EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 12 13:52:57 EDT 1999
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 — “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:>At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,>Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrasein Phil. 4:7. I have one more question related to this passage. CouldEN XRISTWi IHSOU denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is itpossible tounderstand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “bymeans of Christ Jesus”?<>I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we haveother instances of EN + dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense?And I assume you’re aware ofone fairly widespread view that the phrase meanssomething like ‘incorporated into the body of Christ.'<Dear Carl,What about Matt. 12:24; 2 Cor. 5:19? These seem to qualify as instancesof EN + the dative of a person in an instrumental sense. And yes, I am aware of the view that Paul is here speaking of being “InChrist” (the body of Christ). Both Ralph Martin and Gerald Hawthornefavor this interpretation. Ralph Earle simply writes that we must be”in Christ” to experience hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU. He totally rules out ENhaving an instrumental sense here.Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 12 13:52:57 EDT 1999
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 — “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:>At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,>Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrasein Phil. 4:7. I have one more question related to this passage. CouldEN XRISTWi IHSOU denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is itpossible tounderstand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “bymeans of Christ Jesus”?<>I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we haveother instances of EN + dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense?And I assume you’re aware ofone fairly widespread view that the phrase meanssomething like ‘incorporated into the body of Christ.'<Dear Carl,What about Matt. 12:24; 2 Cor. 5:19? These seem to qualify as instancesof EN + the dative of a person in an instrumental sense. And yes, I am aware of the view that Paul is here speaking of being “InChrist” (the body of Christ). Both Ralph Martin and Gerald Hawthornefavor this interpretation. Ralph Earle simply writes that we must be”in Christ” to experience hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU. He totally rules out ENhaving an instrumental sense here.Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 12 15:10:47 EDT 1999
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Research Ideas At 10:52 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >>At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >>Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase>in Phil. 4:7. I have one more question related to this passage. Could>EN XRISTWi IHSOU denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it>possible to>understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by>means of Christ Jesus”?<> >>I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we have>other instances of EN + dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense?>And I assume you’re aware of>one fairly widespread view that the phrase means>something like ‘incorporated into the body of Christ.'<> >Dear Carl,> >What about Matt. 12:24; 2 Cor. 5:19? These seem to qualify as instances>of EN + the dative of a person in an instrumental sense.These are indeed helpful examples; both do emphasize the power involved,and I can see how that might be argued also in Phil 4:7>And yes, I am aware of the view that Paul is here speaking of being “In>Christ” (the body of Christ). Both Ralph Martin and Gerald Hawthorne>favor this interpretation. Ralph Earle simply writes that we must be>“in Christ” to experience hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU. He totally rules out EN>having an instrumental sense here.Good enough. I thought you probably were aware of that view.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7Research Ideas
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Jefferson, Robert C. X2JEFFER at southernco.com
Mon Jul 12 15:56:27 EDT 1999
Research Ideas Revelation 13.15-17 is it always in Paul a dative of sphere showing incorporation?> —–Original Message—–> From:Carl W. Conrad [SMTP:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent:Monday, July 12, 1999 1:14 PM> To:Biblical Greek> Cc:Biblical Greek> Subject:Re: EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7> > At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:> >Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >> >Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I> >have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU> >denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to> >understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ> >Jesus”?> > I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we have other instances of EN +> dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense? And I assume you’re aware of> one fairly widespread view that the phrase means something like> ‘incorporated into the body of Christ.’> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: x2jeffer at southernco.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Research IdeasRevelation 13.15-17
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 12 15:10:47 EDT 1999
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Research Ideas At 10:52 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >>At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >>Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase>in Phil. 4:7. I have one more question related to this passage. Could>EN XRISTWi IHSOU denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it>possible to>understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by>means of Christ Jesus”?<> >>I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we have>other instances of EN + dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense?>And I assume you’re aware of>one fairly widespread view that the phrase means>something like ‘incorporated into the body of Christ.'<> >Dear Carl,> >What about Matt. 12:24; 2 Cor. 5:19? These seem to qualify as instances>of EN + the dative of a person in an instrumental sense.These are indeed helpful examples; both do emphasize the power involved,and I can see how that might be argued also in Phil 4:7>And yes, I am aware of the view that Paul is here speaking of being “In>Christ” (the body of Christ). Both Ralph Martin and Gerald Hawthorne>favor this interpretation. Ralph Earle simply writes that we must be>“in Christ” to experience hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU. He totally rules out EN>having an instrumental sense here.Good enough. I thought you probably were aware of that view.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7Research Ideas
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Jefferson, Robert C. X2JEFFER at southernco.com
