I greatly appreciate the insights that are shared on the list. As a pastor I have little interaction in the original language on the NT except through this list. The comments on Rom 1:5 have been most helpful. ... IHSOU CRISTOU TOU KURIOUS hHMWN, (5) DI' hOU ELABOMEN CARIN KAI APOSTOLHN EIS hUPAKOHN PISTEWS EN PASIN TOIS EQNESIN hUPER TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU, ... Dr. Conrad, I have two questions: On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 16:41:47 -0500 "Carl W. Conrad" wconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes: > At 12:03 PM -0400 9/4/00, Theodore H Mann wrote: > >I recently read that hUPAKOH PISTEWS, in Romans 1:5, has been > viewed as > >(1) an objective genitive, (2) a subjective genitive, (3) an > attributive > >genitive, or (4) as a genitive of apposition. Any thoughts as to > which > >it might be? > > I've said this before, but some don't take it very seriously: these > distinctions reflect English or other target language usage, not > categories > in which Greek speakers/authors understood the relationship of a > genitive > with another noun. snip... First question: I think I understand your point, but as a pastor I find it helpful to me to reflect on recognized categories to analyze the text. In fact, I find that I even do this in English. In light of your answer, am I correct that you would not object to this or at least see it as a necessary evil? Perhaps a practice not to be used by linguist, but tolerated in pastors? Or should I endeavor to take a completely different approach and if so, what? > Now consider the alternatives suggested: > > (1) objective genitive: "for obedience to faith" -- but is faith a > person > to whom one offers obedience? hardly. > (2) subjective genitive: "faith's obedience" -- but is faith a > person who > can obey? > (3) attributive genitive: "obedience of faith" = "obedience > associated > with/dependent upon faith" = "faithful obedience" -- that's what > strikes me > as most appropriate in this instance. > (4) genitive of apposition: "obedience, i.e. faith" -- this doesn't > make a > lot of sense to me. snip... Ant from a later post :"Yes, I think there is a much tighter link between the noun and the second noun in the genitive dependent on the first. It is NOT, in my opinion, a matter of two separate actions--believing and obeying--but rather of a kind of believing that by nature involves obeying." snip... Second question: I realize that to the multiplying of categories there may be no end, but could this not be seen as a genitive of source? The explanation being similar to yours explained in this and the later post, but not tying together faith and obedience as you would? Could the tie be that obedience is dependent upon, but not mandated by, faith; sourced in faith? Would this violate a grammatical principle? If not, one would have to validate either interpretation based upon broader issues. Rob Matlack 620 E. 5th St., Minneapolis, KS 67467 RMatlack@juno.com Hm: 785-392-2865 Church: 785-392-2089 "...that we may present every man mature in Christ Jesus." ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu