is with an “objective” genitive–as the authordid, in fact, do.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 OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

RessurectionLAILAPS

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Thu Aug 27 12:30:41 EDT 1998

LAILAPS LAILAPS I was digging around looking for other examples of ECETE in Mark and foundone other that was imperative in Mark 9:50, ECETE EN EAUTOIS ALA. Would itchange the meaning to say ECETE ALA EAUTOU? Does this help us? Mark’s usinga dative, but the word order is slightly different, couldn’t he have saidECETE EN QEW PISTIN, or ECETE PISTIN EN QEW? If it doesn’t change themeaning, why did he do it? (I know it was just to keep me awake at nights,yeah, that’s it!)Steve___________________________________Steve Longsteve at allegrographics.comSaint Peters, Missouri___________________________________

LAILAPSLAILAPS

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Aug 26 12:23:33 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Signatures On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:19:42 -0700 “mail.access1.net”<lancelot at access1.net> writes:>To avoid confusion between usages of cases I think it is important todo>two things when you decide upon case usage:>1 – examine the meaning of the main verb very closesly>2 – examine other words int he same which may relate to the case in >question> >In the case of pistin theou we have a very unusual situation, there >are no definite articles which generally accompany both. In addition wehave >a command given by the LOrd to the APostles commanding them to possess >this pistin theou, themselves. And so the object of echo is pistis. And >pistis is a verbal noun (noun derived from a verb) hence the APOSTLESare to >possess a capacity of soul , faith, that ALWAYS takes an object in sofar as >pisteuw is a TRANSITIVE verb. In our context, theou is the candidate.>But theou is without an article, so the LOrd is not speaking of the >person of God – he does not say have faith in the person of GOd. He is >instead saying “have faith in the quality of God, God’s nature/essence”> >And because pistis is anathrous he is also saying, possess this >quality in yourself – actually it is quite a command for the Apostleswho are >viewed to be able to move mountains and possess such a prayer life that>whatever the apostles request, they receive as the result of this faithin God’s >essence. Actually all this is really commanding is to obey the first >commandment of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with allthy >heart and all thy soul and all thy might and thy neighbor as thyself”.> >But in our passage, the Lord addresses the apostles directly. And tells>them to pray without the doublemindedness of cynacism and doubt-but to>simply KNOW God’s word and take him at his word – really nothing wierdor>confusing, bu something very down to earth commonly found in any human>relationship.> >I prefer the genitive of description “possess faith in God’s (essence)”or>“possess a divine faith”. Actually they are one and the same from a>practical point of view, according to our passage :> “…but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be >granted him.”You seem to be assuming that the anarthrous QEOU should necessarilybe taken to denote qualitativeness. Have you considered that it can alsodenote definiteness (since an anarthrous noun can be definite)?It is interesting that QEOS occurs about 45 times in the book and onlytwice is it anarthrous (here and 10:27). In 10:27, however, it isclearlydefinite, because of the following explanatory clause where QEOSis articular:ALL’ OU PARA QEWi; PANTA GAR DUNATA PARA TWi QEWi.Paul Dixon_____________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUSignatures

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Wed Aug 26 11:52:30 EDT 1998

Matthew 19:11 “This saying” Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU A couple of observations about the discussion on this passage:1) PISTIN QEOU is Apollonius’ Canon construction and as such one CANNOT ascribe definiteness/indefiniteness/qualitativeness to either noun on the basis of their being anarthrous, ie., justbecause PISTIN is without the article doesn’t mean that its “a faith” or “faithness” (or whatever the quality would be).I agree with something that Carl said about the Imp’v (whichit seems clearly to be to me), namely that there is a stress on “holding fast to”, NOT because its present (Pres Imp’v =Generic Command; Aor = Specific Command; there’s nothing linear versus undefined/point in them in the Impv), but because its EXW, which frequently in the imp’v means to “hold on to something”. Thus, the reason, I take it that the article is omitted with PISTIN is because of its use at timesto refer to “body of doctrine”, and Jesus is NOT stressing that here, but rather seems to me to be stressing the disciples’ personal trust in God, since they are about to face a situation which will not fit their preconceived notionsabout how God should/must/will operate. Jesus is basically saying, as I see it, “No matter what happens, just keep trusting God, believing that He has things under control andthat they will all work out ultimately the right way.” Thus,when PISTIN loses its article, for symmetry, QEOU loses itsas well…that’s just the way Greeks like it. Look at Rom 3:3for the exact opposite of this, where PISTIS is normallytaken to mean “faithfullness”.2) It seems to me that it is unlikely in the extreme that God has either “faith” or “hope”, esp., based on what is saidin Hebrews 11:1. God does not need “faith”, since that is a (mental) state of being assured about something that you don’t/cannot know but are “hoping/expecting” to be true. Since there are no such gaps in God’s knowledge, He is neither sitting in heaven saying “I sure hope this works out!”,nor “I’m trusting that these folks will do the right thing!”.He already knows the answer to both of those questions. I’dsuggest that this is precisely why Paul in 1Cor 13 says it great to have faith and hope, but love is the most importantthing…God is/has love, but not faith or hope. This is notto say that God is not FAITHFUL, but that’s a different thing altogether.3) I take it that the genitive is objective, ie., God is theobject of their faith. Such a construction seems to have become–perhaps on the basis of THIS statement–common Christian parlance applied to the Messiah, eg., Rom 3:22; Gal 2:16; 3:22; Phil 3:9; cf., Eph 3:12 (all Apollonius’ Canon except Eph which uses a pronoun instead of noun, probablybecause of the preceding preposition; there has been recent debate that PISTIS in these passages should be understood as “faithfulness of the Messiah” on the basis of Rom 3:3, but I think the bulk of folks still think thatPaul means “faith in the Messiah”…its seems more likelyto me).XAIREIN…***********************************************************************Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw at teleport.com ***********************************************************************