Mon Jul 12 15:56:27 EDT 1999
Research Ideas Revelation 13.15-17 is it always in Paul a dative of sphere showing incorporation?> —–Original Message—–> From:Carl W. Conrad [SMTP:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent:Monday, July 12, 1999 1:14 PM> To:Biblical Greek> Cc:Biblical Greek> Subject:Re: EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7> > At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:> >Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >> >Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I> >have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU> >denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to> >understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ> >Jesus”?> > I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we have other instances of EN +> dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense? And I assume you’re aware of> one fairly widespread view that the phrase means something like> ‘incorporated into the body of Christ.’> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University> Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: x2jeffer at southernco.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Research IdeasRevelation 13.15-17
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Mon Jul 12 21:09:43 EDT 1999
Revelation 13.15-17 Hendiadys Edgar Foster said:> Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I> have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU> denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to> understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ> Jesus”?Could the dative be taken as pure dative? To quote Robertson,”Whenever the dative is used, the root idea is that of advantage ordisadvantage.” (Short grammar) If we then take EN to intensify the caserelationship, the meaning of EN XRISTWi becomes something like “in (or to)the benefit of Christ.” A translation similar to “the peace of God…willguard our hearts and our thoughts to the benefit of Christ” would follow.Edgar Foster cited Matt. 12:24 and 2 Cor. 5:19 as possible examples of ENwith the instrumental case. If we take those datives to be as I’ve saidabove, then we have the Pharisees accusing Jesus of casting out demons tothe benefit of Beelzebub–that seems to fit. And, in the other verse,we have God reconciling the world to Himself for the benefit of Christ.I like that, too. Especially since Paul goes on to say hUPER XRISTOU inthe very next verse, which readily has a similar meaning–“on behalf of”.In my rather unknowledable opinion, hUPER XRISTOU follows verylogically after QEOS HN EN XRISTWi KOSMON KATALLASSWN.One last example, since I’m currently studying I John. Verse 1:10– EAN EIPWMEN hOTI OUX hHMARTHKAMEN,…hO LOGOS OUK ESTIN EN hHMIN.hO LOGOS possibly referring back to what John is talking about in 1:1-2.In short, if we refuse to acknowledge our sinfulness, the message of eternallife will not benefit us. Now here is rather basic Christianity.Some EN XRISTOU phrases would be EN with the Locative Dative; but, Iwonder (as I wander through Greek), how many should be taken as puredative?EN XRISTOU,– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Revelation 13.15-17Hendiadys
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Mon Jul 12 21:09:43 EDT 1999
Revelation 13.15-17 Hendiadys Edgar Foster said:> Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I> have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU> denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to> understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ> Jesus”?Could the dative be taken as pure dative? To quote Robertson,”Whenever the dative is used, the root idea is that of advantage ordisadvantage.” (Short grammar) If we then take EN to intensify the caserelationship, the meaning of EN XRISTWi becomes something like “in (or to)the benefit of Christ.” A translation similar to “the peace of God…willguard our hearts and our thoughts to the benefit of Christ” would follow.Edgar Foster cited Matt. 12:24 and 2 Cor. 5:19 as possible examples of ENwith the instrumental case. If we take those datives to be as I’ve saidabove, then we have the Pharisees accusing Jesus of casting out demons tothe benefit of Beelzebub–that seems to fit. And, in the other verse,we have God reconciling the world to Himself for the benefit of Christ.I like that, too. Especially since Paul goes on to say hUPER XRISTOU inthe very next verse, which readily has a similar meaning–“on behalf of”.In my rather unknowledable opinion, hUPER XRISTOU follows verylogically after QEOS HN EN XRISTWi KOSMON KATALLASSWN.One last example, since I’m currently studying I John. Verse 1:10– EAN EIPWMEN hOTI OUX hHMARTHKAMEN,…hO LOGOS OUK ESTIN EN hHMIN.hO LOGOS possibly referring back to what John is talking about in 1:1-2.In short, if we refuse to acknowledge our sinfulness, the message of eternallife will not benefit us. Now here is rather basic Christianity.Some EN XRISTOU phrases would be EN with the Locative Dative; but, Iwonder (as I wander through Greek), how many should be taken as puredative?EN XRISTOU,– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Revelation 13.15-17Hendiadys
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 13 07:13:34 EDT 1999
Romans 15.18-19 Revelation 13.15-17 At 9:09 PM -0400 7/12/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>Edgar Foster said:>> Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,>> Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I>> have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU>> denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to>> understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ>> Jesus”?> >Could the dative be taken as pure dative? To quote Robertson,>“Whenever the dative is used, the root idea is that of advantage or>disadvantage.” (Short grammar) If we then take EN to intensify the case>relationship, the meaning of EN XRISTWi becomes something like “in (or to)>the benefit of Christ.” A translation similar to “the peace of God…will>guard our hearts and our thoughts to the benefit of Christ” would follow.My objection to this is that I don’t believe there are any real instancesof a pure dative used with EN. I think rather that EN was originally usedonly with a locative dative to indicate stationary position in space ortime and then was extended to use with an instrumental dative: I’ve seeninstances of EN with instrumental dative even in classical Attic, but it ismuch more common in Koine, and I suspect that translating Hebrewprepositional phrases with B’ contributes to extension of the usagel>Edgar Foster cited Matt. 12:24 and 2 Cor. 5:19 as possible examples of EN>with the instrumental case. If we take those datives to be as I’ve said>above, then we have the Pharisees accusing Jesus of casting out demons to>the benefit of Beelzebub–that seems to fit. And, in the other verse,>we have God reconciling the world to Himself for the benefit of Christ.>I like that, too. Especially since Paul goes on to say hUPER XRISTOU in>the very next verse, which readily has a similar meaning–“on behalf of”.