[B-Greek] Ephesians 2:20 - What kind of Genitive construction?

Rod Rogers rngrogers at mybluelight.com
Tue Feb 8 13:36:31 EST 2005


Unless I'm wrong again, Wallace was not referring to the Genitive Absolute
construction at all (the corner stone or Christ or Him "being" something).
He was only referring to APOSTOLWN KAI PROFHTWN being in apposition to TWi
QEMELIWi, apostles and prophets further describing the foundation (I think).
I misunderstood Wallace to make a reference to AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU  as being
in apposition to something which I could not figure out because, like you
say it is a part of a Genitive Absolute construction which should be
independent of the main clause.

EPOIKODOMHQENTES EPI TW QEMELIW TWN APOSTOLWN KAI PROFHTWN ONTOS
AKROGWNIAIOU AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU


rod rogers
bargersville, in






----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "Rod Rogers" <rngrogers at mybluelight.com>
Cc: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:20 - What kind of Genitive construction?


> At 10:29 AM -0500 2/8/05, Rod Rogers wrote:
> >Kelton and Carl,
> >
> >Looking at this a little closer after Kelton Graham's post I feel that
> >everyone is right, including Mr. Wallace, except me. Well, maybe I was
only
> >half wrong. I was reading Wallace' comments on p 98 in his foot note #69
and
> >thought he was referring to AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU as being in apposition
which
> >he evidently was not. Later Wallace does list Eph 2:20 as a Genitive
> >Absolute on p 655 under Rom 7:3).
> >
> >Bottom line, Kelton and Mr. Wallace were right in that Wallace is
referring
> >to TWi QEMELIWi  to be in apposition to APOSTOLWN KAI PROFHTWN, Carl was
> >right in identifying ONTOS AKROGWNIAIOU AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU as a Genitive
> >Absolute and I was at least  right in seeing this also as a Genitive
> >Absolute. I was wrong in misquoting Mr. Wallace. Sorry.
> >
> >Thanks Kelton and Carl.
> >
> >rod rogers
> >bargersville, in
>
> There's still some sort of a contradiction here, as the two
interpretations
> of the construction seems (to me, at least) to be contradictory: a
genitive
> absolute is by nature grammatically independent and therefore cannot stand
> in apposition to anything. We may say that the cornerstone is related to
> the structure being built as is the foundation, but it still seems to me
> that the genitive absolute functions as an independent and syntactically
> unrelated 'clause.'
> --
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
> cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
>





More information about the B-Greek mailing list