Matthew 19:11 “This saying”Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU mail.access1.net lancelot at access1.net
Tue Aug 25 12:19:42 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Signatures To avoid confusion between usages of cases I think it is important to dotwo things when you decide upon case usage:1 – examine the meaning of the main verb very closesly2 – examine other words int he same which may relate to the case in questionIn the case of pistin theou we have a very unusual situation, there are nodefinite articles which generally accompany both. In addition we have acommand given by the LOrd to the APostles commanding them to possess thispistin theou, themselves. And so the object of echo is pistis. And pistis isa verbal noun (noun derived from a verb) hence the APOSTLES are to possessa capacity of soul , faith, that ALWAYS takes an object in so far as pisteuwis a TRANSITIVE verb. In our context, theou is the candidate.But theou is without an article, so the LOrd is not speaking of the personof God – he does not say have faith in the person of GOd. He is insteadsaying “have faith in the quality of God, God’s nature/essence”And because pistis is anathrous he is also saying, possess this quality inyourself – actually it is quite a command for the Apostles who are viewed tobe able to move mountains and possess such a prayer life that whatever theapostles request, they receive as the result of this faith in God’s essence.Actually all this is really commanding is to obey the first commandment ofthe Decalogue: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and allthy soul and all thy might and thy neighbor as thy self”.But in our passage, the Lord addresses the apostles directly. And tellsthem to pray without the doublemindedness of cynacism and doubt-but tosimply KNOW God’s word and take him at his word – really nothing wierd orconfusing, bu something very down to earth commonly found in any humanrelationship.I prefer the genitive of description “possess faith in God’s (essence)” or”possess a divine faith”. Actually they are one and the same from apractical point of view, according to our passage : “…but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be grantedhim.”

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUSignatures

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 25 11:43:49 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU At 3:51 AM -0500 8/25/98, Steve Long wrote:>> >>Yep, it leaves lots of room for eisegesis! Actually there’s mystery enough>>there; I wonder, however, if anybody has been looking at the context of>>this imperative: it follows immediately upon the prayer in which Jesus>>curses the fig tree that is in leaf but bears no fruit … and soon after>>the fig tree is shown to be blasted! Personally, I would understand the>>fig-tree elements as symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem, but the>>pericope on efficacious prayer is pretty clearly positioned by the>>evangelist to follow upon the curse upon the fig tree, and that makes it>>the more enigmatic, as George, with somewhat different intent, I think,>>says. I also still think that QEOU has to be understood as an objective>>genitive and that ECETE here means “continue to grasp firmly, keep holding>>tight (your faith in God).”>> > >So you’re saying that ECETE has both the indicative and imperative sense>here? I never really had a problem understanding the genitive as>objective/possessive/qualitative because I saw it as faith that has it>source with God’s character. My problem was with the imperative because>faith is genitive of God, it starts with Him. I like the idea of “continue>to grasp” or “keep holding tight”, but I wonder if we’re starting to move>toward an interpretation that would have required a perfect verb tense.No, I definitely understand this as a present imperative 2 pl.: continue!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 OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUMark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Tue Aug 25 04:51:31 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU acc of respect > >Yep, it leaves lots of room for eisegesis! Actually there’s mystery enough>there; I wonder, however, if anybody has been looking at the context of>this imperative: it follows immediately upon the prayer in which Jesus>curses the fig tree that is in leaf but bears no fruit … and soon after>the fig tree is shown to be blasted! Personally, I would understand the>fig-tree elements as symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem, but the>pericope on efficacious prayer is pretty clearly positioned by the>evangelist to follow upon the curse upon the fig tree, and that makes it>the more enigmatic, as George, with somewhat different intent, I think,>says. I also still think that QEOU has to be understood as an objective>genitive and that ECETE here means “continue to grasp firmly, keep holding>tight (your faith in God).”> So you’re saying that ECETE has both the indicative and imperative sensehere? I never really had a problem understanding the genitive asobjective/possessive/qualitative because I saw it as faith that has itsource with God’s character. My problem was with the imperative becausefaith is genitive of God, it starts with Him. I like the idea of “continueto grasp” or “keep holding tight”, but I wonder if we’re starting to movetoward an interpretation that would have required a perfect verb tense.Steve___________________________________Steve Longsteve at allegrographics.com___________________________________

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUacc of respect

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Tue Aug 25 10:40:06 EDT 1998

Needed: address to subscribe Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad wrote:> I also still think that QEOU has to be understood as an objective> genitive and that ECETE here means “continue to grasp firmly, keep holding> tight (your faith in God).”The more I think about this construction, the more I like thepartitive idea. There is no article for QEOU, and while that is nobig evidence for a whole lot, it does suggest a generic reading, whichwould not be the case were it to read TOU QEOU. The force of QEOUwould then become almost adverbial or adjectival [Godly]. The read,on this approach, would then be: “Be having [maintain vigorously]faith [that you have received] from God.” And as well I like the simplicity of the implicit ‘that you havereceived’ modifying PISTIN. Is this eisegesis?George– ******************************************Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org

Needed: address to subscribeMark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 25 09:31:52 EDT 1998

