Subjective/Objective Genitive in 2 Kingdoms 18:5

Forum rules
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby Stephen Carlson » July 10th, 2012, 8:41 pm

David Lim wrote:I think that "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ..." cannot be the object of "ηκουσεν", because it is not a noun phrase, which would have been "του βασιλεως του εντελλομενου ...".


What, then, is the object of βλέπει in John 20:5 βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby David Lim » July 10th, 2012, 9:55 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I think that "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ..." cannot be the object of "ηκουσεν", because it is not a noun phrase, which would have been "του βασιλεως του εντελλομενου ...".


What, then, is the object of βλέπει in John 20:5 βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια?


Could "κειμενα" in John 20:5 be somewhat adverbial rather than attributive; "he sees lying [there] the linen cloths"? Just my guess... Not sure if Matt 8:23 is a relevant similar example, where the adverbial participle is not a genitive absolute.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby Stephen Carlson » July 11th, 2012, 3:41 pm

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I think that "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ..." cannot be the object of "ηκουσεν", because it is not a noun phrase, which would have been "του βασιλεως του εντελλομενου ...".


What, then, is the object of βλέπει in John 20:5 βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια?


Could "κειμενα" in John 20:5 be somewhat adverbial rather than attributive; "he sees lying [there] the linen cloths"? Just my guess... Not sure if Matt 8:23 is a relevant similar example, where the adverbial participle is not a genitive absolute.


Yes, the participle is not attributive, but adverbial isn't the only other possibility. According to the analysis favored by Rijksbaron and other grammarians (which Carl has concisely expressed earlier in the thread) is that that ἐντελλουμένου τοῦ βασιλέως ... and κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια are participial phrases headed by a "supplementary" or "complementary" participle with the noun serving as the participial's subject. The participial phrase as whole then serves as the clausal complement for the verb of perception. According to this analysis, you are correct that these are not noun phrases, but it should be recognized that verbs of perception can take complements that are not noun phrases (e.g., ὅτι clauses).
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby David Lim » July 11th, 2012, 9:48 pm

David Lim wrote:I think that "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ..." cannot be the object of "ηκουσεν", because it is not a noun phrase, which would have been "του βασιλεως του εντελλομενου ...".

Stephen Carlson wrote:What, then, is the object of βλέπει in John 20:5 βλέπει κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια?

David Lim wrote:Could "κειμενα" in John 20:5 be somewhat adverbial rather than attributive; "he sees lying [there] the linen cloths"? Just my guess... Not sure if Matt 8:23 is a relevant similar example, where the adverbial participle is not a genitive absolute.

Stephen Carlson wrote:Yes, the participle is not attributive, but adverbial isn't the only other possibility. According to the analysis favored by Rijksbaron and other grammarians (which Carl has concisely expressed earlier in the thread) is that that ἐντελλουμένου τοῦ βασιλέως ... and κείμενα τὰ ὀθόνια are participial phrases headed by a "supplementary" or "complementary" participle with the noun serving as the participial's subject. The participial phrase as whole then serves as the clausal complement for the verb of perception. According to this analysis, you are correct that these are not noun phrases, but it should be recognized that verbs of perception can take complements that are not noun phrases (e.g., ὅτι clauses).


Yes I didn't mention that here because "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ..." can't be like an "οτι ..." clause.

And I did feel that John 20:5 shouldn't be either, but I don't know; I just have not seen indirect statements that do not have either "οτι" or the accusative and infinitive. I think that if "κειμενα τα οθονια" is really an indirect statement, there should be other examples where the participle is in the future tense, just as there are "οτι ..." clauses with the future tense. If not, it seems better to consider "κειμενα τα οθονια" to be the same kind of complement as "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ...".
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby Stephen Carlson » July 11th, 2012, 10:17 pm

David Lim wrote:Yes I didn't mention that here because "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ..." can't be like an "οτι ..." clause.


I don't understand the objection, particularly in what you sense you mean "like." The analogy with ὅτι clauses is that verbs of perception can take complements that are not direct object noun phrases. Some of these complements are clausal, and Greek has a variety of different syntactic ways to express this, infinitive, participle, ὄτι + indicative, etc.

At any rate, the Greek of 2 Km 18:5 is syntactically ambiguous as to an indirect statement reading ("they heard that the king commanded ....") or not ("they heard the king command ...").

David Lim wrote:And I did feel that John 20:5 shouldn't be either, but I don't know; I just have not seen indirect statements that do not have either "οτι" or the accusative and infinitive. I think that if "κειμενα τα οθονια" is really an indirect statement, there should be other examples where the participle is in the future tense, just as there are "οτι ..." clauses with the future tense. If not, it seems better to consider "κειμενα τα οθονια" to be the same kind of complement as "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ...".


