[B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph 4:9b
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Mar 27 17:42:06 EDT 2010
Eph. 4:8 διὸ λέγει· ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ᾐχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. 9 τὸ δὲ ἀνέβη τί ἐστιν, εἰ μὴ ὅτι καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα [μέρη] τῆς γῆς;
Eph. 4:8 DIO LEGEI· ANABAS EIS hUYOS HiCMALWTEUSEN AICMALWSIAN, EDWKEN DOMATA TOIS ANQRWPOIS. 9 TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN, EI MH hOTI KAI KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS;
H. Hoehner (Ephesians Baker 2002, p533ff) states that the central exegetical problem in Eph 4:9b is "identifying the syntactical relationship of the genitival phrase THS GHS." In my opinion, this is a prime example of what is wrong with the kind Greek exegesis they teach in Texas (and almost everywhere else). The idea that we can get to the root of this exegetical problem by focusing our attention on THS GHS and the genitive case is not really old fashion, it is just wrong. It was always wrong. The best Greek expositors of previous centuries new better than that. N.B. Hoehner does breifly review the alterative readings. But the suggestion that THS GHS and the genitive case are the key to the problem ... he cites Wallace in support ... I leave that one to George Somsel :-)
Twenty some years ago, C.E. Arnold[1] approached this text by constructing a semantic framework (he didn't call it that) for understanding KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS. He ends up with the traditional reading. IMO, Arnold's approach is much better. You don't have to agree with his result, the issue is one of methodology.
Elizabeth Kline
[1] C.E. Arnold
EPHESIANS POWER ANDMAGIC. By Clinton E. Arnold pp. 57-58
Google search string for C.E. Arnold "this papyrus preserves a record"
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list