>In my rather unknowledable opinion, hUPER XRISTOU follows very>logically after QEOS HN EN XRISTWi KOSMON KATALLASSWN.Personally I accept Edgar’s examples of Mt 12:24 and 2 Cor 5:19 aslegitimate instrumentals with EN–and as I said above, I’m really verydubious about EN being used with a pure dative. I think the sense of EN TWiBEELZEBUL ARCONTI TWN DAIMONIWN in Mt 12:24 is “by the power of Beelzebulruler of demons,” and in 2 Cor 5:19 I think the sense of EN CRISTWi MAY be”through Christ” although “in Christ as his agent” might be a better way toexpress the instrumental notion which I agree with Edgar is actually there(I don’t really think we can call this a locative usage).>One last example, since I’m currently studying I John. Verse 1:10>— EAN EIPWMEN hOTI OUX hHMARTHKAMEN,…hO LOGOS OUK ESTIN EN hHMIN.>hO LOGOS possibly referring back to what John is talking about in 1:1-2.>In short, if we refuse to acknowledge our sinfulness, the message of eternal>life will not benefit us. Now here is rather basic Christianity.I don’t think EN hHMIN is pure dative at all but rather an instance of thelocative: “the Logos does not reside within us.”Christian Naaktgeboren has shared with me off-list a couple other examplesof probable instrumental datives with EN:> John 3.21: O DE POIWN THN ALHQEIAN ERCETAI PROS TO FWS INA>FANERWQH AUTOU TA>ERGA OTI EN QEW ESTIN EIRGASMENA.> 1 John 5.20: … KAI ESMEN EN TW ALHQINW EN TW UIW AUTOU IHSOU>XRISTW OUTOS>ESTIN O ALHQINOS QEOS KAI ZWH AIWNIOS.> And if we admit that PONEROS is a person:> 1 John 5.19: OIDAMEN OTI EK TOU QEOU ESMEN KAI O KOSMOS OLOS EN TW>PONHRW>KEITAI.Of these I think that John 3:21 is a legitimate EN + instrumental dativeusage: it can’t really be locative but must have the sense “through God’spower.” On the other hand I think that 1 John 5:10 and 5:19 are locativedatives:(a) 1 John 5:20 ESMEN EN TWi hUIWi AUTOU IHSOU CRISTWi “we exist in his sonJesus Christ, where I think the verb ESMEN is used much as the Johanninediction regularly uses MENW, “abide,” “live,” “reside.”(b) 1 John 5:19 hO KOSMOS hOLOS EN TWi PONHRWi KEITAI “the whole world issituated in the Evil One” = “resides within the power of.” And even if thepower of the Evil One is referred to here, I still think the usage isclearly locative.>Some EN XRISTOU phrases would be EN with the Locative Dative; but, I>wonder (as I wander through Greek), how many should be taken as pure>dative?Again, I would respectfully say I really doubt that there are any instancesof EN used with a pure dative.And finally, I would reiterate with regard to Edgar’s original questionregarding whether EN CRISTWi IHSOU in Phil 4:7 could be understood in aninstrumental sense, as the MEANS whereby the peace of God is tokeep/preserve believers. I grant now that I accept this as a legitimatepossible interpretation, although I continue to prefer personally tounderstand EN CRISTWi IHSOU in this instance in what I believe is the morecommon Pauline (locative) sense: “in corporate union with Christ.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Romans 15.18-19Revelation 13.15-17
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 13 07:13:34 EDT 1999
Romans 15.18-19 Revelation 13.15-17 At 9:09 PM -0400 7/12/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>Edgar Foster said:>> Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,>> Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I>> have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU>> denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to>> understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ>> Jesus”?> >Could the dative be taken as pure dative? To quote Robertson,>“Whenever the dative is used, the root idea is that of advantage or>disadvantage.” (Short grammar) If we then take EN to intensify the case>relationship, the meaning of EN XRISTWi becomes something like “in (or to)>the benefit of Christ.” A translation similar to “the peace of God…will>guard our hearts and our thoughts to the benefit of Christ” would follow.My objection to this is that I don’t believe there are any real instancesof a pure dative used with EN. I think rather that EN was originally usedonly with a locative dative to indicate stationary position in space ortime and then was extended to use with an instrumental dative: I’ve seeninstances of EN with instrumental dative even in classical Attic, but it ismuch more common in Koine, and I suspect that translating Hebrewprepositional phrases with B’ contributes to extension of the usagel>Edgar Foster cited Matt. 12:24 and 2 Cor. 5:19 as possible examples of EN>with the instrumental case. If we take those datives to be as I’ve said>above, then we have the Pharisees accusing Jesus of casting out demons to>the benefit of Beelzebub–that seems to fit. And, in the other verse,>we have God reconciling the world to Himself for the benefit of Christ.>I like that, too. Especially since Paul goes on to say hUPER XRISTOU in>the very next verse, which readily has a similar meaning–“on behalf of”.>In my rather unknowledable opinion, hUPER XRISTOU follows very>logically after QEOS HN EN XRISTWi KOSMON KATALLASSWN.Personally I accept Edgar’s examples of Mt 12:24 and 2 Cor 5:19 aslegitimate instrumentals with EN–and as I said above, I’m really verydubious about EN being used with a pure dative. I think the sense of EN TWiBEELZEBUL ARCONTI TWN DAIMONIWN in Mt 12:24 is “by the power of Beelzebulruler of demons,” and in 2 Cor 5:19 I think the sense of EN CRISTWi MAY be”through Christ” although “in Christ as his agent” might be a better way toexpress the instrumental notion which I agree with Edgar is actually there(I don’t really think we can call this a locative usage).>One last example, since I’m currently studying I John. Verse 1:10>— EAN EIPWMEN hOTI OUX hHMARTHKAMEN,…hO LOGOS OUK ESTIN EN hHMIN.>hO LOGOS possibly referring back to what John is talking about in 1:1-2.>In short, if we refuse to acknowledge our sinfulness, the message of eternal>life will not benefit us. Now here is rather basic Christianity.I don’t think EN hHMIN is pure dative at all but rather an instance of thelocative: “the Logos does not reside within us.”Christian Naaktgeboren has shared with me off-list a couple other examplesof probable instrumental datives with EN:> John 3.21: O DE POIWN THN ALHQEIAN ERCETAI PROS TO FWS INA>FANERWQH AUTOU TA>ERGA OTI EN QEW ESTIN EIRGASMENA.> 1 John 5.20: … KAI ESMEN EN TW ALHQINW EN TW UIW AUTOU IHSOU>XRISTW OUTOS>ESTIN O ALHQINOS QEOS KAI ZWH AIWNIOS.> And if we admit that PONEROS is a person:> 1 John 5.19: OIDAMEN OTI EK TOU QEOU ESMEN KAI O KOSMOS OLOS EN TW>PONHRW>KEITAI.Of these I think that John 3:21 is a legitimate EN + instrumental dativeusage: it can’t really be locative but must have the sense “through God’spower.” On the other hand I think that 1 John 5:10 and 5:19 are locativedatives:(a) 1 John 5:20 ESMEN EN TWi hUIWi AUTOU IHSOU CRISTWi “we exist in his sonJesus Christ, where I think the verb ESMEN is used much as the Johanninediction regularly uses MENW, “abide,” “live,” “reside.”(b) 1 John 5:19 hO KOSMOS hOLOS EN TWi PONHRWi KEITAI “the whole world issituated in the Evil One” = “resides within the power of.” And even if thepower of the Evil One is referred to here, I still think the usage isclearly locative.>Some EN XRISTOU phrases would be EN with the Locative Dative; but, I>wonder (as I wander through Greek), how many should be taken as pure>dative?Again, I would respectfully say I really doubt that there are any instancesof EN used with a pure dative.And finally, I would reiterate with regard to Edgar’s original questionregarding whether EN CRISTWi IHSOU in Phil 4:7 could be understood in aninstrumental sense, as the MEANS whereby the peace of God is tokeep/preserve believers. I grant now that I accept this as a legitimatepossible interpretation, although I continue to prefer personally tounderstand EN CRISTWi IHSOU in this instance in what I believe is the morecommon Pauline (locative) sense: “in corporate union with Christ.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Romans 15.18-19Revelation 13.15-17
