Eph 4:19 Vice List c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 3 13:48:30 EDT 2001
results of May 1 want ad for volunteers ONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle? Eph 4:19 hOITINES APHLGHKOTES hAUTOUS PAREDWKAN THi ASELEGIAiEIS ERGASIAN AKAQARSIAS PAHS EN PLEONEXIAi.There is a temptation to find a semantic link here between ERGASIAN andPLEONEXIAi. Part of the semantic domain of ERGASIAN is “to engage in someactivity for profit.” PLEONEXIAi is used for greed and covetousness.Taking a cue from other vice lists (e.g., 2Peter 2:3, Rev 18 The fall ofBabylon) it seems like there may be something here which the more recentcommentators are ignoring. The semantic connection I have in mind is one ofmaking profit, engaging in trade and greed linked somehow with wantonparticipation in licentiousness. This is a vague idea, I will leave itvague.I am not suggesting that the main thrust (semantic content) this verse hasbeen misunderstood. However I think there may be some semantic echoes orperhaps shadows that are being ignored.This may seem to some a violation of sound lexical semantic procedure, youknow, a wandering into the nether world of sensus plenor and so forth.However, having spend a lot of time looking at vice lists in the NT Isuspect that there are some semantic connections here which are beingignored.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
results of May 1 want ad for volunteersONTES Eph 4:18 – which participle?
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Mon Mar 29 19:24:42 EDT 2010
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b 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 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 rogersbargersville, in—– Original Message —– From: “Elizabeth Kline” <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>To: “greek ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:00 PMSubject: Re: [] 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
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] 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
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b 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 WorthYancyOn 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 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 ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:00 PM> Subject: Re: [] 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> > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Tue Mar 30 00:16:42 EDT 2010
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] when syntax doesn’t get you there “context” might — Eph3:15 All my comments on this topic will be off-list. You may e-mail me if you like but I don’t see anything fruitful in this so far.rod rogersbargersville, in
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there “context” might — Eph3:15
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 2 17:34:20 EDT 2001
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH META XARAS At 2:14 PM -0700 10/2/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN (Eph 4:9)> >TO ANEBH was giving me pause, so I read E. Best (Eph ICC) and also>BDF(267.1). And still being somewhat in a muddle I took a look at John>Eadie, HAW Meyer, Obrien (Pillar) none of which helped much. So I went back>and looked at E. Best who is the best (with some reservations about his>introduction) and now this is what I have made out of all this “research”>:-)))))> >In TO ANEBH, TO makes the quotation (fragment) ANEBH perform as a>substantive, and then the question TI ESTIN is asked relative to this>substantive.> >Is this essentially correct?Whether it’s correct or not is another question, but it’s the way I’vealways understood it; in English we tend to use a demonstrative that way(and the article was indeed originally a relatively weak demonstrativepronoun): “Just what is that ‘he ascended’?”– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBHMETA XARAS
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 2 17:14:08 EDT 2001
Parsing of Gal 3:11 Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN (Eph 4:9)TO ANEBH was giving me pause, so I read E. Best (Eph ICC) and alsoBDF(267.1). And still being somewhat in a muddle I took a look at JohnEadie, HAW Meyer, Obrien (Pillar) none of which helped much. So I went backand looked at E. Best who is the best (with some reservations about hisintroduction) and now this is what I have made out of all this “research”:-)))))In TO ANEBH, TO makes the quotation (fragment) ANEBH perform as asubstantive, and then the question TI ESTIN is asked relative to thissubstantive.Is this essentially correct?Thanks,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Parsing of Gal 3:11Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Tue Oct 2 20:28:58 EDT 2001
