[B-Greek] Eph 2:2 and syntactic significance of TOU PNEUMATOS
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Tue Feb 13 13:49:04 EST 2007
Not that it is very important, but I realized I mistakenly said "perhaps
better, a subjective genitive", when I meant to say, "perhaps better, an
objective genitive".
God bless,
Brian Abasciano
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>
To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>; "George F Somsel"
<gfsomsel at yahoo.com>; "Conrad, Carl W." <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Eph 2:2 and syntactic significance of TOU PNEUMATOS
>
> 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