Romans 15:13 & 33

[Scott Lawson]

In reading the Greek text I came across the expression "ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης" at Romans 15:33. In Wallace's Exegetical Syntax he explains it as a genitive of product, meaning "the God who gives peace", and he cites Romans 15:13 and15:33 as clear examples of it.-GGBB by Daniel B. Wallace, pages 106-109.


Romans 15:13 ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν, εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Romans 15:33 ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν· ἀμήν.

Resulting in something like:

Romans 15:13 May the God who gives hope fill you with all joy and peace by your believing, that you may abound in hope with power of holy spirit.

Romans 15:33 May the God who gives peace be with all of you. Amen

I'm having trouble finding anything in some of the older grammars that I have on hand. (i.e. Robertson, BDF, Smyth) Is this a new idea or is it spoken of in the earlier literature? Is this a category that is well established?

[Stephen Hughes]

genitive of product ... Is this a category that is well established?

I don't know the answer to your specific question, but I can tell you how to play the same game to make yourself sound/ seem like you can make categories that others couldn't have imagined before you.

Making categories for these type of genitives is easy:
Starting point: A genitive is a direct relationship between two nouns. Let's call them A and B.
First step: Think of A as a subject and B as an object, an imagine a logical sounding sort of verb between them.
Second step: Think of B as a subject and A as the object, and imagine a logical sounding sort of verb between them.
[Probably either one or both of those steps will be productive]
Third step: Take the meaningful result(s) from the first or second step, and think of other verbs that could also work with a similar meaning.
Fourth step: Look at the verbs you have come up with and think about a general sort of adjective that could sort of cover all of them, and hey presto, you have a coined another new class of genitive.

What use will it be for others? Debatable... At least it will be better than having it translated as "of". At worst it means that you will have to think of what sort of verbs sort of have the meaning that the adjective describing the class could be used then use them to make a meaningful translation.

I'm not sure how better to describe it other than referring to vector and raster graphics. These type of point-by-point case-by-case categorisations create a limited set of explanations for an ever expanding set of points. Now, for a few points that is a saving, but seeing as the set is growing and it is growing in a very predictable way, we need to change the model of explanation from static to dynamic (raster to vector). A dynamic explanation - rather than a petrification of each instance when we look at it (cf. Medusa) - will provide an explanation for all of these cases that have arisen and will arise. A new and dynamic will bring freshness into future translation work. The future debate will be about which verbs are appropriate to use to explain the meaning of the text, rather than about what to call a genitive in a given situation.

For the few points that are not in such a relationship, individual explanations will still be neccessary, and they can have big words to describe them, so you feel like you are getting value for money when you buy a syntax. Some of the reasons for that will be older forms - fossils of the genitive when it had a different range of meaning and usage. Another reason will be for the various forms of (unchanged by the verb) referentiality that the genitive gives in sentences.

But of course, the historical development of terminology is always an intresting side interest in any field of study, but at present I have less reference works with me than you do, I can't help you with that, sorry.

[Hefin J. Jones]

Deidre Smith (of Serper and Wilson "Relevance Theory" fame) invoked Wittgenstein at this point and claimed that there were pretty much an infinity of ways one could cut a cake, and that therefore there were an infinte number of possible classification schemes for the relationship between the head and modifying nouns in a genitive relationship. Her comment wasn't aimed at greek per se but was more of a cross linguistic observation.

[Stephen Carlson]

Deidre Smith (of Serper and Wilson "Relevance Theory" fame) invoked Wittgenstein at this point and claimed that there were pretty much an infinity of ways one could cut a cake, and that therefore there were an infinte number of possible classification schemes for the relationship between the head and modifying nouns in a genitive relationship. Her comment wasn't aimed at greek per se but was more of a cross linguistic observation.

Wouldn't it be Deirdre Wilson??? At any rate, if you have a cite for that, I'd appreciate it. I agree with the sentiment.

I have to admit that I'm always surprised to learn of yet another genitive category found in Wallace's syntax. I'm really suspicious about this one (the so-called "genitive of product"), however. I would have classified it as "aporetic" Still, I would like to get a better handle on genitives, perhaps with a semantic map or something.

[Hefin J. Jones]

Well caught Stephen. I call her Deirdre SMITH all the time! That example was especially bad since I gave her surname correctly when referring to the book. Must tell us something about the organisation of our encyclopaedic entries. On reflection I suspect that I'm conflating her name with Neil Smith's. The two of them wrote an introduction to (Chomskian) Linguistics, and Neil taught me Syntax, and Deidre some Semantics and Pragmatics.

I'm not sure I can find a citation - She and Sperber discuss genitives in "Relevance" (I have a 1st ed) but DON'T say anything like what I claimed she said there. She definitely introduced me to the thought from Wittgenstein (definitely sounds like "Philosophical Investigations" rather than TLP) and applied it to various things in linguistics. She was a big opponent of taxonomies and unnecessary entities.

[Stephen Carlson]

OK, Hefin, it sounds like it could be something you picked up orally in class from her, which actually makes me feel a little jealous

[Hefin J. Jones]

Coming back to this after a while - her Wittgenstein quote was probably a classroom anecdote, but in the 1st Ed of "Relevance" she and Sperber say of genitives:

"It is hard to believe that the genitive is ambigious, with as many senses as there are types of relationships it may be used to denote, or that all these relationships fall under a single definition which is the only meaning expressed by the genitive on any given occasion. It seems, rather, that the semantic interpretation of a sentence with a genitive from which ambgiuities and referential indeterminacies have been eliminated is still soemthing less than fully propositional. Contextual information is needed to resolve what should be seen as the semantic incompleteness, rather than the ambiguity, of the genitive."


Not quite what I remembered her saying but close. Some NT Grammars share her sentiment if not her theoretical framework.

[David Lim]

Coming back to this after a while - her Wittgenstein quote was probably a classroom anecdote, but in the 1st Ed of "Relevance" she and Sperber say of genitives:

"It is hard to believe that the genitive is ambigious, with as many senses as there are types of relationships it may be used to denote, or that all these relationships fall under a single definition which is the only meaning expressed by the genitive on any given occasion. It seems, rather, that the semantic interpretation of a sentence with a genitive from which ambgiuities and referential indeterminacies have been eliminated is still soemthing less than fully propositional. Contextual information is needed to resolve what should be seen as the semantic incompleteness, rather than the ambiguity, of the genitive."

I have the same viewpoint, and not just concerning the genitive but every element of any language in general. An English example is how "that" can mean many different things but in each case has a very precise function, and although many of its meanings are related, it is not the case that it just has one generic or vague meaning that applies to all usages, but that it has many specific meanings from which exactly one has to be selected according to the grammatical structure of the sentence and the context (except in special cases with deliberate double meanings).

[Stephen Carlson]

Coming back to this after a while - her Wittgenstein quote was probably a classroom anecdote, but in the 1st Ed of "Relevance" she and Sperber say of genitives:

"It is hard to believe that the genitive is ambigious, with as many senses as there are types of relationships it may be used to denote, or that all these relationships fall under a single definition which is the only meaning expressed by the genitive on any given occasion. It seems, rather, that the semantic interpretation of a sentence with a genitive from which ambgiuities and referential indeterminacies have been eliminated is still soemthing less than fully propositional. Contextual information is needed to resolve what should be seen as the semantic incompleteness, rather than the ambiguity, of the genitive."

I have the same viewpoint, and not just concerning the genitive but every element of any language in general. An English example is how "that" can mean many different things but in each case has a very precise function, and although many of its meanings are related, it is not the case that it just has one generic or vague meaning that applies to all usages, but that it has many specific meanings from which exactly one has to be selected according to the grammatical structure of the sentence and the context (except in special cases with deliberate double meanings).

OK, but that does not sound like the "same viewpoint" as expressed above.

[David Lim]

OK, but that does not sound like the "same viewpoint" as expressed above.

Oh? Then sorry I must have interpreted Hefin's terminology wrongly.