META XARAS META CARAS > At 2:14 PM -0700 10/2/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>> TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN (Eph 4:9)>> In TO ANEBH, TO makes the quotation (fragment) ANEBH perform as a>> substantive, and then the question TI ESTIN is asked relative to this>> substantive.>> >> Is this essentially correct?on 10/2/01 2:34 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> > Whether it’s correct or not is another question, but it’s the way I’ve> always understood it; in English we tend to use a demonstrative that way> (and the article was indeed originally a relatively weak demonstrative> pronoun): “Just what is that ‘he ascended’?”Thank you Carl. If you think it is correct than I will accept it as correct.In retrospect there is nothing very tricky about it but on some days eventhe straight forward seems obscure.Over all Ephesians is not a very difficult book to read. Not like 2nd Peteranyway. Thanks again,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
META XARASMETA CARAS
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Wed Oct 3 00:26:18 EDT 2001
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH Clayton Stirling Bartholomew wrote:>TO DE ANEBH TI ESTIN (Eph 4:9)> >TO ANEBH was giving me pause, so I read E. Best (Eph ICC) and also>BDF(267.1). And still being somewhat in a muddle I took a look at John>Eadie, HAW Meyer, Obrien (Pillar) none of which helped much. So I went back>and looked at E. Best who is the best (with some reservations about his>introduction) and now this is what I have made out of all this “research”>:-)))))> >In TO ANEBH, TO makes the quotation (fragment) ANEBH perform as a>substantive, and then the question TI ESTIN is asked relative to this>substantive.> >Is this essentially correct?> >Thanks,> >ClayClay:You seem hesitant to accept Carl’s explanation; the same substantiving of a phrase occurs at Mark 9:23; Gal 5:14. The Eph passage essentially means, “Now this statement, “He ascended…”, what does it mean, except this…”I think it may be time for you to “bite the bullet” and get a copy of Wallace…(-:If I might make an observation about commentaries…they are notoriously bad when it comes to really handling grammar; some of its because of editorial decisions to keep things brief, but in many cases its because the commentators’ Greek grammar is not all that good to begin with. A real exception on Ephesians, if you can get your hands on a copy (its from the 1880’s) is Charles Ellicott (his pauline commentaries, not his whole Bible commentary) on Eph. Its an acquired taste, ie., it takes some work to understand him at times, but the effort is always worth it…he really knew Greek grammar and was an actual Greek reader. Barth is probably second when comes to dealing with the problems in the text in Eph. Have fun!!Blessings….***********************************************************************Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Research Prof., Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan St. Portland, OR 97220V: 503-2516416 F: 503-251-6478 E: dalemw at teleport.com***********************************************************************
What To Do With PNEUMATIKOSEph 4:9 TO ANEBH
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Wed Oct 3 02:00:55 EDT 2001
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBH What To Do With PNEUMATIKOS Hi Dale,How are things in Portland?on 10/2/01 9:26 PM, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:> Clay:> > You seem hesitant to accept Carl’s explanation; Not True, I was very happy with Carl’s explanation. So happy with it thatthere didn’t seem to be much point in further elaboration. Carl is veryoften right about these things. I have the utmost confidence in his judgmenton questions of Greek grammar.> the same substantiving of a> phrase occurs at Mark 9:23; Gal 5:14.Yes, I have read these.>The Eph passage essentially means,> “Now this statement, “He ascended…”, what does it mean, except this…”Thanks for the translation. Sometimes translating does clarify things butgenerally I avoid doing it.> > I think it may be time for you to “bite the bullet” and get a copy of> Wallace…(-:I have had a copy of Wallace available for several years now. I got thecounty lib to purchase three of them. I leave it sitting on the shelf at mylocal branch which I visit every day and bring it home perhaps three times ayear look at it for five minutes and then take it back. Grammars are amatter of taste just like beer. Not every one likes Anchor Porter, somepeople prefer Anchor Steam. > > If I might make an observation about commentaries…they are notoriously> bad when it comes to really handling grammar;Yes, this is generally true. The older they are the better they aregenerally speaking. HAW Meyer’s Handbook is pretty good.>some of its because of> editorial decisions to keep things brief, but in many cases its because the> commentators’ Greek grammar is not all that good to begin with.E. Best seems to know Greek reasonably well.Thanks for your comments.warm greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Eph 4:9 TO ANEBHWhat To Do With PNEUMATIKOS
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sat Oct 6 15:46:32 EDT 2001
Roman Names into Greek ti in Luke 16.2 Eph 4:9KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHSOf course, tanker trucks full of ink have been spilled over the referent ofTA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS, why spill more?This morning I was reading through C.E. Arnold’s “Ephesians: Power andMagic” (Cambridge, 1989) and on pages 56-7 came across his discussion of Eph4:8-9. P.T. Obrien (Eph. Pillar, 1999) follows a recent trend and concludesthat the incarnation is the best overall solution to the question of thereferent of TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS.I find this very hard to swallow. I agree with C.E. Arnold (p. 57) thatusing TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS is a strange way to make reference to theincarnation. Very strange. If the incarnation is intended, TA KATWTERA addsnothing and introduces lots of confusion. Arnold’s argument is founded onextensive evidence from the first century religious culture in Asia Minor.It would seem that church fathers had it right on this one. This is adescription of decent into the nether world.Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Roman Names into Greekti in Luke 16.2
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 6 17:39:01 EDT 2001
ti in Luke 16.2 Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA At 12:46 PM -0700 10/6/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>Eph 4:9> >KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS> >Of course, tanker trucks full of ink have been spilled over the referent of>TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS, why spill more?> >This morning I was reading through C.E. Arnold’s “Ephesians: Power and>Magic” (Cambridge, 1989) and on pages 56-7 came across his discussion of Eph>4:8-9. P.T. Obrien (Eph. Pillar, 1999) follows a recent trend and concludes>that the incarnation is the best overall solution to the question of the>referent of TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS.> >I find this very hard to swallow. I agree with C.E. Arnold (p. 57) that>using TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS is a strange way to make reference to the>incarnation. Very strange. If the incarnation is intended, TA KATWTERA adds>nothing and introduces lots of confusion. Arnold’s argument is founded on>extensive evidence from the first century religious culture in Asia Minor.> >It would seem that church fathers had it right on this one. This is a>description of decent into the nether world.or at least deScent. I quite agree with you on this one, Clay. It seems tome that for TA KATWTERA to refer to the incarnation we would have to assumethe fully-dualistic cosmological conception of the created world as a darkprison for souls never meant to dwell there. I would think to that thegenitive qualifier THS GHS should in this instance mean that TA KATWTERAdesignates a region of the earth–and ought not to be viewed appositionallyas identical with the earth.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
ti in Luke 16.2Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sat Oct 6 19:40:47 EDT 2001
