It is a very broad subject. I don' think one can every "master" a case, just get better at / more skilful at using it - and that basically means being able to test each instance against as many possible "genitives" as possible and be able to make a good choice about which one is used in which place.Andrew Chapman wrote:I am happy to get on to genitives, as I am trying to improve my understanding of them
The earlier stages had a different way of using the cases, and if you look into Smythe for direction, you are probably going to get an explanation of that, but since you are reading patristic texts that will be useful to a greater or lesser degree. Generally speaking, the later you go in the language, the more the genitive is confined to the possessive. If one of the Greek speaking Fathers uses the genitive according to the classical idiom it is probably because of his educational background or the extent of his reading (and copying).
BTW Extra to my two examples in my former post that you criticised... In addition to being able to reaplace (paraphrase) the genitive by a participle or a relative clause, the genitive (as everything but possesive) was also "paraphrased out" of the language by an increase in the use of adjectives. I see that that has been considered in the thead about κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ (Col. 1:11) that you linked to.
That will work to some degree for an modern-thinking English speaker, yes.Andrew Chapman wrote:'the works of Shakespeare', you might say that the implied verb is 'written by', but one could also reasonably say that they belong, or belonged, to him. He has ownership of them, defined in a fairly broad way, I would have thought.
That translation came out of the ethos of Victorian England, I think. Taking σὺ τὸ σαυτοῦ πρᾶξον as something like "love your "fallen" brother (fellow humanbeing) as yourself" seems to work too, and leaves open the possibility that the ἀπελογήσω τῷ Θεῷ is to say that your "excuse" is not to "get yourself off the hook", but is an appeal to God to save your brother - your attempts to "save" them is (how do you call it) a living prayer - we try our best and trust God to do the rest. The translation expresses the "I've done what was required of me, so I'm clear of your guilt" thinking that seems to have been in the translator's thinking rather than necessarily in the sermon.Andrew Chapman wrote:When we see them lying prostrate in the furnace of wickedness, let us raise them up. “But,” they say, “it is of no use, he is incorrigible.” However, do thou thy duty, and then thou hast excused thyself to God. (NPNF Homily 18)εἰς τὴν κάμινον κειμένους αὐτοὺς ὁρῶντες τῆς κακίας, ἀναστήσωμεν. Ἀλλ' οὐ διορθοῦται, φησίν. Ἀλλὰ σὺ τὸ σαυτοῦ πρᾶξον, καὶ ἀπελογήσω τῷ Θεῷ.
Likewise here, taking the τὸ σαυτοῦ πλήρου as "carry out the command to love that make you a good husband" is a viable rendering. (Despite the fact that (you feel that) she doesn't respect you... you sould still carry out what God has instructed and in doing that you will fulfill the Lord's command to love), that is to say that the spirit of the passage is something like , "Don't think that your wife buys love by her respect.", "love and respect are not tit for tat", or something like that. In his case, it seems like it could conviniently be rendered as "your duty is to love", but I don't see the reflexive as coming from outside (an imposed "duty"), but rather from inside. Duty is imposed from outside - but love (Σὺ ἀγάπα) is from inside (and don't despair or get the sulks when you don't seem to get some benefit from it - Taking Luke 6:35 to be read as that the μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες answers all three things ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν καὶ ἀγαθοποιεῖτε καὶ δανείζετε severally). I read it as an invitation to share in the work of God - love without cause.Andrew Chapman wrote:“But what,” one may say, “if a wife reverence me not?” Never mind, thou art to love, fulfill thine own duty. (NPNF, Homily 20, on Ephesians 5:22 ff)Τί οὖν, ἂν μὴ φοβῆται, φησὶν, ἡ γυνή; Σὺ ἀγάπα, τὸ σαυτοῦ πλήρου.
Perhaps it is possible that the reflexive pronoun could be a pronoun without a sense that is more possessive than reflexive. There are many more examples here; http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/1 ... _8166.html which we could work through if you would like...