[B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph 4:9b
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Mar 29 06:36:54 EDT 2010
Elizabeth is completely right on this one. And Arnold's discussion of the textual sources of reconstructing the context in which Paul's words made sense is admirable. The internet is a wonderful place and now can afford the most land locked scholar access to many images of Ephesus and other sites in Asia Minor, not to mention Pompei and Herculaneum in which one can catch glimpses of the enormous relevance of death, suffering, and Hadean gods had for the peoples of the Mediterranean. In effect, your average house was permeated with mythical images and objects down to the most mundane level of existence. Other themes present in the art of home and burial place are mythical representations of untimely death or sudden abduction by the gods, of grief, of love, and of sorrowful partings, as one might expect. They also include implied parallels between the virtues of the householders and those of mythological heroes or heroines, such as the bravery of a man, the beauty of a woman or the precocious promise of a child. Also making frequent appearnce are images of joyous celebration, by the followers of Dionysus or by sea nymphs and marine monsters -- themes that mirror the happy gatherings of survivors when they celebrate the feasts in honor of the dead. (The work in this area by Zanker, Ewald, Ling, Windsor, Sauron, Jensen and Balch, who specifically makes application to the NT in his recent book) come to mind On the other hand, the punishment of rebellion and hubris, sometimes quite grotesque, along with scenes from colliseum spectacles make there way onto the wall art of home.
When one returns to the NT after viewing such representations, many from the first century, coupled with the references to such things in texts, the reading of the NT is transformed. What we often fail to realize is that Paul's letters were written with hearers in mind, many of whom could only listen to his words. And so the important visual cues he gives, like KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS would have been very meaningful to those whose lives were surrounded and shaped and expressed by viewing images of the gods. For the ancient Christian preachers like Paul NOT to address Christ's victory over death in terms of that world would be simply astounding.
Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
On Mar 28, 2010, at 10:58 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list