[Fwd: EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7] Christian Naaktgeboren naak at rle.nupes.cefetpr.br
Tue Jul 13 18:13:21 EDT 1999
Logos/Dao-Cindy Smith digest: July 12, 1999 Oh! I’m sorry. It wasn’t my intention to send this message off list. CARIS UMIN!–____________________________________________________________Christian Naaktgeborennaak at rle.nupes.cefetpr.brchisnaak at yahoo.comhttp://rle.nupes.cefetpr.br/~naak0055 41 376-9185 ext. 4778″Sabemos que o Filho de Deus já veio e nos deu entendimentopara conhecermos o Verdadeiro, e estamos no Verdadeiro, emseu Filho Jesus Cristo: este é o Verdadeiro Deus e VidaEterna” 1 João 5.20————– next part ————–An embedded message was scrubbed…From: Christian Naaktgeboren <naak at rle.nupes.cefetpr.br>Subject: Re: EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:29:49 -0300Size: 3381Url: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990713/62024e00/attachment.mht
Logos/Dao-Cindy Smith digest: July 12, 1999
[Fwd: EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7] Christian Naaktgeboren naak at rle.nupes.cefetpr.br
Tue Jul 13 18:13:21 EDT 1999
Logos/Dao-Cindy Smith digest: July 12, 1999 Oh! I’m sorry. It wasn’t my intention to send this message off list. CARIS UMIN!–____________________________________________________________Christian Naaktgeborennaak at rle.nupes.cefetpr.brchisnaak at yahoo.comhttp://rle.nupes.cefetpr.br/~naak0055 41 376-9185 ext. 4778″Sabemos que o Filho de Deus já veio e nos deu entendimentopara conhecermos o Verdadeiro, e estamos no Verdadeiro, emseu Filho Jesus Cristo: este é o Verdadeiro Deus e VidaEterna” 1 João 5.20————– next part ————–An embedded message was scrubbed…From: Christian Naaktgeboren <naak at rle.nupes.cefetpr.br>Subject: Re: EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:29:49 -0300Size: 3381Url: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990713/62024e00/attachment.mht
Logos/Dao-Cindy Smith digest: July 12, 1999
Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 9 22:31:04 EDT 1999
Revelation and Tabernacles Phil. 4:7 Dear ers,How would you construe the phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU in Phil. 4:7? Doyou consider it to be a subjective genitive, an objective genitive, ora descriptive genitive?Thanks,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Revelation and TabernaclesPhil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 9 22:31:04 EDT 1999
Revelation and Tabernacles Phil. 4:7 Dear ers,How would you construe the phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU in Phil. 4:7? Doyou consider it to be a subjective genitive, an objective genitive, ora descriptive genitive?Thanks,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Revelation and TabernaclesPhil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Fri Jul 9 22:49:02 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 TLG Lookup At 07:31 PM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >How would you construe the phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU in Phil. 4:7? Do>you consider it to be a subjective genitive, an objective genitive, or>a descriptive genitive?Here, as in many places where the genitive is used, I think the ambiguity ispurposeful. I think Paul is speaking both of the peace which comes from Godand the peace which God has within himself. Its not, then, a case ofeither/or but rather both/and.best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Phil. 4:7TLG Lookup
Phil. 4:7 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Fri Jul 9 22:49:02 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 TLG Lookup At 07:31 PM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >How would you construe the phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU in Phil. 4:7? Do>you consider it to be a subjective genitive, an objective genitive, or>a descriptive genitive?Here, as in many places where the genitive is used, I think the ambiguity ispurposeful. I think Paul is speaking both of the peace which comes from Godand the peace which God has within himself. Its not, then, a case ofeither/or but rather both/and.best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Phil. 4:7TLG Lookup
Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 10 05:48:58 EDT 1999
TLG Lookup AUTOU in Matt 8:5 At 10:49 PM -0400 7/9/99, Jim West wrote:>At 07:31 PM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:>>Dear ers,>> >>How would you construe the phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU in Phil. 4:7? Do>>you consider it to be a subjective genitive, an objective genitive, or>>a descriptive genitive?> >Here, as in many places where the genitive is used, I think the ambiguity is>purposeful. I think Paul is speaking both of the peace which comes from God>and the peace which God has within himself. Its not, then, a case of>either/or but rather both/and.Without disagreeing specifically with what Jim suggests by way ofinterpretation, I would note that EIRHNH is hardly a verbal noun, and weordinarily apply the subjective/objective distinction of genitives (whichis an interpretive category in any case, and not a semantic distinction inthe morphology) only to nouns representing a verbal conception.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
TLG LookupAUTOU in Matt 8:5
Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 10 05:48:58 EDT 1999
TLG Lookup AUTOU in Matt 8:5 At 10:49 PM -0400 7/9/99, Jim West wrote:>At 07:31 PM 7/9/99 -0700, you wrote:>>Dear ers,>> >>How would you construe the phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU in Phil. 4:7? Do>>you consider it to be a subjective genitive, an objective genitive, or>>a descriptive genitive?> >Here, as in many places where the genitive is used, I think the ambiguity is>purposeful. I think Paul is speaking both of the peace which comes from God>and the peace which God has within himself. Its not, then, a case of>either/or but rather both/and.Without disagreeing specifically with what Jim suggests by way ofinterpretation, I would note that EIRHNH is hardly a verbal noun, and weordinarily apply the subjective/objective distinction of genitives (whichis an interpretive category in any case, and not a semantic distinction inthe morphology) only to nouns representing a verbal conception.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