EIS ZWHN AIWNION The termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28) At 11:35 PM -0500 8/24/98, dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:>Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:>> >> dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> >> > When I first read this, I simply translated it as “Be having God’s>> > faith.” And I’m sticking with it because of the context of this>> > passage, which is a paean to the utter power of faith/belief, and is>> > showing us the quality of faith that is requisite for moving mountains>> > etc. Ordinary human faith is just inadequate. God’s faith is not,>> > and is available to us…> >> I wonder, then, in the light of this, whether PISTIS should not here be>> given its sense of “faithfulness” – and that what is being stressed by>> Jesus is that one should continually remind oneself (especially in>> contexts where “unbelief” begins to hold sway) of how faithful God is?> >Well, it sure is in the present tense, so it requires maintenance,>yes? And it really does have an enigmatic flavor that can trigger a>lot of different ‘takes’. One question that arises on this approach>is: How can a person ‘be having’ that which is not his, but God’s?>God’s faith is not really a faith that I can ‘have’ ~ Or is it? And>if I can have it, does that mean it can be appropriated by me? It>gets tricky quick! I like not understanding all the outworkings… By>way of honoring the mystery…Yep, it leaves lots of room for eisegesis! Actually there’s mystery enoughthere; I wonder, however, if anybody has been looking at the context ofthis imperative: it follows immediately upon the prayer in which Jesuscurses the fig tree that is in leaf but bears no fruit … and soon afterthe fig tree is shown to be blasted! Personally, I would understand thefig-tree elements as symbolic of the destruction of Jerusalem, but thepericope on efficacious prayer is pretty clearly positioned by theevangelist to follow upon the curse upon the fig tree, and that makes itthe more enigmatic, as George, with somewhat different intent, I think,says. I also still think that QEOU has to be understood as an objectivegenitive and that ECETE here means “continue to grasp firmly, keep holdingtight (your faith in God).”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 OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

EIS ZWHN AIWNIONThe termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28)

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Tue Aug 25 00:35:45 EDT 1998

acc of respect Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> > dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> > When I first read this, I simply translated it as “Be having God’s> > faith.” And I’m sticking with it because of the context of this> > passage, which is a paean to the utter power of faith/belief, and is> > showing us the quality of faith that is requisite for moving mountains> > etc. Ordinary human faith is just inadequate. God’s faith is not,> > and is available to us… > I wonder, then, in the light of this, whether PISTIS should not here be> given its sense of “faithfulness” – and that what is being stressed by> Jesus is that one should continually remind oneself (especially in> contexts where “unbelief” begins to hold sway) of how faithful God is?Well, it sure is in the present tense, so it requires maintenance,yes? And it really does have an enigmatic flavor that can trigger alot of different ‘takes’. One question that arises on this approachis: How can a person ‘be having’ that which is not his, but God’s? God’s faith is not really a faith that I can ‘have’ ~ Or is it? Andif I can have it, does that mean it can be appropriated by me? Itgets tricky quick! I like not understanding all the outworkings… Byway of honoring the mystery…George******************************************Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org

acc of respectMark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Mon Aug 24 22:37:29 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:28 Romans 1:5 On Mon 24 Aug 98 (15:11:14), cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu wrote:> (1) It may be that ECETE PISTIN QEOU represents an original Aramaic> expression that is here translated literally into Greek. I have no> notion whether or not this might be the case; Dear Carl and Steve, Your suggestion, Carl, sent me to the Franz Delitzsch translation of the GNT into Hebrew. ECETE PISTIN QEOU is rendered by him as: TeHiY-Na’ BhaKheM ‘eMuNaTh-‘eLoHiYM: Literally, Let there be then in you the truth of God. This clearly understands ECETE as imperative; and interprets PISTIS as the *content* of faith (the things believed) rather than *faith* itself (the abstract virtue). Compare Hebrews 11:1, where PISTIS is defined for us as ESTIN DE PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN hUPOSTASIS, PRAGMATWN ELEGCOS OU BLEPOMENWN. So ISTM Jesus is exhorting his disciples to trust in *the things he has taught them* concerning God. Compare also John 14:1, PISTEUETE EIS TON QEON KAI EIS EME PISTEUETE, where Jesus is preparing them for the trauma of his forthcoming crucifixion. The first PISTEUETE is indicative, “you believe in God”; the second imperative, “believe also in me” (“take my word for it”). This would tie in with your point (2), Carl (IMHO):> (2) QEWi could not be used with ECETE because ECETE is a transitive verb> that must take an object; you might have PISTEUETE QEWi, where PISTEUW is> intransitive; and, as noted above, you cannot attach a dative form (QEWi)> to a noun. PISTEUETE EIS TON QEON instead of either PISTEUETE QEWi or ECETE PISTIN QEOU. 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

The word alone in Romans 3:28Romans 1:5

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Mon Aug 24 18:50:15 EDT 1998

EIS ZWHN AIWNION EIS ZWHN AIWNION dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> > Carl W. Conrad wrote:> > >> > (1) QEOU probably should be understood as an “objective” genitive,> > indicating the complement of PISTIN considered as a verbal notion. When a> > noun modifies another noun, the only case it can go into is the genitive;> > we’d translate this as “faith IN God.” I should add that structurally> > there’s no difference between a “subjective” and an “objective”> > genitive–these are simply convenient terms to put a handle on what a> > genitive-case form is doing when attached to a noun that has a verbal> > notion. Here however, the phrase can hardly mean the faith that God has; it> > can only mean faith directed to/at God.> > When I first read this, I simply translated it as “Be having God’s> faith.” And I’m sticking with it because of the context of this> passage, which is a paean to the utter power of faith/belief, and is> showing us the quality of faith that is requisite for moving mountains> etc. Ordinary human faith is just inadequate. God’s faith is not,> and is available to us…> I wonder, then, in the light of this, whether PISTIS should not here begiven its sense of “faithfulness” – and that what is being stressed byJesus is that one should continually remind oneself (especially incontexts where “unbelief” begins to hold sway) of how faithful God is?Yours,Jeffrey Gibson– Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