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA On Sat 6 Oct 2001 (17:39:01), cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu wrote:> or at least deScent. I quite agree with you on this one, Clay. It seems> to me that for TA KATWTERA to refer to the incarnation we would have to> assume the fully-dualistic cosmological conception of the created world as a> dark prison for souls never meant to dwell there. I would think to that> the genitive qualifier THS GHS should in this instance mean that TA> KATWTERA designates a region of the earth–and ought not to be viewed> appositionally as identical with the earth. ISTM that there is a parallel in Psalm 139:15 (138:15 LXX) OUK EKRUBH TO OSTOUN MOU APO SOU, *hO EPOIHSAS EN KRUFHi, KAI hH hUPOSTASIS MOU EN TOIS KATWTATW THS GHS*. Here the reference is clearly to gestation in the womb: the indispensible concomitant of Incarnation. So although Psalm 63:9 (62:9 LXX) has EISELEUSONTAI EIS TA KATWTATA THS GHS which can only refer to Sheol/Hades, this does not exhaust the possibilities for TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS in Ephesians 4:9. If Christ’s Ascension was from earth to heaven (from the Mount of Olives), then his Descent would logically be from heaven to earth (to Bethlehem), not from earth to Hades (at Calvary). Please excuse me if you’ve already covered this. I accidentally deleted the thread before reading it 8-( You’re so right about the tanker trucksfuls of ink, Clay! ERRWSQH Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERAEph 4:9 TA KATWTERA
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Steven Lo Vullo themelios at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 6 20:32:35 EDT 2001
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA on 10/6/01 6:40 PM, Ben Crick at ben.crick at argonet.co.uk wrote:> ISTM that there is a parallel in Psalm 139:15 (138:15 LXX)> OUK EKRUBH TO OSTOUN MOU APO SOU,> *hO EPOIHSAS EN KRUFHi, KAI hH hUPOSTASIS MOU EN TOIS KATWTATW THS GHS*.> Here the reference is clearly to gestation in the womb: the indispensible> concomitant of Incarnation.> > So although Psalm 63:9 (62:9 LXX) has EISELEUSONTAI EIS TA KATWTATA THS GHS> which can only refer to Sheol/Hades, this does not exhaust the possibilities> for TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS in Ephesians 4:9. If Christ’s Ascension was> from earth to heaven (from the Mount of Olives), then his Descent would> logically be from heaven to earth (to Bethlehem), not from earth to Hades> (at Calvary).I think there is another possibility here. It seems to me that in EphesiansChrist’s resurrection-ascension is viewed as one complex event. I think thisis illustrated in Eph 1.20-22 (cf. 2.5-6). So I think it possible that theforms of ANABAINW in 4.8-10 may be shorthand for Christ’sresurrection-ascension. In this case, the forms of KATABAINW in 4.9-10, byway of contrast, could be shorthand for Christ’s death-burial. The contrastbetween dying and descending (into the ground in burial) and living andascending seems appropriate for this letter. Just a suggestion.– Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERAEph 4:9 TA KATWTERA
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sat Oct 6 21:03:37 EDT 2001
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA At 12:46 PM -0700 10/6/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>> It would seem that church fathers had it right on this one. This is a>> description of descent into the nether world.on 10/6/01 2:39 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:> > I quite agree with you on this one, Clay. It seems to> me that for TA KATWTERA to refer to the incarnation we would have to assume> the fully-dualistic cosmological conception of the created world as a dark> prison for souls never meant to dwell there. I would think to that the> genitive qualifier THS GHS should in this instance mean that TA KATWTERA> designates a region of the earth–and ought not to be viewed appositionally> as identical with the earth.Carl,If we are right about this, then Eph 4:9 and 1Pet 3:18-22 would seem to blowa hole in Dennis R. MacDonald’s hypothesis* that Mark’s gospel isintentionally borrowing plot patterns from Homer’s Odyssey.MacDonald sees the naked young man escaping from the garden (Mk 14:51-52) aspatterned after Elpenor in Homer Od. 10.552-53. But if we assume that atradition about Jesus’ descent into Hades was available to Mark, and he wasintentionally mimicking the Odyssey, then it is very difficult to see why hewould include a reference to Elpenor but excluded the descent into Hades.Of course we don’t know for sure that this descent into Hades was availableto Mark. But if it was, this puts a lot of strain on MacDonald’s hypothesiswhich seems like it is suffering from a fair amount of strain already.Thanks for your observations.Greetings, Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062*See pages 128-129 in Dennis R. MacDonald, Homeric Epics and the Gospel ofMark, Yale 2000.
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERAEph 4:9 TA KATWTERA
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Sat Oct 6 21:15:38 EDT 2001
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Suggestion for a New NT Course on 10/6/01 4:40 PM, Ben Crick wrote:> So although Psalm 63:9 (62:9 LXX) has EISELEUSONTAI EIS TA KATWTATA THS GHS> which can only refer to Sheol/Hades, this does not exhaust the possibilities> for TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS in Ephesians 4:9.Your right Ben, it does not exhaust the possibilities. If it did we wouldnot have the supertankers full of in spilled on it.Thanks for pointing out Psalm 139:15 (138:15 LXX). I had overlooked thisreference in my reading on this subject.warm greetings,Clay– Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERASuggestion for a New NT Course
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 7 06:58:45 EDT 2001
IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA At 6:03 PM -0700 10/6/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>At 12:46 PM -0700 10/6/01, c stirling bartholomew wrote:>>> It would seem that church fathers had it right on this one. This is a>>> description of descent into the nether world.> >on 10/6/01 2:39 PM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:>> >> I quite agree with you on this one, Clay. It seems to>> me that for TA KATWTERA to refer to the incarnation we would have to assume>> the fully-dualistic cosmological conception of the created world as a dark>> prison for souls never meant to dwell there. I would think to that the>> genitive qualifier THS GHS should in this instance mean that TA KATWTERA>> designates a region of the earth–and ought not to be viewed appositionally>> as identical with the earth.> >Carl,> >If we are right about this, then Eph 4:9 and 1Pet 3:18-22 would seem to blow>a hole in Dennis R. MacDonald’s hypothesis* that Mark’s gospel is>intentionally borrowing plot patterns from Homer’s Odyssey.> >MacDonald sees the naked young man escaping from the garden (Mk 14:51-52) as>patterned after Elpenor in Homer Od. 10.552-53. But if we assume that a>tradition about Jesus’ descent into Hades was available to Mark, and he was>intentionally mimicking the Odyssey, then it is very difficult to see why he>would include a reference to Elpenor but excluded the descent into Hades.> >Of course we don’t know for sure that this descent into Hades was available>to Mark. But if it was, this puts a lot of strain on MacDonald’s hypothesis>which seems like it is suffering from a fair amount of strain already.Well, Clay, I’ve read MacDonald’s book and I personally think the strain itbears is an intolerable one: I find it impossible to take seriously. My ownview of the naked young man (NEANISKOS with a SINDWN escaping from thegarden links him rather to the NEANISKOS at the tomb in Mk 16. I doubt Markknew of a tradition of Jesus’ descent into Hades–but these are all issuesoutside the proper scope of .– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 7 07:27:47 EDT 2001
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERA IOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9) At 12:40 AM +0100 10/7/01, Ben Crick wrote:>On Sat 6 Oct 2001 (17:39:01), cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu wrote:>> or at least deScent. I quite agree with you on this one, Clay. It seems>> to me that for TA KATWTERA to refer to the incarnation we would have to>> assume the fully-dualistic cosmological conception of the created world as a>> dark prison for souls never meant to dwell there. I would think to that>> the genitive qualifier THS GHS should in this instance mean that TA>> KATWTERA designates a region of the earth–and ought not to be viewed>> appositionally as identical with the earth.> > ISTM that there is a parallel in Psalm 139:15 (138:15 LXX)> OUK EKRUBH TO OSTOUN MOU APO SOU,> *hO EPOIHSAS EN KRUFHi, KAI hH hUPOSTASIS MOU EN TOIS KATWTATW THS GHS*.KATWTATOIS> Here the reference is clearly to gestation in the womb: the indispensible> concomitant of Incarnation.> > So although Psalm 63:9 (62:9 LXX) has EISELEUSONTAI EIS TA KATWTATA THS GHS> which can only refer to Sheol/Hades, this does not exhaust the possibilities> for TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS in Ephesians 4:9. If Christ’s Ascension was> from earth to heaven (from the Mount of Olives), then his Descent would> logically be from heaven to earth (to Bethlehem), not from earth to Hades> (at Calvary).Although it might seem to be a very modern (“post-modern”?) thing toreformulate metaphors of height and depth in a three-story universe intonew cosmic metaphors of microcosmic recesses and macrocosmic expanses, itappears that the interpretation of Ps 139:15 has been doing that in muchtraditional commentary and translation. I’m personally more inclined tothink that the poetic phrasing of this verse depends upon association ofwomb and tomb both with the nether recesses of the earth, etc.I found the following in Spurgeon’s Treasury of David at:http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/TreasuryofDavid/tod.cgi?book=ps&chapter=139&verse=015’Verse 15. In the lowest parts of the earth. From this remarkableexpression, which, in the original, and as elsewhere used, denotes theregion of the dead — Sheol, or Hades — it would appear that it is notonly his formation in the womb the Psalmist here contemplates, but also –regarding the region of the dead as the womb of resurrection life — therefashioning of the body hereafter, and its new birth to the life immortal,which will be no less “marvellous” a work, but rather more so, than thefirst fashioning of man’s “substance.” ‘ –William De Burgh.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Eph 4:9 TA KATWTERAIOUDAIOUS TE KAI hELLHNAS (Rom 3:9)