TLG LookupAUTOU in Matt 8:5
Phil. 4:7 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sat Jul 10 21:56:14 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster asked;>— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >>Without disagreeing specifically with what Jim suggests by way of>interpretation, I would note that EIRHNH is hardly a verbal noun, and>we ordinarily apply the subjective/objective distinction of genitives>(which is an interpretive category in any case, and not a semantic>distinction in the morphology) only to nouns representing a verbal>conception.<I agree with Carl’s answer. The key to a obj/subj genitive is that itmodifies a noun of action. Most nouns of action also have cognate verbs.>To clarify what you state above, I want to put forth a few points for>your consideration.> >(1) Normally, I have viewed hH EIRHNH in Phil. 4:7 as something that>God gives (not something that is descriptive of His Being). The deep>structure of this verse seems to be “The peace that God gives will>guard your hearts and minds.” I think this interpretation fits in with>the overall context of the passage. Would not hUPEREXOUSA indicate that>EIRHNH is verbal in 4:7?No. The fact that you can “peace” exceeds something does not make it a nounof action anymore than saying that “peace” reigns (Col. 3:15) does. Wouldsaying a king reigns make the word king a noun of action? no. The action isindicated by the verb in this case not the noun.Concerning the “peace of God”, if you understand this to be the “peace thatGod Gives” then God in the genitive would be a genitive (ablative) ofsource in the sense of the peace from God. Peace however is not a noun ofaction.>(2) In his exegetical grammar that I have recently been studying,>Richard Young writes that hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU is a subjective genitive,>meaning “God gives peace.” He also cites Rom. 16:25 as an example of a>subjective genitive: KATA TO EUAGGELION MOU. He suggests that “the>genitive MOU is the subject of the verbal idea in EUAGGELION.” Should>we view EUAGGELION as a verbal noun in Rom. 16:25?Again if Paul is thinking of peace from God, then you have source not thegenitive with a noun of action.EUAGGELION could be a noun of action.>(3) Regarding verbal nouns, Young says that “Discerning what should be>considered verbal nouns in a particular text is not simple.” He then>discusses endings which indicate whether a noun should be viewed as>verbal (-SIS, -MOS, -THS, THR, -TWR) as well as the words built on>verbal stems. Could EIRHNH fit into one of these categories?Many of the verbs refered to by the endings above also have verbs built onthe same stem. Those would be nouns of action.>(4) How would you understand EIRHNH in Col. 3:15? Does it have a verbal>force in this passage?> As the subject of the imperative verb BRABEUETW. Again the action isindicated by the verb, not the noun.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off
Phil. 4:7Phil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 10 18:51:47 EDT 1999
Pronouns Homer to Koine Phil. 4:7 — “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:>Without disagreeing specifically with what Jim suggests by way ofinterpretation, I would note that EIRHNH is hardly a verbal noun, andwe ordinarily apply the subjective/objective distinction of genitives(which is an interpretive category in any case, and not a semanticdistinction in the morphology) only to nouns representing a verbalconception.<To clarify what you state above, I want to put forth a few points foryour consideration. (1) Normally, I have viewed hH EIRHNH in Phil. 4:7 as something thatGod gives (not something that is descriptive of His Being). The deepstructure of this verse seems to be “The peace that God gives willguard your hearts and minds.” I think this interpretation fits in withthe overall context of the passage. Would not hUPEREXOUSA indicate thatEIRHNH is verbal in 4:7?(2) In his exegetical grammar that I have recently been studying,Richard Young writes that hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU is a subjective genitive,meaning “God gives peace.” He also cites Rom. 16:25 as an example of asubjective genitive: KATA TO EUAGGELION MOU. He suggests that “thegenitive MOU is the subject of the verbal idea in EUAGGELION.” Shouldwe view EUAGGELION as a verbal noun in Rom. 16:25?(3) Regarding verbal nouns, Young says that “Discerning what should beconsidered verbal nouns in a particular text is not simple.” He thendiscusses endings which indicate whether a noun should be viewed asverbal (-SIS, -MOS, -THS, THR, -TWR) as well as the words built onverbal stems. Could EIRHNH fit into one of these categories?(4) How would you understand EIRHNH in Col. 3:15? Does it have a verbalforce in this passage?Thanks,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Pronouns Homer to KoinePhil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sat Jul 10 21:56:14 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster asked;>— “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:> >>Without disagreeing specifically with what Jim suggests by way of>interpretation, I would note that EIRHNH is hardly a verbal noun, and>we ordinarily apply the subjective/objective distinction of genitives>(which is an interpretive category in any case, and not a semantic>distinction in the morphology) only to nouns representing a verbal>conception.<I agree with Carl’s answer. The key to a obj/subj genitive is that itmodifies a noun of action. Most nouns of action also have cognate verbs.>To clarify what you state above, I want to put forth a few points for>your consideration.> >(1) Normally, I have viewed hH EIRHNH in Phil. 4:7 as something that>God gives (not something that is descriptive of His Being). The deep>structure of this verse seems to be “The peace that God gives will>guard your hearts and minds.” I think this interpretation fits in with>the overall context of the passage. Would not hUPEREXOUSA indicate that>EIRHNH is verbal in 4:7?No. The fact that you can “peace” exceeds something does not make it a nounof action anymore than saying that “peace” reigns (Col. 3:15) does. Wouldsaying a king reigns make the word king a noun of action? no. The action isindicated by the verb in this case not the noun.Concerning the “peace of God”, if you understand this to be the “peace thatGod Gives” then God in the genitive would be a genitive (ablative) ofsource in the sense of the peace from God. Peace however is not a noun ofaction.>(2) In his exegetical grammar that I have recently been studying,>Richard Young writes that hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU is a subjective genitive,>meaning “God gives peace.” He also cites Rom. 16:25 as an example of a>subjective genitive: KATA TO EUAGGELION MOU. He suggests that “the>genitive MOU is the subject of the verbal idea in EUAGGELION.” Should>we view EUAGGELION as a verbal noun in Rom. 16:25?Again if Paul is thinking of peace from God, then you have source not thegenitive with a noun of action.EUAGGELION could be a noun of action.>(3) Regarding verbal nouns, Young says that “Discerning what should be>considered verbal nouns in a particular text is not simple.” He then>discusses endings which indicate whether a noun should be viewed as>verbal (-SIS, -MOS, -THS, THR, -TWR) as well as the words built on>verbal stems. Could EIRHNH fit into one of these categories?Many of the verbs refered to by the endings above also have verbs built onthe same stem. Those would be nouns of action.>(4) How would you understand EIRHNH in Col. 3:15? Does it have a verbal>force in this passage?> As the subject of the imperative verb BRABEUETW. Again the action isindicated by the verb, not the noun.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off