EIS ZWHN AIWNIONEIS ZWHN AIWNION

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Aug 24 17:04:43 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:28 1 Thessalonians 3:2 Carl W. Conrad wrote:> > (1) QEOU probably should be understood as an “objective” genitive,> indicating the complement of PISTIN considered as a verbal notion. When a> noun modifies another noun, the only case it can go into is the genitive;> we’d translate this as “faith IN God.” I should add that structurally> there’s no difference between a “subjective” and an “objective”> genitive–these are simply convenient terms to put a handle on what a> genitive-case form is doing when attached to a noun that has a verbal> notion. Here however, the phrase can hardly mean the faith that God has; it> can only mean faith directed to/at God.When I first read this, I simply translated it as “Be having God’sfaith.” And I’m sticking with it because of the context of thispassage, which is a paean to the utter power of faith/belief, and isshowing us the quality of faith that is requisite for moving mountainsetc. Ordinary human faith is just inadequate. God’s faith is not,and is available to us…George– ******************************************Lisa Messmer………………ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals…Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org

The word alone in Romans 3:281 Thessalonians 3:2

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 24 16:11:14 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:28 EIS ZWHN AIWNION At 7:45 AM -0500 8/24/98, Steve Long wrote:>> >>(2) QEWi could not be used with ECETE because ECETE is a transitive verb>>that must take an object; you might have PISTEUETE QEWi, where PISTEUW is>>intransitive; and, as noted above, you cannot attach a dative form (QEWi)>>to a noun.>> > >Carl,> >Is there a reason Mark decided to use a transitive verb rather than>intransitive? Is this a usual type of greek form to say “Have faith in God”>rather than “Believe in God”? Or would this be a Hebrew or Latin style of>speaking?Now that you’ve brought me to reflect on it, it does seem a somewhatstrange expression–at least if it’s no more than an equivalent toPISTEUETE QEWi, but there are a couple other possibilities here that occurto me:(1) It may be that ECETE PISTIN QEOU represents an original Aramaicexpression that is here translated literally into Greek. I have no notionwhether or not this might be the case;(2) It may be, since we have the PRESENT Imperative ECETE here, thatthere’s a special emphasis to that verb and it doesn’t mean simply “havefaith … ” but “HOLD ON TO faith”–i.e. keep your grip upon it;(3) In view of the fact that PISTIS itself is a recurrent motif in thegospels, and indeed in the NT as a whole, it may be that this phraseemphasizes PISTIS QEOU, “faith in God” or “trust of God” (would you likethat better for the genitive? Not that it really makes any bigdifference!); if this is combined with (2) then we might have aparticularly forceful instruction: “Keep a grip on your trust in God (whenyou pray) …”These are no more than tentative suggestions, but since you raised thequestion and others may have something to contribute on the plausibility ofthese suggestions of mine, I’m sending this back to the list.Regards, cCarl 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 OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

The word alone in Romans 3:28EIS ZWHN AIWNION

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 24 12:24:51 EDT 1998

1 Thessalonians 3:2 The word only in Romans 3:28 At 4:32 AM -0500 8/24/98, Steve Long wrote:>B-greekers all,> >I’m having a little trouble reading EXETE as an imperative here, and I>would appreciate a lttle feedback. My main difficulty is an imperative>would seem to start the flow of the sentence toward a dative QEW, whereas>the genetive QEOU seems to push the flow of the sentence back toward an>indicative. “You have faith concerning/from God”. I know I don’t have the>technical language to properly describe the difficulty, but I hope you get>the idea.> >—> <—- ————–>>Have faith of God! shouldn’t it be EXETE PISTIN QEW> ><——————–>You have faith of God> >or perhaps as an inquiry,><——————–>Have you faith of God?> >Maybe I’m reading too much into the directional qualities of the genitive>and dative cases, but it seems the genitive wants a more passive verb than>an imperative. If I’m making some obvious error, please be gentle (remember>I’m self-taught).Two points I’d make:(1) QEOU probably should be understood as an “objective” genitive,indicating the complement of PISTIN considered as a verbal notion. When anoun modifies another noun, the only case it can go into is the genitive;we’d translate this as “faith IN God.” I should add that structurallythere’s no difference between a “subjective” and an “objective”genitive–these are simply convenient terms to put a handle on what agenitive-case form is doing when attached to a noun that has a verbalnotion. Here however, the phrase can hardly mean the faith that God has; itcan only mean faith directed to/at God.(2) QEWi could not be used with ECETE because ECETE is a transitive verbthat must take an object; you might have PISTEUETE QEWi, where PISTEUW isintransitive; and, as noted above, you cannot attach a dative form (QEWi)to a noun.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 OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

1 Thessalonians 3:2The word only in Romans 3:28
Mark 11:22 Rod Rilea rrilea at logos.com
Wed Jul 14 16:35:25 EDT 1999

KURIE ELEHSON ME PEIRAZO again I was asked asked a question about the following passage:Mark 11:22KAI APOKRIQEIS hO IHSOUS LEGEI AUTOIS ECETE PISTIN QEOU.The question was about the phrase ECETE PISTIN QEOU in particular. The KJV,NIV, NRSV, NAS translates this as “Have faith in God” The question I wasasked is why is this not translated as “have the faith of God?” I aminterested in finding out why the preposition “in” is used instead of thepreposition “of” in translating the genitive in this verse? > Rod Rilea, Logos Sales Associate> Logos Research Systems, Inc> 715 SE Fidalgo Avenue, Oak Harbor WA 98277> * Tel: (800) 875-6467 x 2216 * Fax: (360) 675-8169* Email: rrilea at logos.com * Web: http://www.logos.com> Are you looking for away to learn NT Greek on your own, or to refresh your> NT Greek? Call me about the new Introduction to New Testament Greek> package at 1-800-875-6467 ext 2216.> >

KURIE ELEHSON MEPEIRAZO again

Mark 11:22 Rod Rilea rrilea at logos.com
Wed Jul 14 16:35:25 EDT 1999

KURIE ELEHSON MEPEIRAZO again

Mark 11:22 Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Wed Jul 14 18:16:20 EDT 1999

PEIRAZO again KURIE ELEHSON ME rrilea at logos.com said:> I was asked asked a question about the following passage:> Mark 11:22 KAI APOKRIQEIS hO IHSOUS LEGEI AUTOIS ECETE PISTIN QEOU.> The question was about the phrase ECETE PISTIN QEOU in particular.> The KJV, NIV, NRSV, NAS translates this as “Have faith in God” The> question I was asked is why is this not translated as “have the faith> of God?” I am interested in finding out why the preposition “in” is> used instead of the preposition “of” in translating the genitive in> this verse? The genitive is a descriptive case. I was taught to think of it asexpressing ‘kind’. Jesus responds to His disciples by telling them tohave a “God kind of faith.”To elucidate, A.T. Robertson cites Matthew 1:12–METOIKESIANBABULWNOS–and says that this tells us only that it was a Babylon-removal.It does not tell us whether it was ‘to’ or ‘from’ Babylon. We knowfrom Old Testament history that this was a ‘to’ removal–from Judahto Babylon. Therefore, I think, frequently the preposition “to” isadded in the translations.Mark 11:22 only says to “have a God kind of faith.” We have to lookelsewhere to determine what the relation actually is. Personally, I thinkthat 11:23-25 makes that clear. In fact, that Mark uses the genitivehere and not EN with the locative dative tells me that (specifically in thispassage) we should not focus on whom to have faith in; but, we are to takea good, solid look directly at our faith and answer the question, “whatkind of faith do I have? Is it a God-oriented of God-centric faith?”Jesus uses the fig tree as a trigger to get His disciples to focus onthe kind of faith they must have to live as true disciples.To translate PISTIN QEOU as “faith of God” would have an ambiquitysimilar to the original, which in some cases is positive. But, tothe English speaking mind it would raise confusion. People would wantto know what kind of faith God has, what is God’s faith like, and otherquestions of that sort. All of which miss the point. As I said above,I think the focus should be on the kind of faith that we are to have.The best (popular) translation then is “have faith in God.” I personallywould like to see “have a Godward faith.”– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

PEIRAZO againKURIE ELEHSON ME

Mark 11:22 Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Wed Jul 14 18:16:20 EDT 1999

PEIRAZO againKURIE ELEHSON ME

[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Chet Creider creider at uwo.ca
Sun Feb 1 10:17:32 EST 2004

[] John 7:8 in UBS 4 apparatus [] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 In Volume 1 of _A Grammar of NT Greek_, pp. 134-5, Moulton discusses the aorist in EN SOI EUDOKHSA in Mk 1:11, etc. and characterizes it as being “at a time which is not defined” (cf. Rod Decker’s “temporally unrestricted aorist” — p. 98 in his _Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect_). He then also considers the possibility that it is, as the aorist often is in Sanskrit, the aorist of the immediate past. In the second volume, Howard repeats these possibilities but also points to a passage in Isaiah 42:1 where a Hebrew perfect of a stative verb is rendered in the LXX with an aorist. The form in the version of the LXX referred to by Howard is in fact EUDOKHSEN although this is not the form given in Rahlfs, which has PROSEDEXATO (Howard gives this form also indicating that it is in B — does this mean Vaticanus?). I would be very grateful if those on the list who know Hebrew and who are familiar with LXX scholarship would be so good as to indicate what the history of EUDOKHSEN in this verse in Isaiah is and also indicate what they think of Howard’s LXX-based explanation of the occurrence of the aorist in these NT passages.With thanks,Chet Creider

[] John 7:8 in UBS 4 apparatus [] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11

[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Chet Creider creider at uwo.ca
Sun Feb 1 10:17:32 EST 2004

[] John 7:8 in UBS 4 apparatus [] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11

[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Sun Feb 1 13:35:16 EST 2004

[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 [] New Student Question It seems to me a short circuit has occurred. If according to Howard Isa 42:1 has EUDOKHSEN he is not making reference to LXX Isa 42:1 (whether Rahlfs or Ziegler) but to the version of Isa 42:1-4 as we have it in Matthew 12:18-21. That version does indeed have EUDOKHSEN as well as many others variants from the OG text of Ziegler. If you have access to Ziegler, you will see that Matt 12 figures prominently in his apparatus criticus. According to Ziegler, however, EUDOKHSEN has no attestation in any textual witness for Isa 42:1. What is interesting about it is that Hebrew RCH is often translated by EUDOKEW in the LXX, though not in Isaiah. Hence Ziegler’s notation: (EIS) ON EUDOKHSEN Matth.: cf. M(T).As for temporal reference, I should think that in both versions of Isa 42:14 (Matt 12 and Ziegler) the verb is past, as one might in any case expect as a gloss for a Hebrew perfect (which is not to say that the Hebrew of Isa 42:1 must be past).AlOn Feb 1, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Chet Creider wrote:> In Volume 1 of _A Grammar of NT Greek_, pp. 134-5, Moulton discusses > the aorist in EN SOI EUDOKHSA in Mk 1:11, etc. and characterizes it as > being “at a time which is not defined” (cf. Rod Decker’s “temporally > unrestricted aorist” — p. 98 in his _Temporal Deixis of the Greek > Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect_). He then > also considers the possibility that it is, as the aorist often is in > Sanskrit, the aorist of the immediate past. In the second volume, > Howard repeats these possibilities but also points to a passage in > Isaiah 42:1 where a Hebrew perfect of a stative verb is rendered in > the LXX with an aorist. The form in the version of the LXX referred > to by Howard is in fact EUDOKHSEN although this is not the form given > in Rahlfs, which has PROSEDEXATO (Howard gives this form also > indicating that it is in B — does this mean Vaticanus?). I would be > very grateful if those on the list who know Hebrew and who are > familiar with LXX scholarship would be so good as to indicate what the > history of EUDOKHSEN in this verse in Isaiah is and also indicate what > they think of Howard’s LXX-based explanation of the occurrence of the > aorist in these NT passages.> > With thanks,> > Chet Creider> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —Albert PietersmaProfessor of Septuagint and Hellenistic GreekNear & Middle Eastern CivilizationsUniversity of TorontoHome: 21 Cross Street,Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.caHomepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm

[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11[] New Student Question

[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Sun Feb 1 13:35:16 EST 2004

[] LXX and Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11[] New Student Question

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 28 17:29:14 EDT 2008

[] Learning Greek with Chreia’s [] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? John 11:22 [ALLA] KAI NUN OIDA hOTI hOSA AN AITHSHi TON QEON DWSEI SOI hO QEOS.Why do we see hO QEOS, here rather than a personal pronoun? Does John have a problem with pronominal reference to QEOS? I didn’t find a lot of examples but check the following.John 4:24 PNEUMA hO QEOS, KAI TOUS PROSKUNOUNTAS AUTON EN PNEUMATI KAI ALHQEIAi DEI PROSKUNEIN. AUTON coreferential hO QEOSJohn 6:29 APEKRIQH h[O] IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTOIS: TOUTO ESTIN TO ERGON TOU QEOU, hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS.EKEINOS coreferential hO QEOSJohn 8:54 APEKRIQH IHSOUS: EAN EGW DOXASW EMAUTON, hH DOXA MOU OUDEN ESTIN: ESTIN hO PATHR MOU hO DOXAZWN ME, hON hUMEIS LEGETE hOTI QEOS hHMWN ESTIN,hON coreferential QEOS hHMWNJohn 11:22 [ALLA] KAI NUN OIDA hOTI hOSA AN AITHSHi TON QEON DWSEI SOI hO QEOS.Why do we see hO QEOS, here rather than a personal pronoun? Perhaps hO QEOS is in focus here, since clause final position is often used for focal constituents. The use of the full noun phrase where it isn’t expected would also indicate some sort of pragmatic marking. I don’t have the answer to this.Elizabeth Kline

[] Learning Greek with Chreia’s[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 28 17:41:49 EDT 2008

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? [] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? I wouldn’t read too much into it. QEOS isn’t the only reference which John repeats rather than using a pronoun. He seems to do the same with IHSOUS..John 1:42John 4:1John 4:50John 12:1John 13:23John 18:15John 19:9John 19:38John 20:14John 21:4. georgegfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________—– Original Message —-From: Elizabeth Kline <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 5:29:14 PMSubject: [] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?John 11:22 [ALLA] KAI NUN OIDA hOTI hOSA AN AITHSHi TON QEON DWSEI SOI hO QEOS.Why do we see hO QEOS, here rather than a personal pronoun? Does John have a problem with pronominal reference to QEOS? I didn’t find a lot of examples but check the following.John 4:24 PNEUMA hO QEOS, KAI TOUS PROSKUNOUNTAS AUTON EN PNEUMATI KAI ALHQEIAi DEI PROSKUNEIN. AUTON coreferential hO QEOSJohn 6:29 APEKRIQH h[O] IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTOIS: TOUTO ESTIN TO ERGON TOU QEOU, hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS.EKEINOS coreferential hO QEOSJohn 8:54 APEKRIQH IHSOUS: EAN EGW DOXASW EMAUTON, hH DOXA MOU OUDEN ESTIN: ESTIN hO PATHR MOU hO DOXAZWN ME, hON hUMEIS LEGETE hOTI QEOS hHMWN ESTIN,hON coreferential QEOS hHMWNJohn 11:22 [ALLA] KAI NUN OIDA hOTI hOSA AN AITHSHi TON QEON DWSEI SOI hO QEOS.Why do we see hO QEOS, here rather than a personal pronoun? Perhaps hO QEOS is in focus here, since clause final position is often used for focal constituents. The use of the full noun phrase where it isn’t expected would also indicate some sort of pragmatic marking. I don’t have the answer to this.Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? Steve Runge srunge at logos.com
Tue Jul 29 15:17:48 EDT 2008

