Rom 12:2 part 6 - Verb+Dative+Genitive
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 4 11:12:32 EST 1999
At 10:14 AM +0100 1/4/99, Jürg Buchegger wrote:
>This is my final question on Rom 12:2:
>6. The verb + dative + genitive in V.2 (METAMORPHOUSTHE TH
>ANAKAINWSEI TOU NOOS) makes me to stop and think intensely about who is
>doing what through what and where? How to interpret that? Again, how would
>you go on methodologically to decide what kind of dative we have here and
>how the genitive is to be interpreted?
While some might have preferred to have all these questions about Rom 12:2
in one longer message, I think your having split them makes response easier
and also should militate against the reckless incorporation of everything
previously stated in a thread, whether or not it's relevant.
I've said that I think METAMORFOUSQE is middle but that it represents a
mutuality of divine initiative and believer participation: "submit
yourselves to re-shaping"; in keeping with this, I'd understand THi
ANAKAINWSEI as an instrumental dative indicating HOW the re-shaping is to
take place, and finally I'd understand TOU NOOS as an objective genitive
with the noun of verbal notion. (I've also always been fascinated by Paul's
occasional, if not regular, use of a 3rd declension form of this noun NOUS,
which is regularly 2nd declension in earlier usage, so far as I recall). Is
this an Ionic form?
At any rate, I'd understanding the ANAKAINWSIS as mutual, just as is the
METAMORFOUSQE: the "renovation" of a mentality requires both the divine
initiative and the conscious and willing participation of the believer.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.us
More information about the B-Greek