[b-greek] Re: KATEBH and Gen. of Apposition

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Jun 24 2000 - 07:37:57 EDT

<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Re: [b-greek] KATEBH and Gen. of
<div>At 2:59 AM +0000 6/24/00, Mark Wilson wrote:</div>
<div>&gt;Eph 4:9<br>
&gt;Once again in my Grammar book (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by
Daniel B.<br>
&gt;Wallace) I have come across something that makes little to no
sense to me.<br>
<div>&gt;In a footnote concerning this verse, he cites W. Hall
Harris’ article in</div>
<div>&gt;BSac where Harris lists as an option for this verse a
Genitive of<br>
&gt;Apposition, and could indicate that the descent occurred AFTER
the ascent.<br>
<div>&gt;How can a Genitive of Apposition denote a SUBSEQUENT descent
in this verse?<br>
<div>I think the confusion results from two different points being
made in Wallace's note; that THS GHS is genitive of apposition with
TA KATWTERA MERH has nothing to do with the interpretation that the
descent (KATEBH) was SUBSEQUENT to the ascent.</div>
<div>The footnote in question:</div>
<div><font color="#000000">72&nbsp; Another interpretation (which has
much to commend it) based on a gen. of apposition is that the descent
occurs<i> after</i> the ascent and, hence, is the descent of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Cf. W. Hall Harris III, "The Ascent
and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9-10,"<i>BSac</i> 151 (1994)
<div>&gt;“what does this mean except that subsequently he also
descended into the<br>
&gt;lower parts of the earth”<br>
&gt;Would this translation be acceptable?<br>
&gt;The final statement Dr. Wallace makes in this footnote has really
&gt;me. He feels that if this idea of AFTER is correct (which, he
says, “has<br>
&gt;much to commend it”), then that would mean the descent is a
reference to the<br>
&gt;Spirit’s descent on the day of Pentecost.<br>
&gt;Is not the subject of Eph. 4:9 Christ? How could the descent of
the Spirit<br>
&gt;equate to a descent of Christ? I think that the KAI KATEBH (he
&gt;descended) would mean that the same one who ascended ALSO
&gt;I have got to believe that this final statement of Wallace’s
&gt;crosses over into a theological question. I apologize in advance
if I have<br>
&gt;inadvertently asked a theological question here. In case he was
&gt;this contention based somehow on the grammar of this verse, I
thought I</div>
<div>&gt;better ask.</div>
<div>Yes, it does go over into both theology and larger issues of
interpretation of scripture. I think that the thing to do here is to
read Hall Harris' article which is clearly enough referenced to see
what is meant. The note in Wallace's grammar is too brief to make
clear the substance of the argument.</div>

<div>-- <br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:30 EDT