[B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph 4:9b
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Mar 28 23:58:22 EDT 2010
It seems to me, what Arnold did right was construct a somewhat elaborate semantic model (he didn't call it that) including the historical-cultural situation where this epistle would have been circulated and then looked at how KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS would fit into that situation. He mentioned the genitive in passing but only in reference to someone else's argument.
On the other hand Hoehner zooms in on the "syntax" of THS GHS brings Wallace on board and tries to read the meaning out of the "the code". Between Hoehner/Wallace and Arnold there appears to be a difference in the underlying assumptions about how language works. I am impressed with Hoehner's thoroughness in responding to the secondary literature. I am not impressed ***at this specific point*** Eph 4:9b KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS with his handling of the Greek text, specifically the comments he cites from Wallace "a comparative genitive [THS GHS] is syntactically improbable, if not impossible: the comparative adjective is in attributive position to MERH."
Wallace is, once again, hung up on trying to find the perfect category for the genitive. The whole question is irrelevant. But Hoehner doesn't agree, on page 533 he says "The real problem is identifying the syntactical relationship of the genitival phrase THS GHS." IMO, that is not the "real problem". IMO C.E. Arnold[1] addresses the real problem, even if it takes him a couple of hundred pages to deal with it.
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"
On Mar 28, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Rod Rogers wrote:
> Cryptic or whatever, I'm still trying to
> decide where exactly your objections lie. Are
> you advocating an understanding of
> Christ/Spirit descending at Pentecost in
> verse 9? If not I am at a complete loss.
> Also, were you thinking of Sandy, TX or more
> in the lines of 3909 Swiss Ave, Dallas, TX?
>
> rod rogers
> bargersvile, in
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Elizabeth Kline
> To: greek B-Greek
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:42 PM
> Subject: [B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get
> you there -- Eph 4:9b
>
>
> 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
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list