Phil. 4:7Phil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 10 18:51:47 EDT 1999
Pronouns Homer to Koine Phil. 4:7 — “Carl W. Conrad” <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:>Without disagreeing specifically with what Jim suggests by way ofinterpretation, I would note that EIRHNH is hardly a verbal noun, andwe ordinarily apply the subjective/objective distinction of genitives(which is an interpretive category in any case, and not a semanticdistinction in the morphology) only to nouns representing a verbalconception.<To clarify what you state above, I want to put forth a few points foryour consideration. (1) Normally, I have viewed hH EIRHNH in Phil. 4:7 as something thatGod gives (not something that is descriptive of His Being). The deepstructure of this verse seems to be “The peace that God gives willguard your hearts and minds.” I think this interpretation fits in withthe overall context of the passage. Would not hUPEREXOUSA indicate thatEIRHNH is verbal in 4:7?(2) In his exegetical grammar that I have recently been studying,Richard Young writes that hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU is a subjective genitive,meaning “God gives peace.” He also cites Rom. 16:25 as an example of asubjective genitive: KATA TO EUAGGELION MOU. He suggests that “thegenitive MOU is the subject of the verbal idea in EUAGGELION.” Shouldwe view EUAGGELION as a verbal noun in Rom. 16:25?(3) Regarding verbal nouns, Young says that “Discerning what should beconsidered verbal nouns in a particular text is not simple.” He thendiscusses endings which indicate whether a noun should be viewed asverbal (-SIS, -MOS, -THS, THR, -TWR) as well as the words built onverbal stems. Could EIRHNH fit into one of these categories?(4) How would you understand EIRHNH in Col. 3:15? Does it have a verbalforce in this passage?Thanks,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Pronouns Homer to KoinePhil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 10 22:42:30 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 Phil. 4:7 — Carlton Winbery <winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net> wrote:>I agree with Carl’s answer. The key to a obj/subjgenitive is that it modifies a noun of action. Most nouns of actionalso have cognate verbs.< >Concerning the “peace of God”, if you understandthis to be the “peace that God Gives” then God in the genitive would bea genitive (ablative) ofsource in the sense of the peace from God. Peacehowever is not a noun of action.<Carlton,Your point is well taken and I have no disagreement with you or Carlabout subjective/objective genitives needing verbal nouns. Where I’mconfused is that Carl’s comment implied that since EIRHNH was not averbal noun in Phil. 4:7, then it is not meaningful to speak of thephrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU as a subjective or an objective genitive.Maybe I misunderstood his comment, but that’s what I derived from it.Carl’s observation led me to question how we determine whether or nota noun is verbal. It also made me wonder why some grammarians describeit the phrase as objective/subjective if there is no verbal noun in thepassage.Secondly, where you the verbal noun be in Mark 2:26?TOUS ARTOUS THS PROQESEWS EFAGENYoung says that PROQESEWS is the verbal noun denoting the action of thepriest in this verse.I appreciate your input,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Phil. 4:7Phil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 10 22:42:30 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 Phil. 4:7 — Carlton Winbery <winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net> wrote:>I agree with Carl’s answer. The key to a obj/subjgenitive is that it modifies a noun of action. Most nouns of actionalso have cognate verbs.< >Concerning the “peace of God”, if you understandthis to be the “peace that God Gives” then God in the genitive would bea genitive (ablative) ofsource in the sense of the peace from God. Peacehowever is not a noun of action.<Carlton,Your point is well taken and I have no disagreement with you or Carlabout subjective/objective genitives needing verbal nouns. Where I’mconfused is that Carl’s comment implied that since EIRHNH was not averbal noun in Phil. 4:7, then it is not meaningful to speak of thephrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU as a subjective or an objective genitive.Maybe I misunderstood his comment, but that’s what I derived from it.Carl’s observation led me to question how we determine whether or nota noun is verbal. It also made me wonder why some grammarians describeit the phrase as objective/subjective if there is no verbal noun in thepassage.Secondly, where you the verbal noun be in Mark 2:26?TOUS ARTOUS THS PROQESEWS EFAGENYoung says that PROQESEWS is the verbal noun denoting the action of thepriest in this verse.I appreciate your input,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Phil. 4:7Phil. 4:7
Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 11 06:43:31 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 Pronouns Homer to Koine I appreciate and agree wholly with what Carlton has said on this subject.And since I am evidently the source of confusion on the matter, let me seeif I can do something to clear that confusion up.At 7:42 PM -0700 7/10/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>— Carlton Winbery <winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net> wrote:> >>I agree with Carl’s answer. The key to a obj/subj>genitive is that it modifies a noun of action. Most nouns of action>also have cognate verbs.<> >>Concerning the “peace of God”, if you understand>this to be the “peace that God Gives” then God in the genitive would be>a genitive (ablative) of>source in the sense of the peace from God. Peace>however is not a noun of action.<> >Carlton,> >Your point is well taken and I have no disagreement with you or Carl>about subjective/objective genitives needing verbal nouns. Where I’m>confused is that Carl’s comment implied that since EIRHNH was not a>verbal noun in Phil. 4:7, then it is not meaningful to speak of the>phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU as a subjective or an objective genitive.>Maybe I misunderstood his comment, but that’s what I derived from it.>Carl’s observation led me to question how we determine whether or not>a noun is verbal. It also made me wonder why some grammarians describe>it the phrase as objective/subjective if there is no verbal noun in the>passage.If I may cite Dr. Seuss, “I said what I meant and meant what I said” andwas understood correctly to say that it is not meaningful to speak of thephrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU as a subjective or objective genitive. And Ithink that needs to be expanded in view of your further questions, Edgar:(1) Fundamentally, unless a genitive is partitive or ablatival, it is notreally a semantic case; it has been called most frequently “possessive” butI have come to prefer the term “pertinentive”: it is the case of a nounthat is dependent upon another noun pure and simple, and far more oftenthan not we’ll use “of” or the English “possessive” apostrophe-‘s’ toconnect the Greek genitive noun to the other Greek noun when we put thephrase into English: “the king’s friends,” “the gospel of John”. We maymake some analytical distinctions for verbal nouns, such as “subjective”and “objective” or even “plenary” (if we feel confident that a particularinstance includes both a subjective and objective relationship of thegenitive noun to the other noun), but the semantic interpretation is notsomething that is built into the morphology as such: it is a translator’sdevice to catalog common usages of the morphology.(2) I have no complaint against the passage you cited from Young:”Regarding verbal nouns, Young says that “Discerning what should beconsidered verbal nouns in a particular text is not simple.” You continue:”He then discusses endings which indicate whether a noun should be viewedas verbal (-SIS, -MOS, -THS, THR, -TWR) as well as the words built onverbal stems.” But when you go on to ask, “Could EIRHNH fit into one ofthese categories?” I have to say NO, EIRHNH does NOT fit into one of thosecategories. All of those endings you cite from Young are endings attachingto verbal stems: -SIS and -MOS are process endings, e.g. PRAXIS (PRAC-SIS)< PRATTW: “doing,” “executing” [a task], LOGISMOS < LOGIZOMAI: “reasoning,””calculating”; -THS, -THR, and -TWR are agent endings, e.g. POIH-THS <POIEW: “creator”, PRAK-THR < PRATTW: “performer/executor,, hRH-TWR ,EREW/EIRHKA: “speaker.” It is often helpful to endeavor to turn the noun inquestion into a verb: “love of God”: does God love? does one love God? Yes,then “love” is a verbal noun; “peace of God”: does God ‘peace’? does one’peace’ God? Sounds silly, doesn’t it? and “pacify” is a different word;there is a Greek verb EIRHNEUW which means to “live in peace” or “act in apeaceful way”–but -EUW is a verbal ending for a nominal stem, NOT anominal ending for a verbal stem.(3) I too would wonder “why some grammarians describe [EIRHNH TOU QEOU] asa subjective or objective genitive. And if I cannot discover or learn fromanother a convincing reason why they do it, then I will reluctantly butdefinitely conclude that they are wrong to do so. There’s an importantpoint here about scholarship and authority: you may respect the author of agrammar or reference work or of a statement that you want to accept, butunless you see convincing reasons that stand up to objections that may beraised by you or others to that statement, then the authority of thatstatement is extremely diminished if not altogether negated–which is tosay, a grammarian must be judged wrong. You have to judge for yourselfwhether you are going to accept at face value whatever you find in Young’sgrammar or BDF or Wallace or Smyth; I think that you’ll find what any ofthem offers more convincing if and when they offer arguments and examplesof what they are attempting to demonstrate, but a bald statement thatEIRHNH TOU QEOU is a subjective or objective genitive is not one that I amready to accept at face value whether I find it in Smyth, BDF, Wallace,Young, or any other esteemed grammatical reference work.>Secondly, where you [put?]the verbal noun be in Mark 2:26?> >TOUS ARTOUS THS PROQESEWS EFAGEN> >Young says that PROQESEWS is the verbal noun denoting the action of the>priest in this verse.Yes: PROSQESEWS is the genitive of PROSQESIS, which is clearly a verbalnoun (QE-SIS); PROSQESIS means “displaying”–and I think that the KJVtranslators gave “showbread” as a version for TOUS ARTOUS THS PROQESEWS.BUT note that in this instance, it is PROSQESEWS that is in the genitiveand so it is NOT an instance of a subjective or objective genitive, sincethe ‘head noun’ is TOUS ARTOUS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Phil. 4:7Pronouns Homer to Koine
Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 11 06:43:31 EDT 1999
Phil. 4:7 Pronouns Homer to Koine I appreciate and agree wholly with what Carlton has said on this subject.And since I am evidently the source of confusion on the matter, let me seeif I can do something to clear that confusion up.At 7:42 PM -0700 7/10/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>— Carlton Winbery <winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net> wrote:> >>I agree with Carl’s answer. The key to a obj/subj>genitive is that it modifies a noun of action. Most nouns of action>also have cognate verbs.<> >>Concerning the “peace of God”, if you understand>this to be the “peace that God Gives” then God in the genitive would be>a genitive (ablative) of>source in the sense of the peace from God. Peace>however is not a noun of action.<> >Carlton,> >Your point is well taken and I have no disagreement with you or Carl>about subjective/objective genitives needing verbal nouns. Where I’m>confused is that Carl’s comment implied that since EIRHNH was not a>verbal noun in Phil. 4:7, then it is not meaningful to speak of the>phrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU as a subjective or an objective genitive.>Maybe I misunderstood his comment, but that’s what I derived from it.>Carl’s observation led me to question how we determine whether or not>a noun is verbal. It also made me wonder why some grammarians describe>it the phrase as objective/subjective if there is no verbal noun in the>passage.If I may cite Dr. Seuss, “I said what I meant and meant what I said” andwas understood correctly to say that it is not meaningful to speak of thephrase hH EIRHNH TOU QEOU as a subjective or objective genitive. And Ithink that needs to be expanded in view of your further questions, Edgar:(1) Fundamentally, unless a genitive is partitive or ablatival, it is notreally a semantic case; it has been called most frequently “possessive” butI have come to prefer the term “pertinentive”: it is the case of a nounthat is dependent upon another noun pure and simple, and far more oftenthan not we’ll use “of” or the English “possessive” apostrophe-‘s’ toconnect the Greek genitive noun to the other Greek noun when we put thephrase into English: “the king’s friends,” “the gospel of John”. We maymake some analytical distinctions for verbal nouns, such as “subjective”and “objective” or even “plenary” (if we feel confident that a particularinstance includes both a subjective and objective relationship of thegenitive noun to the other noun), but the semantic interpretation is notsomething that is built into the morphology as such: it is a translator’sdevice to catalog common usages of the morphology.