KATEBH and Gen. of Apposition
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jun 24 07:37:57 EDT 2000
At 2:59 AM +0000 6/24/00, Mark Wilson wrote:
>Eph 4:9
>
>TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TO KATWTERA MERH THS GHS
>
>
>Once again in my Grammar book (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B.
>Wallace) I have come across something that makes little to no sense to me.
>
>In a footnote concerning this verse, he cites W. Hall Harris article in
>BSac where Harris lists as an option for this verse a Genitive of
>Apposition, and could indicate that the descent occurred AFTER the ascent.
>
>How can a Genitive of Apposition denote a SUBSEQUENT descent in this verse?
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.
The footnote in question:
----------------
72 Another interpretation (which has much to commend it) based on a gen.
of apposition is that the descent occurs after 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,"BSac 151 (1994)
198-214.
---------------------------
>what does this mean except that subsequently he also descended into the
>lower parts of the earth
>
>Would this translation be acceptable?
>
>The final statement Dr. Wallace makes in this footnote has really confused
>me. He feels that if this idea of AFTER is correct (which, he says, has
>much to commend it), then that would mean the descent is a reference to the
>Spirits descent on the day of Pentecost.
>
>Is not the subject of Eph. 4:9 Christ? How could the descent of the Spirit
>equate to a descent of Christ? I think that the KAI KATEBH (he ALSO
>descended) would mean that the same one who ascended ALSO descended.
>
>I have got to believe that this final statement of Wallaces probably
>crosses over into a theological question. I apologize in advance if I have
>inadvertently asked a theological question here. In case he was supporting
>this contention based somehow on the grammar of this verse, I thought I
>better ask.
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.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20000624/798d8bd1/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list