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

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Feb 16 02:57:34 EST 2007


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw at com-pair.net>


> Dear Brian,
>
> If laid out correctly, it appears that it is Genitive of Apposition.
>
>    EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE
>        KATA TON AIWNA         TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU,
>        KATA TON ARCONTA  TOU EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS,
>                                                  TOU PNEUMATOS TOU NUN ENERGOUNTAS
>                                                   EN TOIS hUIOIS THS APEIQEIAS
                                                    (attributive genitive, ATR, p. 497)
>
> BDF, page 92, paragraph 167,  "167. Genitive of content and appositive
> genitive. ...The use of the appositive genitive, i.e., of the genitive used
> in the sense of an appositive, conforms in the NT to classical usage: 2 C
> 5:5 TON ARRABWNA TOU PNEUMATOS 'the guarantee (earnest) which consists in
> the spirit.' Cf., K.-G. I 264; Pfister, Festgabe Deissmann (1927) 72f.; Rob.
> 498f.
>
> A. T. Robertson, Page 498-499, 4. Apposition or Definition gives several
> examples indicating that it is a well-known idiom in Homer, and that, "as
> Moulton suggests, the vernacular has preserved the poetical idiom in this as
> in so many other matters. Poetry often expresses better than prose the
> language of the people." I do find it interesting that Robertson does give
> Eph 2:14, 20 as examples.

I must admit that I find the term "appositive genitive" both confusing and unnecessary. In BDF it is 
listed as the last subdivision of the adnominal genitive. In the introduction to the adnominal 
genitive, BDF says that it normally functions like an adjective as either an attribute or predicate. 
The term attribute only says that the genitive gives some further qualification or delineation of 
the noun it modifies. It can be useful to classify how the attributive genitive further describes 
the noun and the relationship between the noun and the genitive word as e.g. origin, subjective, 
objective, partitive, quality, direction, purpose and content as long as we realize that this is not 
derived from any grammatical feature, but from the semantic content of the head noun and the 
attributive genitive. In order words, it is an exegetical, contextual or pragmatic description 
rather than a grammatical one.

In the case of Eph 2:2 I cannot see that TOU PNEUMATOS can be in apposition to TON ARCONTA, since I 
would expect an apposition to TON ARCONTA to be in the accusative. I find it more plausible that 
both TOU EXOUSIAS and TOU PNEUMATOS are attributes of TON ARCONTA which both further describe the 
leader. In the NT, ARCWN is usually a human leader, so TOU PNEUMATOS clarifies that this ARCWN is a 
spiritual leader. The EXOUSIAS describes the leader as one who has power/authority. The TOU AEROS 
clarifies his domain and location.

I don't see a problem with PNEUMATOS having the sense of "spiritual". Although the word in the GNT 
often refers to the Holy Spirit and therefore can be said to be personal, there are other cases 
where the word can hardly be termed personal. PNEUMA has many senses, and in this context, I would 
go for sense 4 in BAGD (an independent (good or evil) being in contrast to a being that can be 
perceived by the physical senses). There is an adjective PNEUMATIKOS, but it is almost exclusively 
used in the positive sense of something related to or coming from the Holy Spirit. The only place 
where it describes evil spirits is in Eph 6:12 which in many ways is parallel to Eph 2:2.

I would therefore venture the translation (and exegesis) "according to the powerful, (evil-) 
spiritual ruler in the air who is now working in those who are disobedient (to God)."  Even in 
English, I am not sure whether "spiritual" can be used to refer to an evil spirituality. My guess is 
that it is this sense of positive precedence for the meaning of the adjective that made Paul use the 
other way of stating an attribute, namely the genitive.

I realize it is a difficult construction open to various interpretations, and I certainly disagree 
with the NET exegesis.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list