[B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph 4:9b

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Mar 28 15:23:10 EDT 2010


Off list feedback indicates that this post was perhaps somewhat cryptic. The brief comment "C.E. Arnold[1] approached this text by constructing a semantic framework" could be profitably compared to S.E. Porters[2] comment about Hoehner's  reading  [H. Hoehner 2002, p700] of Eph. 5:18-19, that there was no evidence of a problem with drunkenness in the Ephesian Church. Porter calls this "a blindered attention to the word alone of the text at the expense of the the context that brought such words into existence."  In footnote 18 Porter uses the Hallidayan linguistic term "register" to point to a context of situation. The idea of register in Halliday is a first cousin to "semantic frame[work]".  But one should NOT conclude that all we are talking about here is historical & cultural context. Semantic frames are a structural metaphor for recording and referencing all kinds of information about the semantic situation. C.E. Arnold's monograph presents us with this information embedded in prose, he gives us the raw material for building a semantic frame[work].    


Elizabeth Kline 

[2] EPHESIANS 5.18-19 AND ITS DIONYSIAN BACKGROUND Stanley E. Porter, p71
Google search string "fact a problem with drunkenness"

On Mar 27, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:

> 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