Col. 1:15

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Post Reply
victor.vicveh
Posts: 3
Joined: May 28th, 2019, 12:42 pm

Col. 1:15

Post by victor.vicveh » June 29th, 2019, 12:00 pm

Hello and thanks for your help. I have a question about Col. 1:15

"ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,"


Is this a Genitive of subordination or a Genitive Partitive?
0 x



timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 250
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » June 29th, 2019, 11:23 pm

Depends on your theology.
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 931
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » June 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm

victor.vicveh wrote:
June 29th, 2019, 12:00 pm

"ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,"


Is this a Genitive of subordination or a Genitive Partitive?
Neither. It is an "adnominal genitive." Search the archives for a discussion.

τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου qualifies the noun εἰκὼν.

πάσης κτίσεως qualifies the substantive πρωτότοκος.

Anything beyond that is contextual[1] inference which gets you into exegesis, hermeneutics, theology.

[1] contextual is used here inclusively both co-text and context.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 931
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » July 3rd, 2019, 11:00 am

Here is a thread you might find helpful where Carl Conrad expresses his views on genitive classification.
But the fact is that every adnominal genitive -- every genitive noun that qualifies another noun -- is a structure without any distinct semantic value.
IMO Carl nailed it. Read the whole post here:

viewtopic.php?t=1600&p=8630#p863

and here:http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/lists.ibi ... 30214.html
1 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Daniel Semler
Posts: 87
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by Daniel Semler » July 3rd, 2019, 11:37 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
July 3rd, 2019, 11:00 am
Here is a thread you might find helpful where Carl Conrad expresses his views on genitive classification.
But the fact is that every adnominal genitive -- every genitive noun that qualifies another noun -- is a structure without any distinct semantic value.
IMO Carl nailed it. Read the whole post here:

viewtopic.php?t=1600&p=8630#p863

and here:http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/lists.ibi ... 30214.html
Interesting posts. Conrad makes a good point about the vagueness of the English "genitive" constructions without context. I find it interesting that we are able to, usually, in our native languages, light upon the correct (intended) meaning very quickly in ambiguous constructions and not so in foreign languages. Only really cured by a lot of exposure.

One thing that struck me when this thread opened is the subtitle of Wallace's grammar, in which both the first mentioned classifications occur, "An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture". If you have ever tried to use a syntax database to search for examples of the classifications of genitives listed therein, you have a really hard time. And I believe that's an indication that purely syntactic concerns are not distinguishing the categories. Of course, as noted in these threads, this is not a situation unique to Wallace's treatment of the genitive. I might add Wallace discusses this passage and it's worth a read, not because it answers the question but because it reveals issues to consider.

Thx
D
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 931
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » July 3rd, 2019, 7:45 pm

Daniel Semler wrote:
July 3rd, 2019, 11:37 am

One thing that struck me when this thread opened is the subtitle of Wallace's grammar, in which both the first mentioned classifications occur, "An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture".
That subtitle should be in bold red type. That is precisely the issue with semantic categories in a discussion of syntax. If you want to study syntax don't pick up a Grammar?? with Exegetical in the title. There is a really good reason not to spend much time in reference works which are founded in the the grammer–transaltion tradition. Once you internalize that sort of thinking you will probably never shake it off. You will note in the responses in the 2004 thread[1]. People were taking issue with Carl about his comments.

[1]
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/lists.ibi ... 30214.html
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Daniel Semler
Posts: 87
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by Daniel Semler » July 3rd, 2019, 8:14 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
July 3rd, 2019, 7:45 pm
There is a really good reason not to spend much time in reference works which are founded in the the grammer–transaltion tradition.
Stirling, have you got a recommendation on a grammar/reference work on Koine you like ? I don't know of a particularly pure, in this sense, work on Greek syntax.

Thx
D
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 931
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » July 4th, 2019, 12:11 am

Daniel Semler wrote:
July 3rd, 2019, 8:14 pm

Stirling, have you got a recommendation on a grammar/reference work on Koine you like ? I don't know of a particularly pure, in this sense, work on Greek syntax.
I am completely out of touch with what has been published recently. The Cambridge Grammer is too new for me to get through ILL so I haven't looked at it. There are a host of introductions that have been published and I haven't looked at any of them. Some of these works are written by people who have some exposure to linguistics. However, for some reason that doesn't seem to have much impact on textbooks.Theoretical frameworks have a short lifespan so if you publish a work which is immersed in a particular school of thought it will dated almost before you get it published. Having said that I learned from a book that was pre-chomsky transformational grammar. It was twenty years past its publishing date when I used it. So a well written work doesn't necessarily become useless when the framework is old.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Bill Ross
Posts: 101
Joined: August 12th, 2012, 6:26 pm

Re: Col. 1:15

Post by Bill Ross » August 2nd, 2019, 4:25 pm

In defense of the hair-splitting I might say that if someone has a mental block dealing with an aporetic and they see examples, it could trigger the "dawning".

Also, aporetic is an awesome word that will pepper my speech from now on!
0 x
What I lack in youth I make up for in immaturity.

Post Reply