Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
> I'm wondering about the difference between the genitive with the article and
> without the article.
>
> Eph 1:6 - EIS EPAINON DOXHS THS XARITOS AUTOU
> Eph 1:12- EIS EPAINON DOXHS AUTOU
>
Grammatically speaking, I do not see these two phrases as saying the
same thing. Interpretively, verse 12 could be referring to the same
concept as in verse 6; but strictly by the grammar, DOXHS in verse six
is modified by THS XARITOS, which in turn is modified by AUTOU, while in
verse 12, the connection to AUTOU is closer. In other words, if there
is any "glory" which is "his" that is not also an attribute of "the
grace", it is included in verse 12 and excluded in verse 6.
> Is there any change in meaning if I start adding/subtracting definite
> articles here? I'll try to concoct some examples (I'll use lots of genitive
> here to make sure I don't create a nominative absolute by mistake ;-> ):
>
> 1. EIS EPAINON DOXHS THS XARITOS AUTOU
DOXHS is an attribute of THS XARITOS. XARITOS is an attribute (or
possession?) of AUTOU.
> 2. EIS EPAINON THS DOXHS THS XARITOS AUTOU
THS DOXHS = THS XARITOS (the glory which is the grace)
> 3. EIS EPAINON THS DOXHS XARITOS AUTOU <- ungrammatical, right?
I could see a possibility of this being the same as THS XARITOS THS
DOXHS AUTOU, i.e, the genitive used in the attributive position.
> 4. EIS EPAINON DOXHS XARITOS AUTOU
I see this as nearly the same as your (2). However, I'm not sure about
the anarthrous (sp?) use of genitives. Have you seen an example like
this in a text somewhere?
>
> Are versions 1, 2, and 4 equivalent in meaning? Are they all grammatical? Am
> I right in assuming that version 3 is not grammatical?
>
> Jonathan
>
These are my guesses. But you know that the correct answers are yet to
come.
Paul Zellmer
Southern Methodist Missions