Page 1 of 1

Col. 1:15

Posted: June 29th, 2019, 12:00 pm
by victor.vicveh
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?

Re: Col. 1:15

Posted: June 29th, 2019, 11:23 pm
by timothy_p_mcmahon
Depends on your theology.

Re: Col. 1:15

Posted: June 30th, 2019, 2:01 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
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.

Re: Col. 1:15

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

Re: Col. 1:15

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

Re: Col. 1:15

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

Re: Col. 1:15

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

Re: Col. 1:15

Posted: July 4th, 2019, 12:11 am
by Stirling Bartholomew
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.

Re: Col. 1:15

Posted: August 2nd, 2019, 4:25 pm
by Bill Ross
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!