[B-Greek] hAGNIZOMAI with the genitive in I Tr 13:3

Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Thu May 28 12:16:15 EDT 2009


Hello Folks,

CC: 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.

RG: I apologize for sending a trashy looking, hard-to-read post to the
list. It comes of using one e-mail program for the original post and
another for subsequent replies. In the future I will endeavor to use one
or the other program consistently in all my posting.

RG: But Lightfoot takes quite a different tack with regard to IEph 8:1.
Carl, you seem to have missed this point. 

CC: 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.

RG: Yes, yes. The confusion was all mine. First I misunderstood
Lightfoot, thinking that he wanted to detach hYMWN from hAGNIZOMAI in
IEph 8:1 just to ease the grammatical problem, and then wondering why he
went on to talk about the genitive after verbs of admiration, affection
and so on. He did so, as you point out above, because there IS a genitive
complement to be construed with hAGNIZOMAI, i.e., EKKLHSIAS. I missed
that. I then imported my confusion about Lightfoot into your remarks.
Sorry about that!

CC: <snip> 
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."
<snip>
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: Your English renderings made me think that you construed hYMWN with
hAGNIZETAI/hAGNIZOMAI in BOTH passages. That was the point of my
confusion. Once again, I'm sorry.

I would be more confident of the "possessive" genitive theory if more
examples of hAGNIZESQAI with a genitive complement could be produced. But
I'm not optimistic when even Lightfoot says, << Of the genitive case
after
hAGNIZOMAI I can find no other instance. >>

Yours in His grace,

Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
West Haven, Connecticut USA
____________________________________________________________
Compete with the big boys.  Click here to find products to benefit your business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTI97vlO9bwEiekX3BpyP2i0StJ68mIFSFdv6MRlAgfDCzUzmSgrE8/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list