[B-Greek] hAGNIZOMAI with the genitive in I Tr 13:3
qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Wed May 27 23:06:11 EDT 2009
Your comments are most welcome, Carl. But they left me a little
dissatisfied. I'll detail below.
On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:28:01 -0400 Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
> On May 26, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
> > The texts:
> > ITr 13:3
> > hAGNIZETAI hYMWN TO EMON PNEUMA, OU MONON NYN ALLA KAI hOTAN QEOU
> > ?????eta? ?µ?? t? eµ?? p?e?µa, ??
> > µ???? ??? a??? ?a? ?ta? ?e?? ep?t???.
> > IEph 8:1
> > PERIPSHMA hYMWN KAI hAGNIZOMAI hYMWN EFESIWN EKKLHSIAS THS
> DIABOHTOU TOIS AIWSIN.
> > pe????µa ?µ?? ?a? ??????µa? ?µ??
> > ?fes??? e????s?a? t?? d?aß??t?? t??? a??s??.
> > What Lightfoot has to say about these two texts is very instructive.
> > ITr 13:3
> > << ?????eta? ?µ?? hAGNIZETAI hYMWN] i.e.,
> > ????sµa ????eta? ?µ?? hAGNISMA GIGNETAI hYMWN,
> > where ????sµa hAGNISMA, 'a piacular offering,' like
> > pe????µa PERIPSHMA, pe?????a?µa PERIKAQARMA,
> etc., denotes entire devotion to and self-sacrifice for another:
> > comp. IEph 8 pe????µa ?µ?? ?a?
> > ??????µa? ?µ?? PERIPSHMA hYMWN KAI hAGNIZOMAI
> hYMWN (with the note). >>
> > RG: I essentially agree with this except that I would retain
> > ?????eta? hAGNIZETAI and view ????sµa hAGNISMA
> as a cognate acc. absent by ellipsis,
> > thus: [????sµa] ?????eta? ?µ?? t?
> > eµ?? p?e?µa [hAGNISMA] hAGNIZETAI hYMWN TO EMON PNEUMA.
> CC: That seems rather superfluous to me; it suggests that the verb is
> regularly used with a cognate accusative hAGNISMA, and I haven't
> seen any evidence whatsoever for that.
> Lightfoot's periphrasis is hAGNISMA GIGNETAI hUMWN, "becomes/makes-
> itself a thing sanctified of/for you."
RG: I was really just guessing about the cognate acc. My thought was to
send it to the list and see if anyone would call me on it. Now that you
have, my suggestion seems rather superfluous to me too.
> > But Lightfoot takes quite a different tack with regard to IEph 8:1.
Carl, you seem to have missed this point. Without reproducing the entire
quote from Lightfoot again, I will just give the most relevant parts.
> > << ??????µa? ?.t.?. hAGNIZOMAI K.T.L.] 'I am devoted
> to your Church'; It appears to mean literally 'I make
> > myself a ????sµa hAGNISMA, a piacular offering, for your Church.'
> > e????s?a? EKKLHSIAS] governs ?µ?? hYMWN, and does not stand in
apposition with it,
> > as the article before d?aß??t?? DIABOHTOU shows. >>
> CC: The verbs of admiration, affection, and the like may take a
> of the same sort as verbs of sensation and desire, AISQANOMAI, ERAW/
> ERAMAI, hAPTOMAI; these may be partitive in origin; I've associated
> them with the genitive with verbs like hAMARTANW and TUGCANW as
> "genitive of the target" -- a genitive indicating what the verbal
> action "aims at." But I'm skeptical about that as the syntctic
> relation in play in our passages I Tr 13:3 and I Eph 8:1. I'm
> wondering whether the more likely explanation is that these are
> "possessive" genitives: "I make myself a holy thing belonging to you."
> In later Greek -- in Modern Greek, certainly, the dative case becomes
> obsolete and the indirect object function is subsumed in the genitive.
> I'm wondering -- not making any positive affirmation -- whether the
> genitive forms in these two passages of Ignatiius may just possibly
> point to closely-relataed senses "belonging to you" and "for you."
RG: Carl, you seem to focus on the part of Lightfoot's quote that I take
to be merely a possible suggestion while ignoring the interpretation he
finally settles on. He disconnects hYMWN entirely from hAGNIZOMAI and
makes it dependent upon EKKLHSIAS. 'I am devoted to your Church'. He goes
on to support this rendering by claiming that the article before
DIABOHTOU demonstrates that EKKLHSIAS governs hYMWN rather than standing
in apposition to it.
So what do you make of that?
Yours in His grace,
Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
West Haven, Connecticut USA
Contractor Training - Click Here for Information.
More information about the B-Greek