ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ: objective or subjective genitive?

[Wes Wood]

So what's your opinion on the best way to help the student to get to this stage and keep him/her from feeding on junk food?

A comprehensive but simple Greek - Greek (with English in brackets) (L2-L2(with L1 in brackets)) learner's dictionary with synonyms antonyms and common useages (collocations). Students who have reached higher than intermediate should have access to Greek - Greek (L2-L2) reference materials (without English (L1) in brackets)

I will admit I'm not certain I understand all of what you mean, but the part that I do understand sounds wonderful! Would you please make some suggestions on the types of materials you are referring to?

Thanks, Justin, I had been debating getting hold of a copy of the UBS Reader, so that's pushed me over the edge.

I should perhaps have added that I was writing out what I was reading longhand, and writing down the words I didn't know, which I hope added value to it, while slowing it down.

Andrew

The UBS is very helpful, but the reader's greek New Testament worked better for me personally since it gave several different glosses for the unfamiliar words. This helped me pick up a word's different usages much more easily. I also liked it because it did not spoil the parsing for me. I learn better when I am forced to look things up repeatedly Please believe me when I tell you I am not trying to change your mind. Either of them are wonderful for independent study for busy people.

[Andrew Chapman]

Thanks, Wes, that was one reason I hadn't bought it before, that I couldn't decide which one to get. I seem to remember that the UBS one gives the more important textual differences, whereas the Zondervan one doesn't (I think), which helped me make up my mind today. And it was helpful to receive Justin's encouragement too.

Andrew

[Wes Wood]

You are right on about the UBS having more variants listed and that was one of my considerations as well. Because the nestle-Aland has a more complete critical apparatus, I knew I would end up getting it anyway so ultimately that was not the deciding factor for me. The only variants listed in the reader are those that differ from the westcott-hort text to agree with the "standard" critical text. The real challenge for me has been using the apparatus .

[Stephen Hughes]

Would you please make some suggestions on the types of materials you are referring to?

I answered you in Greek - Greek learning resource ideas.

[Andrew Chapman]

He [Wallace] says, "Replace the word of with the paraphrase made out of or consisting of. If this paraphrase fits, the genitive is probably a genitive of material." Now what is going on here? The student is encouraged to make the student to make a half-conjectural translation, and then to (at least implicitly) reason back from English to the Greek. The student never leaves the grid of thinking in English and translating. Wallace doesn't tell you anything about what the Greek construction "in and of itself" means.

Thanks, that does seem a bit wooden, and I can see that it reinforces the English categories. I just read Robertson's take on the adnominal genitive, and I guess that his meandering style may give a truer picture of the real state of affairs than the impression Wallace may give that there actually exist a set of rigid categories into one of which each occurrence must fall. Personally, I had factored in the thought that it probably isn't actually like that. It seems to me that the main value of the terminology may be to allow us to express to one another how we perceive the force of the genitive in a particular case. I think some like David Lim are suggesting that it may be better to express the meaning which one understands with a verb or a preposition, thus making it very clear to another person. For example:

"the God of Israel" ~ "the God that Israel believes in and worships"

And then I might say that I understand it a bit differently, in a more possessive way, as the God who belongs to Israel.

Andrew

[cwconrad]

Far be it from me to call an early halt to this discussion;, but would anybody like to discuss the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead?

[Andrew Chapman]

Far be it from me to call an early halt to this discussion;, but would anybody like to discuss the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead?

Carl, I am not sure whether you are referring to something in particular, but my best guess is that it is to my drawing a distinction between two ways of understanding 'the God of Israel'.

By way of explanation, I am aware of two main ways of looking at adnominal genitives. One characterizes them as representing the appurtenance of one noun concept to another, while the other sees a relationship of possession, more or less broadly defined, and/or origin, as prototypical, to use a term which I found in the first sentence in what is perhaps the only book called 'The Genitive':

A definition of genitives usually starts out from the notion of an inflectional category for nouns, which in its core function labels adnominal relations, prototypically in the domain of possession..

I have read that what we call the genitive case was called γενικἠ by the Greek grammarians, suggesting that the genitive noun tells us of what kind the head noun is, with the implication that a possessive relationship is no more fundamental to the case than any other. But it seems that Dionysius Trax (if it was he) who is credited with first using the term, said in almost the same breath that the case was also called κτητικἠ and πατρικἠ:

πτώσεις ὀνομάτων εἰσὶ πέντε· ὀρθή, γενική, δοτική, αἰτιατική, κλητική. λέγεται δὲ ἡ μὲν ὀρθὴ ὀνομαστικὴ καὶ εὐθεῖα, ἡ δὲ γενικὴ κτητική τε καὶ πατρική, ..

which seems to me to leave the question open as to whether there may be some priority to the possessive idea.

In another thread, David Lim was kind enough to explain that he reads 'τὸ κράτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ' as 'the might that is to his glory', perhaps allowing the translation 'his glorious might', whereas others see this genitive as possessive, Ellicott's opinion for example being that it should be translated:

according to the power of His glory; not ' His glorious power,' Auth., Beza, al., but ' the power which is the peculiar characteristic of His glory,' the gen. belonging to the category of the gen. possessivus;

Andrew

[cwconrad]

Far be it from me to call an early halt to this discussion;, but would anybody like to discuss the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead?

Carl, I am not sure whether you are referring to something in particular, but my best guess is that it is to my drawing a distinction between two ways of understanding 'the God of Israel'.

Andrew, my only point is that this thread seems to continue apace without, so far as i can see, moving forward. For my part, I have nothing to contribute to it nor shall I say anything more about it

[Andrew Chapman]

Thank you, sir, for your help on it, and with other questions I have asked in the past. I much appreciate it.

Andrew

[David Lim]

Personally, I had factored in the thought that it probably isn't actually like that. It seems to me that the main value of the terminology may be to allow us to express to one another how we perceive the force of the genitive in a particular case. I think some like David Lim are suggesting that it may be better to express the meaning which one understands with a verb or a preposition, thus making it very clear to another person. For example:

"the God of Israel" ~ "the God that Israel believes in and worships"

And then I might say that I understand it a bit differently, in a more possessive way, as the God who belongs to Israel.

Sorry I've been busy, and I have just read through the long thread; it would certainly be good to follow the advice others have given, namely not to rely on categorization of genitives. As you noted, my responses are simply to express in the clearest way possible the actual meaning of various possible uses of the genitive, and by no means a sufficient sample. Indeed, using verbs and prepositions often help. Also, with respect to "the God of Israel", you could of course take it as "the God who belongs to Israel", though that still raises the question of what exactly is meant by God belonging to Israel, which I interpreted as I did according to what I thought the Hebrew writings meant. And back to "the language of love", I left the interpretation "the language that love speaks" as it is, of course for you to further interpret the metonym. You should also note that different people will interpret the metonym differently even though they would mostly accept the first "level" of interpretation. In like manner there are many examples of Greek genitives that have multiple levels of interpretations, rather than just falling into any kind of categories or under some terminological labels.