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? [] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? Elizabeth,I found a comment in Robertson this morning regarding your question:”f) Repetition of the Substantive. Sometimes indeed the substantive is merely repeated instead of using the pronoun. Thus in Jo. 11:22 we have ??? ????-? ????. This is usually due to the fact that the mere pronoun would be ambiguous as in the use of ?????? in Jo. 4:1. Sometimes it may be for the sake of emphasis as in ? ???? ??? ???????? (Lu. 12:8) rather than ???. Sometimes antithesis is better sustained by the repetition of the substantive. Thus with ?????-?????? (Jo. 9:5), ???????-???????? (Ro. 5:12). But this is no peculiarity of Greek.”A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Logos, 1919; 2006), 684.IMO, I think there is some measure of thematic prominence that is added through what amounts to redundant use of hO QEOS. The use of a passive form of DIDWMI would have kept the thematic spotlight on Jesus as the asker, rather than on God as the giver. While the NP is not semantically required, I would say that its inclusion disambiguates where the thematic spotlight is placed. The ordering of the words is what I would consider default, it is the overencoding of the NP that gives it prominence. Levinsohn makes reference to overencoding is his “Discourse Features of NT Greek” (2000:135ff), however his discussion of overencoding primarily treats NPs narrative proper, not usage within speeches reported in the narrative. My research leads me to view this as a case of thematic prominence as opposed to focus. It highlights God’s role in the equation more than would have been achieved by using a null reference, but the fact that whatever Jesus asks of God IS GIVEN remains most important, IMO.Regards,Steven Runge, DLitt (Biblical Languages)Scholar-in-ResidenceLogos Research Systems, Inc.http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/runge —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth KlineSent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:29 PMTo: greek Subject: [] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?John 11:22 [ALLA] KAI NUN OIDA hOTI hOSA AN AITHSHi TON QEON DWSEI SOI hO QEOS.Why do we see hO QEOS, here rather than a personal pronoun? Does John have a problem with pronominal reference to QEOS? I didn’t find a lot of examples but check the following.John 4:24 PNEUMA hO QEOS, KAI TOUS PROSKUNOUNTAS AUTON EN PNEUMATI KAI ALHQEIAi DEI PROSKUNEIN. AUTON coreferential hO QEOSJohn 6:29 APEKRIQH h[O] IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTOIS: TOUTO ESTIN TO ERGON TOU QEOU, hINA PISTEUHTE EIS hON APESTEILEN EKEINOS.EKEINOS coreferential hO QEOSJohn 8:54 APEKRIQH IHSOUS: EAN EGW DOXASW EMAUTON, hH DOXA MOU OUDENESTIN: ESTIN hO PATHR MOU hO DOXAZWN ME, hON hUMEIS LEGETE hOTI QEOS hHMWN ESTIN,hON coreferential QEOS hHMWNJohn 11:22 [ALLA] KAI NUN OIDA hOTI hOSA AN AITHSHi TON QEON DWSEI SOI hO QEOS.Why do we see hO QEOS, here rather than a personal pronoun? Perhaps hO QEOS is in focus here, since clause final position is often used for focal constituents. The use of the full noun phrase where it isn’t expected would also indicate some sort of pragmatic marking. I don’t have the answer to this.Elizabeth Kline— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 29 15:33:40 EDT 2008

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? [] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? On Jul 29, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Steve Runge wrote:> IMO, I think there is some measure of thematic prominence that is > added through what amounts to redundant use of hO QEOS. The use of a > passive form of DIDWMI would have kept the thematic spotlight on > Jesus as the asker, rather than on God as the giver. While the NP is > not semantically required, I would say that its inclusion > disambiguates where the thematic spotlight is placed. The ordering > of the words is what I would consider default, it is the > overencoding of the NP that gives it prominence.> > Levinsohn makes reference to overencoding is his “Discourse Features > of NT Greek” (2000:135ff), however his discussion of overencoding > primarily treats NPs narrative proper, not usage within speeches > reported in the narrative. My research leads me to view this as a > case of thematic prominence as opposed to focus. It highlights God’s > role in the equation more than would have been achieved by using a > null reference, but the fact that whatever Jesus asks of God IS > GIVEN remains most important, IMO.Thank you Steve.One point that I didn’t mention in my reply to George. In the case of PATHR we find lots of examples where PATHR is ‘overencoded’ in Gosp.John but this isn’t the case with QEOS and with TO PNEUMA we find the opposite pattern, some sort of indirect reference is the norm for TO PNEUMA. Like I said before, I don’t think IHSOUS is relevant.Elizabeth Kline

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 29 15:23:03 EDT 2008

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking? [] differences Thank you George and also those who answered off list.On Jul 28, 2008, at 2:41 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> I wouldn’t read too much into it. QEOS isn’t the only reference > which John repeats rather than using a pronoun. He seems to do the > same with IHSOUS.> > .> > John 1:42> John 4:1> John 4:50> John 12:1> John 13:23> John 18:15> John 19:9> John 19:38> John 20:14> John 21:4> .> > > > george> gfsomselYes, I can see your point. I am not sure the comparison between IHSOUS and QEOS is very useful since IHSOUS is a narrative participant, with global VIP status and QEOS isn’t really a narrative participant. I did a search on PATHR to see if we find a similar pattern, Jn 4:23,6:57,10:15,10:38 are a few examplesJohn 4:23 ALLA ERCETAI hWRA KAI NUN ESTIN, hOTE hOI ALHQINOI PROSKUNHTAI PROSKUNHSOUSIN TWi PATRI EN PNEUMATI KAI ALHQEIAi: KAI GAR hO PATHR TOIOUTOUS ZHTEI TOUS PROSKUNOUNTAS AUTON.John 6:57 KAQWS APESTEILEN ME hO ZWN PATHR KAGW ZW DIA TON PATERA, KAI hO TRWGWN ME KAKEINOS ZHSEI DI EME.John 10:15 KAQWS GINWSKEI ME hO PATHR KAGW GINWSKW TON PATERA, KAI THN YUCHN MOU TIQHMI hUPER TWN PROBATWN.John 10:38 EI DE POIW, KAN EMOI MH PISTEUHTE, TOIS ERGOIS PISTEUETE, hINA GNWTE KAI GINWSKHTE hOTI EN EMOI hO PATHR KAGW EN TWi PATRI.However pronouns are used for PATHR inJohn 14:7 EI EGNWKATE ME, KAI TON PATERA MOU GNWSESQE. KAI AP ARTI GINWSKETE AUTON KAI hEWRAKATE AUTON.John 14:10 OU PISTEUEIS hOTI EGW EN TWi PATRI KAI hO PATHR EN EMOI ESTIN TA hRHMATA hA EGW LEGW hUMIN AP EMAUTOU OU LALW, hO DE PATHR EN EMOI MENWN POIEI TA ERGA AUTOU.On the other hand references to the Spirit are demonstrate a different pattern:John 14:16 KAGW ERWTHSW TON PATERA KAI ALLON PARAKLHTON DWSEI hUMIN, hINA MEQ hUMWN EIS TON AIWNA Hi, 17 TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS, hO hO KOSMOS OU DUNATAI LABEIN, hOTI OU QEWREI AUTO OUDE GINWSKEI: hUMEIS GINWSKETE AUTO, hOTI PAR hUMIN MENEI KAI EN hUMIN ESTAI.See also Jn 16:7-14John 16:7 ALL EGW THN ALHQEIAN LEGW hUMIN, SUMFEREI hUMIN hINA EGW APELQW. EAN GAR MH APELQW, hO PARAKLHTOS OUK ELEUSETAI PROS hUMAS: EAN DE POREUQW, PEMYW AUTON PROS hUMAS. 8 KAI ELQWN EKEINOS ELEGXEI TON KOSMON PERI hAMARTIAS KAI PERI DIKAIOSUNHS KAI PERI KRISEWS: 9 PERI hAMARTIAS MEN, hOTI OU PISTEUOUSIN EIS EME: 10 PERI DIKAIOSUNHS DE, hOTI PROS TON PATERA hUPAGW KAI OUKETI QEWREITE ME: 11 PERI DE KRISEWS, hOTI hO ARCWN TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU KEKRITAI. 12 ETI POLLA ECW hUMIN LEGEIN, ALL OU DUNASQE BASTAZEIN ARTI: 13 hOTAN DE ELQHi EKEINOS, TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS, hODHGHSEI hUMAS EN THi ALHQEIAi PASHi: OU GAR LALHSEI AF hEAUTOU, ALL hOSA AKOUSEI LALHSEI KAI TA ERCOMENA ANAGGELEI hUMIN. 14 EKEINOS EME DOXASEI, hOTI EK TOU EMOU LHMYETAI KAI ANAGGELEI hUMIN. 15 PANTA hOSA ECEI hO PATHR EMA ESTIN: DIA TOUTO EIPON hOTI EK TOU EMOU LAMBANEI KAI ANAGGELEI hUMIN.Elizabeth Kline

[] hO QEOS John 11:22 – pragmatic marking?[] differences

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon Aug 24 05:32:17 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:28 The word alone in Romans 3:28 B-greekers all,I’m having a little trouble reading EXETE as an imperative here, and Iwould appreciate a lttle feedback. My main difficulty is an imperativewould seem to start the flow of the sentence toward a dative QEW, whereasthe genetive QEOU seems to push the flow of the sentence back toward anindicative. “You have faith concerning/from God”. I know I don’t have thetechnical language to properly describe the difficulty, but I hope you getthe idea.—> <—- ————–>Have faith of God! shouldn’t it be EXETE PISTIN QEW<——————–You have faith of Godor perhaps as an inquiry,<——————–Have you faith of God?Maybe I’m reading too much into the directional qualities of the genitiveand dative cases, but it seems the genitive wants a more passive verb thanan imperative. If I’m making some obvious error, please be gentle (rememberI’m self-taught).Steve___________________________________Steve Longsteve at allegrographics.com___________________________________

The word alone in Romans 3:28The word alone in Romans 3:28

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Aug 29 22:56:53 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUGreek Lexicon of Secular Literature?

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon Aug 24 05:32:17 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:28The word alone in Romans 3:28

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 24 12:24:51 EDT 1998

1 Thessalonians 3:2The word only in Romans 3:28

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Aug 24 16:11:14 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:28EIS ZWHN AIWNION

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Mon Aug 24 17:04:43 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:281 Thessalonians 3:2
Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Mon Aug 24 18:50:15 EDT 1998

EIS ZWHN AIWNIONEIS ZWHN AIWNION

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Mon Aug 24 22:37:29 EDT 1998

The word alone in Romans 3:28Romans 1:5

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Tue Aug 25 00:35:45 EDT 1998

acc of respectMark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 25 09:31:52 EDT 1998

EIS ZWHN AIWNIONThe termination of Paul’s marriage? (Was: 1 Corinthians 7:27-28)

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com
Tue Aug 25 10:40:06 EDT 1998

Needed: address to subscribeMark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Tue Aug 25 04:51:31 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUacc of respect

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Aug 25 11:43:49 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUMark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU mail.access1.net lancelot at access1.net
Tue Aug 25 12:19:42 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUSignatures

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Wed Aug 26 11:52:30 EDT 1998

Matthew 19:11 “This saying”Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Aug 26 12:23:33 EDT 1998

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOUSignatures

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Thu Aug 27 12:30:41 EDT 1998

LAILAPSLAILAPS

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Aug 27 19:32:14 EDT 1998

RessurectionLAILAPS

Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU Paul F. Evans evans at wilmington.net
Sat Aug 29 22:16:18 EDT 1998

Greek Lexicon of Secular Literature?Mark 11:22 EXETE PISTIN QEOU

People who read this article also liked:

Leave a Reply