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Mar 27 17:42:06 EDT 2010
[] More on prepositions [] 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 [1] C.E. ArnoldEPHESIANS POWER ANDMAGIC. By Clinton E. Arnold pp. 57-58 Google search string for C.E. Arnold “this papyrus preserves a record”
[] More on prepositions[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] 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
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b 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, p71Google 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”
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b Rod Rogers rngrogers at embarqmail.com
Sun Mar 28 22:48:31 EDT 2010
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b 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 rogersbargersvile, in—– Original Message —– From: Elizabeth KlineTo: greek Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:42 PMSubject: [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9bEph. 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. ArnoldEPHESIANS POWER ANDMAGIC. By Clinton E. Arnold pp. 57-58 Google search string for C.E. Arnold “this papyrus preserves a record”— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] 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
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b 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 > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:42 PM> Subject: [] 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> >
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] 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
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] 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, PhDyancywsmith at sbcglobal.netY.W.Smith at tcu.eduyancy at wbtc.com5636 Wedgworth RoadFort Worth, TX 76133817-361-7565On 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 >> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:42 PM>> Subject: [] 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>> >> > > > > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] 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
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b Dear Elizabeth,I think what is forgotten is that Paul is quoting and giving exegesis of Psalm68:18. He also makes 3 important changes. “The differences between Paul’s quotation of Ps. 68:18 and the text in boththe 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 someinstability at this point, with the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus reading”he ascended” (ANABH) and the original hand of Codex Vaticanus reading, likePaul, “having ascended.” The second corrector of Sinaiticus and the second andthird correctors of Vaticanus, however, agree with the MT that the first verb ofthe text should be in the second-person singular. The deviations from thisreading by the original hands of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus probably reflect atendency 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 thathere too its deviation from the MT stems from a tendency to conform the text otPaul’s quotation. A full translation of the original hand of Sinaiticus at thispoint reveals why: ‘He ascended to the heights; ‘he’ captured captivity; ‘you’received gifts among humanity.’ The nonsensical shift from third to secondperson in the verb “you received” (ELABHS) shows that some influence hasdisrupted the text. It seems probable that this influence was Paul’s change ofthe last two verbs from the second to the third person. The scribe, perhapsunconsciously, remembered Paul’s change in the person of these verbs and appliedinconsistently (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 “hegave (EDWKEN). Paul has not merely changed the verb from the second to the thirdperson; he also has replaced the verb with its antonym. This apparently led Paulto 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, itis anyone’s guess. But two observations should be noted. “First, the Targum on Ps. 68:18 is the only unambiguous evidence of Jewishexegetical 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 inorder 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 existedin the first century and influenced Paul seems unlikely, and even the idea thatthe 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 Targumcomes from such a late period, and the christolgical reading of Ps. 68:18 waswidespread (e.g. Justin, Dial. 39. 4-5), it seems at least as likely that theTargum represents a polemical response to the Christian exegesis of Ps. 68:18 MTas that it preserves a three- or four-centuries-old Jewish exegetical traditionthat Paul used but that left no other clearly perceptible trances Jewishexegetical literature. Second, Paul writes in Greek to Gentiles (2:11’3″1′ 4″17). probablyscattered over a wide area, not in Aramaic to Jews, not even in Greek to JewishChristians. He may have been able to assume some knowledge of the Greekrendering among his readers, but he probably did not assume that they werefamiliar with an exegetical tradition preserved only in an Aramaic paraphrase ofthe Hebrew Scriptures. Even if some of his readers had heard of the rendering ofPs. 68:18 MT now preserved in the Targum, it seems unlikely that Paul wouldassume 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 anotherdirection, it seems best to think that Paul himself change the Greek renderingof the text to suit his argument at this point in the letter. He certainlyfollows 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 NewTestament Use of the Old Testament, pp. 819-825 says, I also think that what isalso going on is that additional information is implied with the THS GHS. Theopposite of “of the earth” is “in the heaven(s)” is implied. The opposite of “heascended” 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” toreceived the Law (Torah). Thus, he also had descended before going up. Whetherthis is the actual case no one knows for sure. But with the application ofChrist being the one who descended into the lower parts of the earth (cf. also IPeter 3:19-20), then it is not too far-fetched to see an early Christiantradition about Christ descending and ascending.En Xristwi,Rev. Bryant J. Williams III—– Original Message —– From: <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>To: “greek ” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:36 AMSubject: Re: [] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b> Elizabeth is completely right on this one. And Arnold’s discussion of thetextual sources of reconstructing the context in which Paul’s words made senseis admirable. The internet is a wonderful place and now can afford the most landlocked 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 theenormous relevance of death, suffering, and Hadean gods had for the peoples ofthe Mediterranean. In effect, your average house was permeated with mythicalimages and objects down to the most mundane level of existence. Other themespresent in the art of home and burial place are mythical representations ofuntimely death or sudden abduction by the gods, of grief, of love, and ofsorrowful partings, as one might expect. They also include implied parallelsbetween the virtues of the householders and those of mythological heroes orheroines, such as the bravery of a man, the beauty of a woman or the precociouspromise of a child. Also making frequent appearnce are images of joyouscelebration, by the followers of Dionysus or by sea nymphs and marinemonsters — themes that mirror the happy gatherings of survivors when theycelebrate the feasts in honor of the dead. (The work in this area by Zanker,Ewald, Ling, Windsor, Sauron, Jensen and Balch, who specifically makesapplication to the NT in his recent book) come to mind On the other hand, thepunishment of rebellion and hubris, sometimes quite grotesque, along with scenesfrom colliseum spectacles make there way onto the wall art of home.> > When one returns to the NT after viewing such representations, many from thefirst century, coupled with the references to such things in texts, the readingof the NT is transformed. What we often fail to realize is that Paul’s letterswere 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 andshaped and expressed by viewing images of the gods. For the ancient Christianpreachers like Paul NOT to address Christ’s victory over death in terms of thatworld 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 elaboratesemantic model (he didn’t call it that) including the historical-culturalsituation where this epistle would have been circulated and then looked at howKATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS would fit into that situation. Hementioned the genitive in passing but only in reference to someone else’sargument.> >> > On the other hand Hoehner zooms in on the “syntax” of THS GHS bringsWallace on board and tries to read the meaning out of the “the code”. BetweenHoehner/Wallace and Arnold there appears to be a difference in the underlyingassumptions about how language works. I am impressed with Hoehner’s thoroughnessin responding to the secondary literature. I am not impressed ***at thisspecific point*** Eph 4:9b KATEBH EIS TA KATWTERA [MERH] THS GHS with hishandling of the Greek text, specifically the comments he cites from Wallace “acomparative 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 forthe genitive. The whole question is irrelevant. But Hoehner doesn’t agree, onpage 533 he says “The real problem is identifying the syntactical relationshipof 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 hundredpages 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 > >> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:42 PM> >> Subject: [] 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> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> ——————————————————————————–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 3:19PM
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Mar 29 13:00:29 EDT 2010
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b [] 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
[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b[] when syntax doesn’t get you there — Eph 4:9b