(2) I have no complaint against the passage you cited from Young:”Regarding verbal nouns, Young says that “Discerning what should beconsidered verbal nouns in a particular text is not simple.” You continue:”He then discusses endings which indicate whether a noun should be viewedas verbal (-SIS, -MOS, -THS, THR, -TWR) as well as the words built onverbal stems.” But when you go on to ask, “Could EIRHNH fit into one ofthese categories?” I have to say NO, EIRHNH does NOT fit into one of thosecategories. All of those endings you cite from Young are endings attachingto verbal stems: -SIS and -MOS are process endings, e.g. PRAXIS (PRAC-SIS)< PRATTW: “doing,” “executing” [a task], LOGISMOS < LOGIZOMAI: “reasoning,””calculating”; -THS, -THR, and -TWR are agent endings, e.g. POIH-THS <POIEW: “creator”, PRAK-THR < PRATTW: “performer/executor,, hRH-TWR ,EREW/EIRHKA: “speaker.” It is often helpful to endeavor to turn the noun inquestion into a verb: “love of God”: does God love? does one love God? Yes,then “love” is a verbal noun; “peace of God”: does God ‘peace’? does one’peace’ God? Sounds silly, doesn’t it? and “pacify” is a different word;there is a Greek verb EIRHNEUW which means to “live in peace” or “act in apeaceful way”–but -EUW is a verbal ending for a nominal stem, NOT anominal ending for a verbal stem.(3) I too would wonder “why some grammarians describe [EIRHNH TOU QEOU] asa subjective or objective genitive. And if I cannot discover or learn fromanother a convincing reason why they do it, then I will reluctantly butdefinitely conclude that they are wrong to do so. There’s an importantpoint here about scholarship and authority: you may respect the author of agrammar or reference work or of a statement that you want to accept, butunless you see convincing reasons that stand up to objections that may beraised by you or others to that statement, then the authority of thatstatement is extremely diminished if not altogether negated–which is tosay, a grammarian must be judged wrong. You have to judge for yourselfwhether you are going to accept at face value whatever you find in Young’sgrammar or BDF or Wallace or Smyth; I think that you’ll find what any ofthem offers more convincing if and when they offer arguments and examplesof what they are attempting to demonstrate, but a bald statement thatEIRHNH TOU QEOU is a subjective or objective genitive is not one that I amready to accept at face value whether I find it in Smyth, BDF, Wallace,Young, or any other esteemed grammatical reference work.>Secondly, where you [put?]the verbal noun be in Mark 2:26?> >TOUS ARTOUS THS PROQESEWS EFAGEN> >Young says that PROQESEWS is the verbal noun denoting the action of the>priest in this verse.Yes: PROSQESEWS is the genitive of PROSQESIS, which is clearly a verbalnoun (QE-SIS); PROSQESIS means “displaying”–and I think that the KJVtranslators gave “showbread” as a version for TOUS ARTOUS THS PROQESEWS.BUT note that in this instance, it is PROSQESEWS that is in the genitiveand so it is NOT an instance of a subjective or objective genitive, sincethe ‘head noun’ is TOUS ARTOUS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Phil. 4:7Pronouns Homer to Koine
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 12 11:51:17 EDT 1999
Research Ideas EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. Ihave one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOUdenote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible tounderstand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of ChristJesus”?Regards,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Research IdeasEN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 12 11:51:17 EDT 1999
Research Ideas EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. Ihave one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOUdenote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible tounderstand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of ChristJesus”?Regards,Edgar===Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne Collegehttp://www.egroups.com/list/greektheology/_________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Research IdeasEN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon Jul 12 12:59:05 EDT 1999
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Research Ideas At 08:51 AM 7/12/99 -0700, you wrote:>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I>have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU>denote the means by which God gives His peace? Yes- taking the en as instrumental. That is, in fact, how I take it.>Is it possible to>understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ>Jesus”?Yup-(now awaiting more diasagreement) ;-Pbest,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7Research Ideas
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon Jul 12 12:59:05 EDT 1999
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Research Ideas At 08:51 AM 7/12/99 -0700, you wrote:>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I>have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU>denote the means by which God gives His peace? Yes- taking the en as instrumental. That is, in fact, how I take it.>Is it possible to>understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ>Jesus”?Yup-(now awaiting more diasagreement) ;-Pbest,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7Research Ideas
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 12 13:13:37 EDT 1999
Research Ideas EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I>have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU>denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to>understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ>Jesus”?I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we have other instances of EN +dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense? And I assume you’re aware ofone fairly widespread view that the phrase means something like’incorporated into the body of Christ.’Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Research IdeasEN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7
EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 12 13:13:37 EDT 1999
Research Ideas EN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7 At 8:51 AM -0700 7/12/99, Edgar Foster wrote:>Dear Carl, Carlton, and Jim,> >Thanks for your help with the “peace of God” phrase in Phil. 4:7. I>have one more question related to this passage. Could EN XRISTWi IHSOU>denote the means by which God gives His peace? Is it possible to>understand this clause as “by Christ Jesus” or “by means of Christ>Jesus”?I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but do we have other instances of EN +dative of a PERSON in an instrumental sense? And I assume you’re aware ofone fairly widespread view that the phrase means something like’incorporated into the body of Christ.’Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Research IdeasEN XRISTWi IHSOU-Phil. 4:7