Question #1:
I have trouble understanding Hebrew verbs. I think the tense is called "Qal",
but I sometimes can't discern from reading a sentence whether the verb
is past, present or future. I often look to Young's Literal Translation
and find the verb "is" in a sentence which is obviously a reference to
the past, and then I will see the same words written in a way that I
would think would be a reference to the future.
Examples:
Deuteronomy 22:19
and fined him a hundred silverlings, and given to the father of the
damsel,
because he hath brought out an evil name on a virgin of Israel, and she
is
to him for a wife, he is not able to send her away all his days.
"... is to him for a wife..." Wasn't she already his wife? (past)
Deuteronomy 22:29
then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the
damsel
fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath
humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.
"...to him she is for a wife..." Translated in NASB, KJV, etc. as "shall
be
his wife" --- (future)
MORE Examples (for fun):
1 Samuel 25:42
And Abigail hasteth and riseth, and rideth on the ass; and five of her
young
women who are going at her feet; and she goeth after the messengers of
David, and is to him for a wife. (past -- story in history)
2 Samuel 11:27
and the mourning passeth by, and David sendeth and gathereth her unto
his
house, and she is to him for a wife, and beareth to him a son; and the
thing
which David hath done is evil in the eyes of Jehovah. (past -- story in
history)
Can you shed any light on this, (if I am making sense)?
Thank you,
Response #1:
Well you have hit upon one of the really fascinating aspects of the
ancient Hebrew language (and perhaps language development in general, at
least as my personal theory of such things is concerned). Modern Hebrew,
which was of course resuscitated in comparatively recent times, at least
as a widely spoken language, is essentially Indo-European in its syntax,
and that includes its verbal aspects. The explanation for this is that
eastern and western Europeans were the ones responsible for reviving the
language (Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the "father of Modern Hebrew", in
particular). So a native speaker of Spanish, or English, or French, or
of any of a variety of modern European languages finds the task of
learning Modern Hebrew similar to that of learning other Europeans
languages. Not that there aren't unique problems and obstacles. The
alphabet looks different, for one thing (although it has the same
original source), and also the formations of verb and noun forms are
roughly the same as the ancient ones (though simplified). What is truly
different is the "mind set" of the language. To some extent this is a
subjective thing, that is, as in Modern Greek as opposed to the ancient
variety and Italian as opposed to Latin, the entire way that modern
speakers look at the world and think is quite different from that of the
people who populated the ancient world, and to a remarkable degree that
generally surprises anyone who comes to these languages and cultures
from our modern perspective. But there are also many concrete
differences in the case of ancient Hebrew as well, and your question
touches upon one of the most significant, namely, ancient Hebrew really
does not have "tense" in the sense of which we think of it. As moderns,
we demand very strict time distinctions, but for whatever reason in the
ancient world this was not necessarily the case, at least not to the
same degree. There is strong evidence, for example, that, while
pre-Homeric ancient Greek was originally more complex in terms of its
forms than the Homeric and Classical Greek we possess in abundance, it
originally was far less concerned with tense, and it is quite possible
that the development of specific markers and forms to show that an
action was in the future or definitively in the past were later
developments. This might make some sense to a theory of "people getting
smarter and language getting more useful over time" if it weren't for
the fact that even by Homeric times, as I say, Greek actually was
simplifying. And it is not as if it was impossible to understand time
distinctions without the marking and specific tense system that
developed in Greek as ancient Hebrew shows.
This brings me back to your question. In Modern Hebrew what we have come
to call (at least in ancient Hebrew) the "Perfect" is the simple past,
and what we have come to call the "Imperfect" is the future. But in
ancient Hebrew, context decides the tense application. The "perfect" is
more often than not a simple past tense, but very often in a prophetic
context must be translated as a future in English. Scholars often refer
to this as the "prophetic perfect" and it is occasionally helpful to
think of the Hebrew perfect as admitting the possibility of being the
equivalent of the English future perfect as well as the simple perfect
(and sometimes even our pluperfect). A better way to envision this,
although incredibly confusing to most people as I can attest as a
language teacher, is to understand the difference as "aspectual". That
is to say, the perfect really refers to the fact of completed action
(regardless of time) whereas the imperfect in Hebrew really refers to
the fact of continuing action (regardless of time). Context determines
the differences in tense (which, in my estimation and experience really
supports a theory of "people getting dumber over time, not smarter, and
language having to adapt to help people see distinctions that were
obvious to everyone long ago").
I won't trouble you with too much more information except to say that in
ancient Hebrew, there is also the phenomenon of sequential distinction
of tenses. There are loose parallels in Indo-European languages, but to
my knowledge Hebrew is pretty much unique in how it uses simple
conjunctions and an alternating sequence of perfects and imperfects to
adjust and identify time distinctions. What this means is that the
imperfect (which is sometimes future, sometimes modal, sometimes
continuing action whatever the time) can, as part of this sequence,
stand for a simple action in past time (one with a truly perfect rather
than imperfect aspect), thus reversing its normal force.
If you find all this somewhat confusing, join the club. I spent many
years researching and worrying about this problem. There isn't even the
kind of bibliography that one would hope to find even on the scholarly
level that has yet been able to render all this into a universally
accepted (and acceptable) system. To my mind the best thing on the
subject remains S.R. Driver's A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in
Hebrew (Oxford 1892). But even this seminal work is not without its
difficulties, falls far short of being systematic enough, and leaves
many, many unanswered questions. The bottom line is that in order to
translate ancient Hebrew well, one really does have to be something of
an expert. It's a little like driving a car. You can get a hundred books
on it, but when you actually do it you find out a million things that
are next to impossible to convey in writing.
All this is to say that without looking at the context of a passage in
terms of its linguistic, historical, and theological meaning, it's
really not possible to say whether or not a particular verb tense is
correctly rendered. It's not that there are no "rules". It's more that
they are very difficult to write down in a way that would let someone
who has not mastered the language figure something out on their own
definitively. I would also wish to say at this point is that the above
is a gross simplification of many other issues of translation as they
touch upon verb mood, tense, voice, and modality in ancient Hebrew, not
to mention clause syntax.
Your examples bring some of this out. In Deuteronomy 22:19, where Young
translates "fined", I would translated "shall fine". The verb is
perfect, but it is in a sequence where the reader would always
understand this as a future and modal construction (i.e., here, "shall
fine" as opposed to just "will fine", but definitely not past tense in
English in any case). On the other hand the verb translated "is" is in
the imperfect, and in this particular sequence also has the same future
and modal construction (i.e., here, "shall be" as opposed to just "will
be", but definitely not
simple present tense in English in any case). In Deuteronomy 22:29 we
have the same exact sort of sequence and tenses as in the previous
example (and the same explanations). In both 1 Samuel 25:42 and 2 Samuel
11:27 it is rather a questions of the most common of the narrative
sequences in Hebrew. Both of these verbs are in the imperfect, and both
follow a waw "consecutive" (used to be called "conversive").
Without the sequence, we would expect a perfect, but with the sequence
we translate the verbs as if perfect, i.e., as simple past tenses. This
exercise, if nothing else, shows the dangers of translations that claim
to be "literal": they often give a completely misleading (i.e., wrong)
idea of what the original text really means.
I certainly commend you for your efforts, and I think that if every
Christian did his or her utmost to try and get to the bottom of passages
about which they have question (as you are obviously doing here), that
we as a Church would be so much better off. I am always happy to explain
and defend particular translations that I post to the site. When it
comes to translations from the Hebrew, it is very common for my
translations to differ from what one finds in the versions, often
because my understanding of the meaning has opened up a reason to take
the tense/aspect of a particular verb in a different (and in my thinking
"correct") way.
Two additional notes:
1) the term "Qal" refers to the simple conjugation of the verb.
There are a number of different conjugations of various verb stems in
Hebrew. Hebrew verbs are, for the most part, built on three consonant
stems, and if one adds a preformative letter to the stem (and etc.), one
changes the conjugation, as for example qatal "he kills (or has
killed or did kill!)" versus niqtal "he is killed" (or has been
killed or was killed). This largely passive conjugation is called the
niph'al (based upon its application to the common paradigm verb
pa'al), and there are many other such. None of these, however, have
anything to do with tense.
2) The verb "to be" in Hebrew (as in many other languages) is often left
out. This is especially so in the "present" since there are no discrete
forms that are technically "present" even in Modern Hebrew (although
there is a way to signal the present).
I want to encourage you to keep up your good efforts to learn and drink
in deeply the Word of God.
You may also find the following links of some use:
Hebrew Language Study Resources
Tools and Techniques for Bible Translation.
Bible Interpretation: Interlinears, Academics, Versions et al.
Biblical Languages, Texts and Translations I
Biblical Languages, Texts and Translations II
Biblical Languages, Texts and Translations III
Bible translation and John 8:58
In our Lord who is that very Word, Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
Question #2:
Regarding Rev. 13:11,
as per the KJV, "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth;
and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon."
Therefore, can Rev. 13:11 be rendered as follows?
"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and it had two
horns like a lamb, both/that spake like a dragon."
The Greek word kai/kai/kahee used in the KJV above and which is
translated as 'and' has the following definitions: "a primary particle,
having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also,
even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with
other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if,
or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
In addition, the word 'He or It' is not part of the Greek text itself,
but is only added by translators for grammatical clarity. In summary, if
the above suggested translation is correct, then it would appear that
the 'Two Horns' are the ones speaking like a dragon rather than merely
the Beast out of the earth itself/himself. To this end, can it be
suggested then, that the two lamblike horns are perhaps two False
Prophets that demonically mirror God's two True Prophets (Witnesses) of
Rev.11:3-12? The gist of what I am suggesting regarding Rev. 13:11 is,
while the 'Two Horns' of the Beast out of the earth may have all the
appearances of being non-threatening, like the small budding horns of a
lamb vs. the larger horns of a more mature beast, they are nonetheless
lethal –
they speak the destructive words of a dragon (serpent).
Response #2:
As to your main point
(embodied in your follow-up question), the lethality of the words spoken
by the second beast can surely be conceded, no matter whether or not
they are coming from the horns.
The word kai would almost never (if ever) mean "that". The quote
you paste in suggests that it can do so "in combination" with other
words, and the subordinating conjunction it would be paired with in that
case would then have to assume the role of generating the meaning "that"
(no such word here, only a solitary kai). Occasionally, we do
find kai "in apodosis", that is, serving as a sort of conjunction
(where it stands for the Hebrew waw –
only really in biblical or
biblically derived Greek: cf. Rev.10:6), but that is really something a
little different (we leave it out in translation; cf. NIV on Rev.10:6).
In any case, I don't think any of this matters for your argument, since
things really hinge on the subject of elalei (see next
paragraph).
Grammatically speaking, unlike English, Greek distinguishes in its
verbal endings between persons and numbers, so that one can generally
tell without difficulty if the subject is a "he" or a "they". Now there
is an exception in Greek, namely, the neuter plural as subject which,
although plural, takes a singular verb. The word for "horns" here is
both neuter and plural, so that, theoretically, it could be the subject
without violating the grammar. There are exceptions to the rule in
Revelation and elsewhere in the NT, but there is nothing to say from a
purely grammatical analysis that kerata couldn't be the subject
of elalei.
That said, I think I would want an example of horns speaking elsewhere
to be convinced. For there is nothing in the text or the context to
suggest that this is how we ought to take the clause instead of taking
it in the most natural way. What I mean is, like English, Greek is
reluctant to repeat the subject for a string of clauses where the
subject stays the same. For example, in the sentence "John phoned a
friend, ordered pizza, and watched the game on TV", it is theoretically
possible that Julie ordered the pizza and the friend watched the game,
but in the absence of some signal to the contrary, we are surely right
to suppose that John is the subject of all three verbs and that the
reason his name is not repeated is that we would find it "bad style" to
say "John phoned and John called and John watched", unless we are
putting it in for unusual emphasis. The same is true of Revelation
13:11-13. Here we have fully six finite verbs in a row, none of which
has "the beast" repeated as the subject from the beginning of verse 11.
It is not only the normal thing to assume that the subject stays the
same in the absence of any specific change of subject (and the "horns"
are present in the text only as an object), but there is also the
problem of how, if we switch to "horns" as the subject in the second
verb, we are to know that we need to switch back to "the beast" as
subject of the third (and remaining) verbs (as we surely do).
So I would prefer to do what all other translations I am aware of do and
retain "the beast" as the subject here. For, although, as I say, it is
not impossible from a strictly grammatical point of view to take
kerata as the subject, it is an interpretation which has a pretty
high mountain to climb in terms of contextual meaning in order to be
persuasive.
Yours in our Lord Jesus.
Bob L.
Question #3:
Could you please look up Rom. 14:9 and Col. 1:15. Now, is "Lord" in the Romans' verse a genitive of subordination? What about "firstborn" in the Colossians verse? Now, some have tried to say that "firstborn" is a partitive genitive (is that the correct term?), meaning that "firstborn" belongs to the category of "creation." Are these two verses direct parallels in structure? How would one determine if the two nouns are genitive of subordination or partitive genitives? Strictly on context, or can one determine it based solely on grammar and sentence structure? It seems to me context alone would show that the Colossians' verse must mean genitive of subordination, since it says in vs. 18--"He is also the HEAD of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything." This whole sentence is about headship.
Response #3:
The key words you ask
about are not genitives - in either passage. In Romans 14:9 translations
which use the word "Lord" are trying to bring out in English the Greek
verb kyrieuo which means "to-be-Lord-over". So this is a verb,
not a noun capable of being in the genitive, and the verb governs two
genitives, "dead [people] and living [people]". As to the terminology
one would employ in describing this particular genitive (i.e., "dead and
living"), one could call it partitive or subordinate (or a number of
other things). Grammatical terminology for the wide-ranging use of the
genitive case in Greek (especially where there has been Hebrew influence
- the "construct" or genitive equivalent in Hebrew does some very "heavy
lifting") is by no means an exact science. Such terminology as is
employed is only meant to be descriptive when used by serious scholars,
not dispositive. What I mean by that is that there is no way anyone who
wanted to be taken seriously would ever say something like "see, this is
indisputably a _______ type of genitive, and therefore from that
information we can derive _______". The first problem with this sort
pseudo-exegesis is that it gets the cart entirely before the horse. The
only way one can even hope to put a "tag" on a genitive in Greek is to
understand how it is being used in the first place. What a serious
scholar would say is, "see, it is clear from ____ that this word here
means ______, so we can call it a _______ genitive (in order to help
people understand it better)". The second problem with the logic is a
bit more subtle but equally glaring: since we can only even hazard a
guess as to "what kind" of genitive we may be dealing with by
understanding it first, there will never be a time when we can say
"because this is a _______ genitive, it must mean ______ here". This is
a bit counter-intuitive because if we stipulate that something is a
rose, we may be right in assuming that it smells sweet. But the analogy
is actually false since none of the genitive classifications are
anywhere as near as precise as anything like a rose. It is more along
the lines of "good, better, best", when the criteria for determining
these categories is entirely subjective: "let's call this rose, rose #3,
the best of the three roses, only because we say it is the best of the
three roses; and since it is the best of the three roses, ergo it must
be better than the other two. The name of this particular fallacy
escapes me, but in terms of the classification of the cases in the study
of Biblical Greek it has long been very wide-spread. Classicists –
because they have had to read a lot of Greek –
understand that the
language is way too flexible to employ any such technique (as indeed all
languages are). Could we ever say "this is a partitive 'of' in English,
therefore it excludes any possible element of description?" Not in the
abstract. The best we could ever hope to do would be to actually
understand a particular example and describe it accordingly, in which
case we would be analyzing the language and not reversing the process by
arbitrarily assigning terminology and doing a back analysis from that -
Q.E.D.
As to Colossians 1:18, the word prototokos, "first-born" is an
adjective in the nominative case, it modifies the He/Who of the clause
(i.e., Jesus Christ). It is in turn modified by a prepositional phrase,
ek ton nekron, "from the dead". The words ton nekron are
in the genitive because the preposition ek always takes the
genitive case. When it comes to objects of prepositions, trying to
classify the different types of genitives (or datives or accusatives) is
particularly unhelpful, in my view, though there are many who try
(especially, as I say, when their experience with real Greek is somewhat
limited). It is true that there are different ways in which certain
prepositions are used, but it is generally more helpful to explain these
via translation and the citing of parallels rather than once again
asserting the false authority of a meaningless category, then working
backward from a false position of categorical authority. I am not sure
what commentaries you are using but it is possible that some have meant
to take their "partitive" argument from the two elements within the word
"first-born". Of course protos means first, and the second
morpheme, tok, is from the verbal root tek which means to
give birth. So "first-born" is a fairly difficult translation to
dismiss. What exactly "first-born" means beyond its straight-forward
etymology is something that must be determined as in the case of all
vocabulary by its usage in the particular context and in the general
context of the overall language. Indeed, in the context of the Old
Testament, the first-born has preeminent rights, and it is
unquestionably to assert those rights for the Messiah that this word is
used in respect to our Lord. He is both the first human being
resurrected from the dead, and that preeminence of sequence is certainly
not independent of preeminence of status. He is not just "first", but He
is the first for a reason, namely, His headship, leadership, preeminent
sonship, etc.
I think you can see clearly by now that there is no parallelism between
the two verses you ask about. One would never think so by even a cursory
examination of the Greek, but because of difficulties in the rendering
into English of the verb in the first instance and the adjective in the
second, it is possible to see how one might think there was a
parallelism through over-reliance on an English translation.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
I actually believe the dominion/subordination nuance is even stronger in
Romans 14:9 than in Col. 1:15-18, but I do agree that the genitive
pases ktiseos as being in a subordinate relation to the
prototokos. As I'm sure you know, the third person singular of the
verb kurieuse contains the head nominal to the compound genitives
(dead and living) just as prototokos is the head noun to the
genitive pases ktiseos in Col. 1:15. I take these genitives as
being subordinated to Jesus. Anyway, let me know what you think when you
have time.
Response #4:
My comment on the two
verses being "not parallel" is a grammatical observation rather than a
theological one. There is, in my view, no grammatical parallel to be
drawn, however I would certainly acknowledge that Romans 14:9 helps to
explain what Colossians 1:15 means, namely, that "first-born of the
dead" means rather more over the dead than it does from the number of
the dead. If we are going to characterize the genitive here, I would say
that the difference in meaning between these two ideas stems from how
one wishes to characterize the verbal idea latent in the adjective
prototokos. If we see it as essentially passive, then we arrive a
the latter meaning, whereas if we take our cue from Romans 14:9 (as well
as from a host of passages that connect first-born status with rulership)
then we arrive at the former meaning. These are generally termed
subjective and objective genitives respectively, with the former
expressing a relationship where the genitive is essentially the subject
of the substantive's inherent verbal idea (generating a passive voice
meaning), and the latter expressing a relationship where the genitive is
essentially the object of the substantive's inherent verbal idea
(generating an active voice meaning). Although it ought to be simple,
perhaps no case explanation has proved more difficult to grasp for my
Greek students over the years than this one. But the principle is sound
enough. In our case, Colossians 1:15, "first-born [RULING] over the
dead" would be the idea behind the objective genitive, where the verbal
idea of dominion or rulership is latent in the essential historical and
theological meaning of prototokos.
Hope this helps - sorry for any confusion generated on this end.
In Him who is the Firstborn in every way, our Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #5:
You say your observation that the two passages aren't "parallel" is more
of a grammatical observation than theological, and from the ensuing
discussion it seems clear that you're not disagreeing with my
understanding the genitive nuance in Romans 14:9 as a subordinate
relation to the verb's subject, rather you're not inclined to take the
genitive nuance in Col. 1:15 and 18 as a subordinate one and so on that
basis you don't see a parallel between the two passages. Thus you would
disagree with Dr. Wallace as he explains the genitive nuance in Col.
1:15 below as he quotes from the NIV:
............."who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation" Though some regard this gen. to be partitive (thus,
firstborn who is a part of creation), both due to the lexical field of
'firstborn' including 'preeminent over' (and not just a literal
chronological birth order) and the following causal clause ('for [hoti]
in him all things were created')--which makes little sense if mere
chronological order is in view, it is far more likely that this
expresses subordination. Further, although most examples of
subordination involve a verbal head noun, not all do (notice 2 Cor 4:4
above, as well as Acts 13:17). The resultant meaning seem to be an early
confession of Christ's lordship and hence, implicitly his deity." (Greek
Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 104)
And Dr. Wallace supports the above in a footnote at the bottom of the
same page:
"Cf. the theological statements to this effect in 1 Chron 5:1; Ps 89:27;
Rom 8:29; Rev. 1:5" (ibid, 104)
So it would appear that Dr. Wallace's believes that relevant theological
usages elsewhere should be included in any attempt to determine the
intended nuance of the relationship between the head nominal and the
genitive object (tagging). I had already been in agreement with Dr.
Wallace on this at Col. 1:15, and THEN I cited the Romans passage to
illustrate how that idea of subordination can be seen in the English
expression, "Lord of the dead and the living", as really meaning "Lord
OVER the dead and the living". At this point Mondo disagreed with my
taking the Romans passage as a subordinate relationship, and the reason
he gave for the denial is... "it's a verb not a noun". Well duh, of
course it's a verb, but I'd have thought he'd know how to find the
nominal to which the genitives are related as being contained within the
verb's person (3rd singular---Jesus), and that was my point with Mondo.
But apparently you agree with him against Wallace's view that Col. 1:15
and 18 should be taken as a dominion/subordination relationship between
the prototokos and the genitive referents. In that case it looks
like you're in agreement with the school of thought that grammatical
analysis (tagging) should be ontological, and if so then with respect I
think I'd have to disagree. I'm thinking of the difference between
verbal aspect and actionsart (unaffected vs affected meaning),
the former is ontological, while the latter is pragmatic and dependent
on the situational or contextual parameters. I think the latter brings
us more closely to the intended nuance of the writer and I honestly
don't see how (or why) grammatical analysis should be done within an
ontological bubble ((I don't mean to suggest that you are advocating
that since I'm not sure I've understood you correctly)). It seems
difficult to thread the needle sometimes.
It seem to me that correct exegesis involves threading the needle
between etymology, context (time and culture related as well as
immediate), and idiomatic realities across the language barrier. This
might be of particular interest to you, Dr. Luginbill, when Dr. Gundry
was discussing the meaning of "apostasia" in 2nd Thess. 2:3, he
was disagreeing with certain pretribulationists who appealed to the
etymological root meaning of the word to use it in support of the
pretrib rapture (apostasy---departure of the church) since it's
etymology goes back to a spatial departure. But Dr. Gundry traced the
word's usage throughout the LXX and NT (and the classical period) and
found that it more often than not referred to a departure in the
religious or political sense (rebellion)...by NT times. Thus against
Wuest and English he concluded as follows:
"It happens, then, that apostasia had acquired the special sense
of religious apostasy or political defection. Whereas aphisteme
very many times carries the simple meaning of spatial departure,
apostasia appears elsewhere in the NT and many times throughout the
LXX solely with the special meaning. Such usage counts far more than
etymology. We should take the meaning which a word had during the time
and in the culture in which it was written instead of making recourse to
a literal definition of the root. Thus, the terms "apostasy", "falling
away", and "rebellion" do not overlay the Greek word with a questionable
interpretation. They rather represent a valid and necessary recognition
of the usus loquendi---i.e., they are true translations." (The
Church and the Tribulation, Robert Gundry, page 116).
But I do think I understand your point about distinguishing between
passive and active and subjective vs objective genitives (love of God
may be our love of God...objective, or God's love of us...subjective),
and prototokos if interpreted according to it's root may be taken
in a passive sense (the genitive entity is the passive recipient of the
Father's generative powers as in Deut. as Jacob said to Reuben). On the
other hand, over time the usage (especially God's choices, Ephraim...David..etc)
may have acquired a transferred nuance to status where the numerical
significance has dropped off. Then when the term is used in a figurative
application to Jesus (appointed heir of all things) the status emphasis
seems more pronounced. From this I think Wallace is influenced to tag
the genitives in Col. 1:15 and 18 as subordinates to the prototokos.
In Col. 1:18 the "firstborn from (ek) the dead", IMHO should not
be analyzed without including the immediately following "hina
clause" (that he might become the one who is first in all things). The
preposition merely reflects the fact that he is no longer within that
category but has exited from it at his resurrection, but the following
result clause indicates that it was grounded in his identity (death
couldn't hold him because of who he was), and thus whatever numerical
order one might note would be incidental to the main idea which is to
achieve a status of superiority over the genitive categories.
I know that there is a low Christological motive behind Mondo's denial
of the subordinate nuance for PASHS KTISEOS in Col. (and I also
know full well that you don't have a low Christological motive), and for
that I'm very grateful.
May God Bless you with his eternal grace.
Response #5:
I really don't see that
we are in too much of a disagreement here. I think in my last missive I
allowed as how the idea of "being Lord over" is similar in the two
passages (although in Col.1:15 it requires somewhat more filling in of
the blanks). My only point on dissimilarity is that it is hard to
compare on grammatical grounds a verb that takes the genitive and an
adjective that takes the genitive, especially when there is no cognate
root involved. That is of course not to say that the ideas are not
similar, only that I don't believe the fact of the two genitive is
particularly persuasive. After all, it is hard to find two sentences in
a row in the NT that don't have at least one genitive of some type.
Words have meaning, and when they are combined with other words that
meaning can be complex. In order to understand that meaning, especially
in the Bible, there often has to be a give and take of interpretation
that includes many elements including the overall meaning of scripture
and the clear limitations that the original languages place upon the
possibilities. Grammatical analysis is certainly one tool that has to be
employed. In my experience, the general rule is that such analysis when
done correctly more often than not will limit rather than expand the
possibilities of interpretation as we zero in on the precise meanings of
words and phrases. If I have any criticism at all of New Testament
studies generally it is that all too often lexicons and grammars are
employed to produce possibilities that are really impossible. Exegesis
that does indeed arrive at the exact truth of a particular passage is
often as much of an art as it is a science. If this civilization were to
be unearthed from the dust, the English phrase "as if!" might easily be
misinterpreted by the use of lexicons and grammars, but any teenager
today could tell you what it really means. Solving such problems without
the benefit of native speakers calls for experience and judgment that
exceeds the capacities of any lexicon or grammar by definition. And,
ironically I suppose, because of the overwhelming importance of the true
overall and complete theology of scripture, the progression of true
exegesis is necessarily circular, since without understanding passage
"B" correctly, one is going to miss something in passage "C", and the
full and precise meaning of passage "B" is contingent on what one
previously made of passage "A". With a good method and perseverance, the
circle narrows in on the truth. With bad methodology, it can easily
swerve farther from the truth with every gyration.
To clarify the above, I am in complete agreement with Dr. Gundry's
analysis which you quote, and I believe that the method he describes and
employs is exactly what I am suggesting here (at least as far as pure
language usage is concerned), whereas the method he is criticizing is
exactly the sort of thing that troubles me, namely, anything found in
the grammar or dictionary is equally possible in any context - we could
easily make utter nonsense of any sentence in the newspaper with that
sort of license.
In our dear Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob L.