[B-Greek] Eph 2:2 and syntactic significance of TOU PNEUMATOS

Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com
Tue Feb 13 13:09:49 EST 2007


Woops, I sent this messagew with the wrong subject. So I am resending with 
the appropriate subject line:

I agree that it is quite illegitimate to do grammatical analysis of Greek
based on how it might be rendered
into English. And Wallace certainly is not the final word on matters of
Greek grammar. Indeed, my question arose from disagreement with his claim
that two personal nouns cannot be in epexegetical relationship. He views
this as emerging from the idea that the epexegetical genitive is a specific
example of a larger category named by the head noun. I would agree that it
is a word that brings greater clarity to the head noun by further definition
etc. But I would not say this cannot be the case with two personal nouns,
though it does seem unusual (especially if we were dealing with proper
nouns). If TOU PNEUMATOS followed TON ARCONTA directly, I would be more
inclined to take it as a genitive of subordination or some such nuance
indicating the ruler over the spirit (perhaps better, a subjective
genitive). However, the intervening genitives along with the context suggest
to me that we have a defining designation in TOU PNEUMATOS. I wanted to get
others' sense concerning Wallace's claim about this. To be fair to him, he
does not raise the English translation test in relation to the issue of the
ability (and in his view, the impossibility) of personal nouns to be in
epexegetical relationship. He explicitly relates it to its general-specific
quality. But I don't think the general-specific nature of it is as formal as
he seems to think of it. What's more, even if  one were to grant much of
Wallace's assumptions (and it seems we are in agreement that we do not agree
with them), in the case of Eph 2:2, "ruler" is the type of noun that,
despite referring to a personal being, still may especially need further
definition in identifying which ruler is in view.

God bless,

Brian Abasciano

> **************
> Doing grammatical analysis of Greek based on how it might be rendered
> into English is a policy which has been rightly criticized in this
> forum on numerous occasions. If this is how Wallace does his work
> then I would just ignore him.
>
>
> Elizabeth Kline
> *****************
>
> From: Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>
> I think this is all too true. Without for a moment suggesting that
> Wallace's grammar is useless (I do frequently consult it and I think
> one ought to have it as a reference work, so long as one has at least
> Smyth {indispensable}), but it is aimed not at students trying to
> expand or develop reading ability in Biblical Greek but more for the
> exegetical problem solver who wants to produce a supposedly accurate
> English translation
>
> ***********
>
>
> I would say, rather than "for the exegetical problem solver who wants to 
> produce a supposedly accurate English translation", it is for one who 
> wishes to justify a translation which he has already made.  What he is 
> doing is telling you in what category to place a construction based on 
> your translation so that it will seem sound.
>
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list