[B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph 4:9b
Bryant J. Williams III
bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Mon Mar 29 12:33:29 EDT 2010
Dear Elizabeth,
I think what is forgotten is that Paul is quoting and giving exegesis of Psalm
68:18. He also makes 3 important changes.
"The differences between Paul's quotation of Ps. 68:18 and the text in both
the MT and the LXX are dramatic. First, Paul changes "you ascended" (MT: ALITA;
LXX: ANABHS) to the participle "he ascended" (ANABAS). The LXX text reveals some
instability at this point, with the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus reading
"he ascended" (ANABH) and the original hand of Codex Vaticanus reading, like
Paul, "having ascended." The second corrector of Sinaiticus and the second and
third correctors of Vaticanus, however, agree with the MT that the first verb of
the text should be in the second-person singular. The deviations from this
reading by the original hands of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus probably reflect a
tendency to conform the LXX text to Paul's citation of it (Harris 1998: 97-98)."
Paul then changes "you captured" - the reading in the MT and the LXX - to
"he captured." Once again, the original hand of Sinaiticus agrees with Paul
(against its second corrector and Vaticanus), but there can be little doubt that
here too its deviation from the MT stems from a tendency to conform the text ot
Paul's quotation. A full translation of the original hand of Sinaiticus at this
point reveals why: 'He ascended to the heights; 'he' captured captivity; 'you'
received gifts among humanity.' The nonsensical shift from third to second
person in the verb "you received" (ELABHS) shows that some influence has
disrupted the text. It seems probable that this influence was Paul's change of
the last two verbs from the second to the third person. The scribe, perhaps
unconsciously, remembered Paul's change in the person of these verbs and applied
inconsistently (See Harris 1998: 98n101).
Paul's most significant change comes in his handling of the third verb,
which reads "you received" (MT: LAQAHTA; LXX: ELABHS)but in Paul becomes "he
gave (EDWKEN). Paul has not merely changed the verb from the second to the third
person; he also has replaced the verb with its antonym. This apparently led Paul
to render the difficult phrase "among humanity" (MT: BA'ADAM: LXX; EN ANQRWPW).
with the more intelligible words "to humans beings" (TOIS ANQRWPOIS).
Trying to account for the changes is fraught with difficulty. Basically, it
is anyone's guess. But two observations should be noted.
"First, the Targum on Ps. 68:18 is the only unambiguous evidence of Jewish
exegetical tradition that actually replaces the verb "received" with the verb
"gave." The other ancient Jewish comments on this text retain the verb
"received" in the quotation but then imply that Moses received the Torah in
order to "give" it to Israel. The Targumim on Psalms in their present form,
however, come from the fourth or fifth centuries after Christ. That they existed
in the first century and influenced Paul seems unlikely, and even the idea that
the Targum on Ps. 68 is indebted to an early tradition that had already changed
"you received" to "he gave" in 68:18 remains highly uncertain. Since the Targum
comes from such a late period, and the christolgical reading of Ps. 68:18 was
widespread (e.g. Justin, Dial. 39. 4-5), it seems at least as likely that the
Targum represents a polemical response to the Christian exegesis of Ps. 68:18 MT
as that it preserves a three- or four-centuries-old Jewish exegetical tradition
that Paul used but that left no other clearly perceptible trances Jewish
exegetical literature.
Second, Paul writes in Greek to Gentiles (2:11'3"1' 4"17). probably
scattered over a wide area, not in Aramaic to Jews, not even in Greek to Jewish
Christians. He may have been able to assume some knowledge of the Greek
rendering among his readers, but he probably did not assume that they were
familiar with an exegetical tradition preserved only in an Aramaic paraphrase of
the Hebrew Scriptures. Even if some of his readers had heard of the rendering of
Ps. 68:18 MT now preserved in the Targum, it seems unlikely that Paul would
assume that they would give the Targum the same status as the Greek Scriptures
(See Best 1998:379-380).
Unless more concrete evidence appears in the future and points in another
direction, it seems best to think that Paul himself change the Greek rendering
of the text to suit his argument at this point in the letter. He certainly
follows a similar procedure elsewhere (see Best 1997:381). When hw quotes Hab.
2:4 in Gal. 3:11 and in Rom. 1:17, he leaves out the possessive pronoun "his,"
so that Habakkuk's "the righteous person shall live by his faithfulness: becomes
"the righteous person shall live by faith."
[Note: reference is also made to Deut. 30:12-14 and Rom. 106-8].
In addition, to what Frank S. Thielman, Ephesians, Commentary on the New
Testament Use of the Old Testament, pp. 819-825 says, I also think that what is
also going on is that additional information is implied with the THS GHS. The
opposite of "of the earth" is "in the heaven(s)" is implied. The opposite of "he
ascended" is stated in 4:9 to be "he had also descended" is clearly stated.
Jewish exegetical tradition had Moses going up (he ascended) "to heaven" to
received the Law (Torah). Thus, he also had descended before going up. Whether
this is the actual case no one knows for sure. But with the application of
Christ being the one who descended into the lower parts of the earth (cf. also I
Peter 3:19-20), then it is not too far-fetched to see an early Christian
tradition about Christ descending and ascending.
En Xristwi,
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph 4:9b
> 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
>
> ---
> 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
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 3:19
PM
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list