[B-Greek] hAGNIZOMAI with the genitive in I Tr 13:3
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu May 28 03:52:24 EDT 2009
On May 27, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
> Hello Folks,
> 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.
Richard, you're not using Unicode text-encoding, so all that Greek
font is lost. That's okay, because we do insist on the transliteration
being used side-by-side with the Unicode Greek-font citation.
>> 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
> send it to the list and see if anyone would call me on it. Now that
> 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
> 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. >>
I didn't think I had missed it. I didn't comment on it because I
thought it was clear from what you cited that EKKLHSIAS, not hUMWN was
the genitive construed with hAGNIZOMAI. I didn't comment on it because
I thought the more significant point was the genitive case-form, in
this instance EKKLHSIAS, was functioning as complement of the verb
hAGNIZETAI/hAGNIZOMAI in both cited texts. The original question was
why a genitive case without any preposition should function as
complement of such a verb. That's the point I was more interested in
and went on to discuss.
>> 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
>> In later Greek -- in Modern Greek, certainly, the dative case becomes
>> obsolete and the indirect object function is subsumed in the
>> 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
> to be merely a possible suggestion while ignoring the interpretation
> finally settles on. He disconnects hYMWN entirely from hAGNIZOMAI and
> makes it dependent upon EKKLHSIAS. 'I am devoted to your Church'. He
> on to support this rendering by claiming that the article before
> DIABOHTOU demonstrates that EKKLHSIAS governs hYMWN rather than
> in apposition to it.
> So what do you make of that?
I don't take any exception to it. Did I suggest that I rejected it?
I was simply more focused upon the question of the genitive case usage.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek