Most Literal?
- Thread starter arapahoepark
- Start date
- Status
The Concise Oxford Dictionary lists nine uses of which the possessive is but one. See especially the use of the objective relation.
Of course "of" can have ambiguity in other contexts in the presence of other words. That much is obvious, and is a fact I have not denied or contradicted even for a moment. However, we all know that, in English, "of" does not function in any possible way at any given moment. That is a fallacy akin to an illegitimate totality transfer, and thus citing there merely plethora of possible meanings does not really help your argument. In fact, it actually doesn't really say anything other than the fact that "of" can simply function in a great number of ways in a great number of contexts; but this is true of many, if not all, prepositions.
In reality, "of" functions differently in the presence of different types of words (i.e., in different contexts). For example, how does the preposition function when the object is personal? One of the problems with the examples you gave (in your original comment, which you edited, and which I quoted above) is that none of them you gave have a person as the object of "of." Virtue, being impersonal, cannot possess love, so the fact that "love of virtue" is an objective genitive is more because of the impossibility of possession than because of the preposition. However, when the object of "of" is a person, we begin to have a problem, because a person, unlike a concept (e.g., "virtue") is capable of both possession and exercise of a verbal noun. Thus, ambiguity is introduced, not necessarily because of the nature of the preposition, but the possibilities introduced by the situation introduced by the functioning of the concepts communicated by all the words in context.
Another question is this: How does the function of the preposition change with the presence of different verbal nouns? In English, there is indeed ambiguity, for example, in the phrase "love of God": it could be objective ("love for God") or subjective ("God's love"). Again, this is because the object of "of" is personal, as opposed to impersonal. Just like in Greek, certain English verbs and verbal nouns take on different meanings in the presence of different prepositions. "Faith" is one of these verbal nouns. I have never heard anyone say, when they want to communicate, for example, their objective faith in the sturdiness of the chair in which they sitting, say, "I have faith of this chair." Such a statement is non-English, and communicates only that the speaker does not have total command of the English language. Rather, to communicate their objective faith, they would say, "I have faith in this chair." The reasonable conclusion: "Faith in" and "faith of" communicate different things in English. I would dare to assert that I highly doubt if even a single English speaker, being presented with the phrase "faith of Jesus Christ," would interpret it in any other way than possessive. It just simply is not how English functions in this scenario, given these particular words joined together by this particular preposition.
That is why "word-for-word," while it is perfectly fine most of the time, is not acceptable in some instances. This is because words are not merely (notice my very deliberate word choice) symbols packed with meaning. Rather, they are symbols packed with meaning strung together to function a certain way. The vast majority of the time, the function of words strung together in one language maintains well when translated into another language; this is when "word-for-word" works well (which is, again, most of the time). However, this is not always the case. Many times, the function (without which there is no meaning) cannot be maintained through a "word-for-word" rendering. It is my argument that πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Romans 3:22 is one of these occasions. Not only this, but it is a particularly difficult situation because of the fact that the limitations of English force translators to make a choice.
I am importing nothing. Many verbs (and their verbal nouns) in biblical Greek take genitives as their objects (direct, objective, or otherwise). This is the farthest possible thing from a controversial statement. It is one the first things students of Greek learn! Find me a single grammar which states otherwise.
That is the problem. English does not have a surface structure that can communicate the ambiguity present in many Greek genitives. Hence, difficult choices must be made; it simply cannot be avoided, complain as we might.
Exactly, because that's what "in" means in the English language when preceded by "faith" and followed by an object, just like "of" preceded by "faith" and followed by an object in the English language is possessive in the passage in question. you keep making comments based upon the assumption that "of" in this English phrase contains the same ambiguity as the Greek construction, and that is simply not true under any conceivable circumstance or to any English speaker. That has been my point this whole time.
You were saying "of" and "in" were two different concepts. I was saying the "in" concept was covered by the use of "of." Now what are you saying? If you say, "exactly," then you agree precisely with my statement that interpreters use "in" as an objective relation. Since "of" is used as an objective relation this means "exactly" what I have argued, contrary to what you argued.
Please notice the exact statement to which I replied "exactly," Rev. Winzer. I did not say, "Exactly," to what you have argued, because it does not appear to me that you have argued much of anything. Rather, you simply keep asserting (which is not arguing) that somehow the phrase "faith of Jesus Christ" can be understood objectively, but is exclusively subjective (or possessive). What I am arguing (and have argued at rather great length in comparison to the volume of words I usually use in a forum) is that this is simply not true; in no conceivable way can "faith of Jesus Christ" be understood objectively to any English speaker. I have spent many words explaining in detail why this it is not so.
Now you are denying the "dictionary" use of objective relation. Would it not be easier to admit you were wrong and move on? Why waste all these words trying to give the appearance that you are right?
Why are you constantly so easily provoked and aggressive in these conversations, and for no reason? Have I said something offensive, insulting, or otherwise out of line? Or is the very thought of someone differing with you and trying to have a fruitful conversation (even, heaven forbid, a debate!) that intolerable to you?
I explained the problems with the citation of the dictionary you made above (see Post #33). Did you read my remarks? You certainly have not addressed them in any meaningful way. I get the feeling—due to your very short responses to my long and labored comments—that I am angering you. This should not be so, brother. After all, we are talking about the function of a genitive, not justification by faith alone.
My heavens...
Is showing that Taylor Sexton is wrong to be regarded as aggressive? It looks to me like Taylor Sexton has a problem with being wrong.
And as I explained, the interpreters only use the English "in" as an objective relation. Since the Dictionary uses "of" as an objective relation, your problems are made up.
No, because you haven't "showed" it at all. That assumes you have actually made arguments and responded to remarks in a meaningful fashion. Rather, you have merely asserted (not argued) my "error," asked me why I cannot accept it, and then asked why I can't just "move on." That is aggression, and it is utterly uncalled-for.
So, that's it? All you have to do is say, "You're making it up," and the matter is as good decided, just like that? That allows you to completely dismiss and ignore my arguments, just that easily? Man, I wish I could get away with that in my research papers...
I gave you so many reasons why merely citing a dictionary entry for this is lacking severely. Rev. Winzer—brother—do you have an actual argument, or is this going to be the pattern from now on?
I gave you the argument. The Dictionary says objective relation is an use of "of." Interpreters of the Greek genitive use "in" as an objective relation. It is quite obvious that "of" includes the idea conveyed by "in." It is simple and it is obvious. It is there in black and white. You should take a moment, Taylor, and collect yourself.
So what? "A racial slur for white people" is a use of "cracker," but that doesn't mean that it carries that meaning in every, or even most, context(s). That's the reason I gave you a very long explanation—involving problems such as context, function of various verbal nouns, and common (even universal) usage—as to why simply citing a dictionary entry is inadequate (Post #33).
Last edited:
Your responses are becoming silly, Rev. Winzer. I know you are far too intelligent than to stoop to this kind of rhetoric. Am I so contemptible, so low in your eyes, that I am not even worth engaging with comments of actual substance? You and I both know that dictionaries list a possibility of meanings, but are not exhaustive lists of every possible meaning in every possible context. I know you know this.
My spare time has run out. This will be my last response to you. Whether it is exhaustive or not is beside the point. It lists the objective relation as an use of "of." My original point was that the word "of" allows the ambiguity of the Greek genitive. Interpreters mean an objective relation when they use the preposition "in." The conclusion is undeniable that the English "of" includes the sense in which "in" is used by interpreters; and therefore my original point stands. Have a good day (or night), Taylor.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Moderator note:
Sticking a fork in this discussion. It's done.
Sticking a fork in this discussion. It's done.
- Status