You seem to be equating participial clausal complements with indirect statements. That is not the case. Only some of them are. The hard part is telling whether a particular complementary/supplementary participial phrase is an indirect statement or not, because they have the same syntax.

I have no idea what the future tense has to do with the issue, however. Its relevance is at best limited because future participles are rare and on their way out in Koine. At any rate, future participles generally express purpose in the NT and would thus correspond to ἵνα clauses (with the subjunctive) instead of ὅτι clauses.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby David Lim » July 12th, 2012, 6:55 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Yes I didn't mention that here because "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ..." can't be like an "οτι ..." clause.


I don't understand the objection, particularly in what you sense you mean "like." The analogy with ὅτι clauses is that verbs of perception can take complements that are not direct object noun phrases. Some of these complements are clausal, and Greek has a variety of different syntactic ways to express this, infinitive, participle, ὄτι + indicative, etc.

At any rate, the Greek of 2 Km 18:5 is syntactically ambiguous as to an indirect statement reading ("they heard that the king commanded ....") or not ("they heard the king command ...").


For "they heard that the king commanded", I would expect either "οτι" or the infinitive and accusative, not a genitive.

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:And I did feel that John 20:5 shouldn't be either, but I don't know; I just have not seen indirect statements that do not have either "οτι" or the accusative and infinitive. I think that if "κειμενα τα οθονια" is really an indirect statement, there should be other examples where the participle is in the future tense, just as there are "οτι ..." clauses with the future tense. If not, it seems better to consider "κειμενα τα οθονια" to be the same kind of complement as "εντελλομενου του βασιλεως ...".


Stephen Carlson wrote:You seem to be equating participial clausal complements with indirect statements. That is not the case. Only some of them are. The hard part is telling whether a particular complementary/supplementary participial phrase is an indirect statement or not, because they have the same syntax.

I have no idea what the future tense has to do with the issue, however. Its relevance is at best limited because future participles are rare and on their way out in Koine. At any rate, future participles generally express purpose in the NT and would thus correspond to ἵνα clauses (with the subjunctive) instead of ὅτι clauses.


No; I said that I didn't think such constructions with the participle can ever be indirect statements. Indirect statements can contain statements about the future (such as Matt 6:7), so I would expect that the future participle is also used in indirect statements. For the same reason I would also expect the aorist participle to be used. Do you know of any examples with indirect statements using the aorist participle?

Anyway I now realize that I misread Mike as he was taking "εντελλομενου" to refer to "[that which] is commanded". In that case, I would have expected an article since it must refer to that specific command. Also I could not find any participle of "εντελλω" or "εντελλομαι" that was used to refer to something commanded. Ken, do you have some example I missed?
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Subjective/Objective Genitive in 2 Kingdoms 18:5

Postby cwconrad » July 12th, 2012, 8:14 am

It's quite unclear to me what point David is trying to make about this genitive participial construction with verbs of perception.

For what it's worth, I would like to note a couple things: (1) It seems to me that the relationship between the MT and the LXX of this verse is less than obvious: certainly the LXX text is much older than the MT; even if the LXX does represent the same sense as the MT, the construction of the Greek can convey the same sense without emulating the kind of construction (e.g. "they heard when he said this" is not essentially different in meaning from "they heard him say this").

It may also be useful to some to have grammatical references for the usage of genitive + participial genitive with a verb of perception:

Smyth §§1361-1368

BDF §416
416. The supplementary participle with verbs of perception and cognition is better preserved in the NT. In classical Greek the participle takes the nominative case if it refers to the subject of the verb (ὁρῶ ἡμαρτηκώς); the accusative (or genitive) if it refers to the object. Except with passive verbs the nominative does not appear in the NT referring to the subject (ὅτι is substituted Mk 5:29, 1 Jn 3:14).
(1) Verbs of perception: to see (βλέπειν, θεωρεῖν, [ὁρᾶν,] ἰδεῖν, θεάσασθαι, ἑωρακέναι, τεθεᾶσθαι, ὄψεσθαι, κατανοεῖν): Mt 24:30 ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον, cf. 15:31, Mk 5:31, Jn 1:32, 38, H 3:1f., etc.; with ὄντα A 8:23, 17:16, with ellipsis of this ptcp. (cf. §414; also class., Krüger §56, 7.4): Jn 1:50 εἶδόν σε ὑποκάτω τῆς συκῆς, Mt 25:38f. σε εἴδομεν ξένον, ἀσθενῆ (ἀσθενοῦντα is preferable, BD), ἐν φυλακῇ etc., cf. 44; A 17:22 ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ὑμᾶς θεωρῶ (no further examples of this ὡς are found with verbs of seeing; but cf. infra (3) ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε 2 Th 3:15 ‘as if he were an enemy’ [s. also §157(3)]; the meaning of A 17:22 must therefore be: ‘as far as I see, it appears as if’ [softening of the reproach]). Occasionally with the verb ‘to see’ and other verbs of this type the ptcp. is more independent of the object and constitutes an additional clause, while the obj. and verb are fairly complete in themselves: Mt 22:11 εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον etc. = ὃς οὐκ ἐνεδέδυτο, Mk 11:13 ἰδὼν συκῆν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἔχουσαν φύλλα (‘which had …’). For ὅτι after ‘to see’ s. §397(1).—Ἀκούειν is no longer frequent with ptcp.; when the content of what is heard is stated, its rivals are the acc. with inf. and especially ὅτι (§397(1)). Examples of the acc. with ptcp.: Lk 4:23 ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα, A 7:12, 3 Jn 4, 2 Th 3:11 (Mk 5:36? however B τὸν λόγον τὸν λαλούμενον, D has yet another reading); a distinction between the inf. and ptcp. as in class. (the ptcp. denoting more the actual fact, the inf. hearsay, K.–G. ii 68) probably cannot be claimed for the NT. The acc. construction appears also (A 9:4, 26:14) for the class. gen. construction which is not frequent outside of Acts: Mk 12:28 ἀκούσας αὐτῶν συνζητούντων, 14:58; Lk 18:36 ὄχλου διαπορευομένου, Jn 1:37, A 2:6, 6:11, etc.; 11:7 and 22:7 ἤκουσα φωνῆς λεγούσης μοι, for which 9:4 and 26:14 (E has gen.) have φωνὴν λέγουσαν, although φωνή refers to the speaker and not to what was said; cf. §173(2).
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
… ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸν οἶνον ἠξίους
πίνειν, συνεκποτέ’ ἐστί σοι καὶ τὴν τρύγα Aristophanes, Plutus 1085
cwconrad
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby Stephen Carlson » July 12th, 2012, 8:17 am

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:At any rate, the Greek of 2 Km 18:5 is syntactically ambiguous as to an indirect statement reading ("they heard that the king commanded ....") or not ("they heard the king command ...").


For "they heard that the king commanded", I would expect either "οτι" or the infinitive and accusative, not a genitive.


It is true that ὅτι or an infinitive became more popular in Koine, but the supplementary participle construction of classical Greek is still extant in Koine (see BDF §§ 414-416). The fact that the Koine has various other alternatives does not negative the existence of this construction.

As for the use of a genitive, it is because the genitive is used with ἀκούω.

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:You seem to be equating participial clausal complements with indirect statements. That is not the case. Only some of them are. The hard part is telling whether a particular complementary/supplementary participial phrase is an indirect statement or not, because they have the same syntax.

I have no idea what the future tense has to do with the issue, however. Its relevance is at best limited because future participles are rare and on their way out in Koine. At any rate, future participles generally express purpose in the NT and would thus correspond to ἵνα clauses (with the subjunctive) instead of ὅτι clauses.


No; I said that I didn't think such constructions with the participle can ever be indirect statements.


Well, you should give it another thought. See BDF § 416, giving lots of examples. With ἀκούω they cite, among others, Luke 4:28, Acts 7:12, 3 John 4, 2 Thess 3:11, etc.

David Lim wrote:Indirect statements can contain statements about the future (such as Matt 6:7), so I would expect that the future participle is also used in indirect statements. For the same reason I would also expect the aorist participle to be used. Do you know of any examples with indirect statements using the aorist participle?


The future participle is so rare in the NT and it so often expresses purpose that your future participle test is just not relevant. The aorist participle is found in Luke 4:28, cited above, but the present is admittedly more frequent.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby David Lim » July 12th, 2012, 10:32 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:No; I said that I didn't think such constructions with the participle can ever be indirect statements.


Well, you should give it another thought. See BDF § 416, giving lots of examples. With ἀκούω they cite, among others, Luke 4:28, Acts 7:12, 3 John 4, 2 Thess 3:11, etc.


I think you mean Luke 4:23? Anyway I see now. Thanks a lot to you and Carl!
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Subjective and objective genitive

Postby Stephen Carlson » July 12th, 2012, 10:45 am

David Lim wrote:I think you mean Luke 4:23? Anyway I see now. Thanks a lot to you and Carl!


Sorry about the typo. Yes, 4:23.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Uppsala University

PreviousNext

Return to Septuagint and Pseudepigrapha

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest