Carl,cwconrad wrote:I'm troubled about the principle stated here, namely, the (attributive) adjectival usage of prepositional phrases to qualify a noun. I would like to see a discussion of it or references in the NT grammars on it. Maybe this needs to be moved to the "Syntax and Grammar" subforum. I'm inclined to agree with George here.and affirm that ἐν ὑψηλοῖς is adverbial and should construe with ἐκάθισεν. David has asked for examples of such anarthrous attributive prepositional phrases in Biblical Koine, and I'd like to see them too. I know that it's been argued that in Rom 1:17 the cited text ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, the phrase ἐκ πίστεως, as Paul is reading it, must construe with ὁ δίκαιος. I do think that the ensuing argumentation set forth by Paul makes that seem likely -- and I was at one time persuaded of this by Edward Hobbs -- but it still troubles me. I still think that "Our Father in Heaven" is good English but bad Greek, while "Our Father who art in Heaven" is good (Jacobean) English and good Greek. I'm open to persuasion here, but i'd like to see the evidence.Jason Hare wrote:Is there a reason why you would not take ἡ μεγαλωσύνη ἐν ὑψηλοῖς as a phrase of its own, as similar to either ἡ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς μεγαλωσύνη or ἡ μεγαλωσύνη ἡ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς?George F Somsel wrote:Both prepositional phrases are locative indicating where he sat (BDAG, sv ἐν #1)—"at the right hand of of majesty" and "in the heights", but ἐν ὑψηλοῖς does NOT modify τῆς μεγαλωσύνης but indicates the location of the sitting. It is correct to say that μεγαλωσύνης is a reference to God. Note Re 4.1-8 where the one seated on the throne references God.
Perhaps it is because of the quality of the Greek in the book of Hebrews?
I thought we might start a thread on this, as you suggested.
What do you think of this passage?
Ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων ἐδόθη ἡ χάρις αὕτη, τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαι τὸ ἀνεξιχνίαστον πλοῦτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ φωτίσαι πάντας τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι, ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, κατὰ πρόθεσιν τῶν αἰώνων ἣν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν...
Do you not take ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις as being a single noun phrase? That is, the prep phrase ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις modifies the rulers and authorities, telling us that these are not earthly authorities but rather authorities in the heavenly places. Do you understand this otherwise?
I would not take this as adverbial modifying γνωρισθῇ. If that were the case, it would make better sense to be written after the verb rather than after the indirect object.
* ἵνα γνωρισθῇ [passive verb] ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις [adverbial] ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις [compound indirect object]... ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ [subject]...
I know that the standard Attic formula is to include the repeated article before such an adjectival use (or to insert the preposition between the article and noun being modified), but I have the impression that this is not necessarily standard in the Koine. I don't remember specific references, but I am sure that I've read loads of such examples – or that is at least how I've always understood the texts in which I've found them. Maybe I've always understood them incorrectly.
I hope others can provide more examples that will help us piece this together and come to a conclusion about whether or not I've been reading this wrong all these years!