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

Yancy W Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Mon Mar 29 22:14:17 EDT 2010


Woah, buddy!—as we say in Texas. So Acts 19 is sufficient context for  
Ephesians to understand  KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS? What  
about the context for understanding Acts 19? At some point one has to  
venture out beyond the pin hole view of the Greco-Roman World as seen  
through the New Testament and read some texts, look at some ancient  
art, view some ruins and use the to reimagine our texts as part of a  
largely non textual world of practices, beliefs and realia. Oh!—to  
gain fresh understandings of these texts!
I have no doubt that Grassmick intended the adjective "historical" in  
a serious way. Using scripture to interpret scripture as if these  
stood in a vacuum is neither helpful nor wise. After acknowledging the  
biblical intertextuality of this phrase, it does a mind and heart good  
to examine the range of relevant, probable specificities, or to  
reconstrct the frame, as Elizabeth calls it, to which Paul's  
underdetermined text refers. I'm sure this off topic, but once again  
it illustrates the limit of a Greek only/text only approach to the text.


Sent from my iPhone in Fort Worth
Yancy

On Mar 29, 2010, at 6:24 PM, "Rod Rogers" <rngrogers at embarqmail.com>  
wrote:

> I'm glad to see this response, Elizabeth. It seems to me that
> Hoehner has been rebuked over using Wallace and Wallace rebuked
> because he is too thorough (To many nuances?). To say that
> Hoehner has forgot or abandoned historical/conceptual analysis is
> just not true. Just because Hoehner does not address
> historical/cultural facts on page 533 when he discusses grammar
> says nothing about his knowledge of such things. What about pages
> 78 - 96?
>
> Harold Hoehner, Dan Wallace, John Grassmick all (TEXAS) men hold
> to the same "principles and practice of Greek Exegesis", I think
> one of them even wrote on the subject. According to Grassmick
> there are at least 8 aspect to correct exegesis. Grassmick on
> page 11 that:
>
> B. The grammatical-historical-contextual method of interpretation
>
>    1. Definition of grammatical-historical-contextual
> interpretation
>
>        This approach seeks the meaning of a segment of Scripture
> as required by the laws of grammar and literary form, the facts
> of history, and the framework of context. it is the best approach
> because there are the features the interpreter must share with
> the author in order to determine his meaning.
>
> I'm sorry but historical context does not answer the question of
> how to translate KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS.
> Historical context does give insight into why the writer might
> have used certain words and give us insight as to word play but
> you should not be allowed to make exegesis = "historical
> analysis". It is only a part of the tools used to determine the
> original intent of the text.
>
> As far as praising C. E. Arnold and the "framework" done that
> illumines this text, I personally understand the historical
> context of Ephesus far better by reading Acts chapter 19. I don't
> expect the B-Greek community to rave over Harold Hoehner's
> Ephesian commentary but I do think he has blessed the Christian
> community with it. As for Dan Wallace's GGBB I think some people
> on this list fail to comprehend the audience Mr. Wallace wrote
> his grammar for. I don't think it offends him (Dan) at all that
> Carl Conrad thinks the way he does about his grammar. Wallace
> wrote his grammar for those who have completed first year Greek
> and need to complete their understanding of Greek Grammar, not
> for Ph. D's. In that respect I believe he has done an admiral
> job. I don't agree with everything in his grammar and have said
> so on this list but I have used it and profited from it.
>
> I guess I'm ready for real Greek Grammar and exegesis now. Let's
> move C. E. Arnold to another list.
>
> rod rogers
> bargersville, in
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
> To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph
> 4:9b
>
>
>>
>> On Mar 29, 2010, at 3:36 AM, yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>> For the ancient Christian preachers like Paul NOT to address
>>> Christ's victory over death in terms of that world would be
>>> simply astounding.
>>
>> Thank you Yancy and Bryant for your contributions.
>>
>> After a fresh look a Hoenher's treatment, I agree with most of
>> what he says. I agree that the THS GHS is probably partitive.
>> However, I think the early church got this one right and will
>> continue to hold that the referent of KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA
>> [MERH] THS GHS is a decent into the underworld since C.E.
>> Arnold makes an excellent case for this in terms of the
>> cultural presuppositions of the target audience.
>>
>> Why all the fuss and bother of this? Primarily it is a matter
>> of the order in which we do things. IMO syntax analysis is not
>> primary.  It doesn't come first. By the time I get to syntax
>> analysis the meaning of the text has already been more or less
>> determined by constructing a semantic representation of the
>> situation. If you want this boiled down into a formula, meaning
>> precedes form. You don't find the meaning by fussing about the
>> form of the text.
>>
>> 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