From: Randy Leedy (RLEEDY@wpo.bju.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 24 1997 - 16:59:55 EST
A little earlier today I wrote, "Still, as I mentioned in a previous
post today, the more I consider the issue, the less certain I am that
dissecting the phrases into finely-distinguished concepts is the way
to go, and that perhaps most of my own previous posts on the subject
were, in reality, off the mark."
One clarification: I don't mean that the whole idea of the Hebraic
model underlying X of Y of Z, where Y is abstract and both Y and Z
modify X, may be off-target; just that perhaps this model isn't
applicable to these genitives in Ephesians 1. Both Blass-DeBrunner
and Nigel Turner's "Syntax," the only two grammars I've consulted on
this question today, acknowledge the Semitic basis for this kind of
construction. But in my quick skimming, I did not pick up any
references to phrases including "glory" or "grace."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:03 EDT