From: Calvin D. Redmond (102630.1150@compuserve.com)
Date: Tue Oct 17 1995 - 09:14:39 EDT
After referring to previous discussion, David L. Moore wrote
< Robertson has an interesting comment on this verse. He says we
<probably do not have a genitive of apposition or definition here, but the
<ablative (read ablative use of the genitive) after the comparative
<(Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, p. 499).
< Blass-DeBrunner comes to about the same conclusion without
<expressing it in quite the same words: "TA KATWTERA (MERH) THS GHS is not
<partitive ... or appositive ('the lower regions', i.e. the earth ...), but
<'the regions under the earth' (Buchsel, TW III 641f.)" (Bl-DeB, _A Greek
<Grammar of the New Testament_, #167).
Moore correctly cites Robertson in the large grammar. However, it is
interesting to read ATR's comments on the verse in Word Pictures, vol. IV: The
Epistles of Paul, p. 536:
"If the anabas is the Ascension of Christ, then the katabas would be the Descent
(Incarnation) to earth and t~es g~es would be the genitive of apposition. What
follows in verse 10 argues for this view. Otherwise, one must think of the
death of Christ (the descent into Hades of Acts 2:31)."
Apparently to Robertson, the issue may not have been clear. It is
interesting that his view in Word Pictures, copyright 1931, is apparently his
last word on the subject.
For Blass-Debrunner-Funk, the issue grammatically is also somewhat
uncertain. They write,
< : "TA KATWTERA (MERH) THS GHS is not
<partitive ... or appositive ('the lower regions', i.e. the earth ...), but
<'the regions under the earth' (Buchsel, TW III 641f.)" (Bl-DeB, _A Greek
<Grammar of the New Testament_, #167).
I am unable to follow this thought. I would assume that most of those
who argue for a descent of Jesus into hell/Hades/the netherworld would see the
genitive as a partitive genitive, which would lead to the translation "the
lower parts of the earth." I am unfamiliar with the genitive case producing the
sense of "under" without the aid of a preposition.
Nonetheless, I agree with my former comments that one's understanding of
the context and prior theological convictions (as well as the tradition out of
which one comes) will ultimately determine the interpretation of this passage.
Also, to add to the discussion, one might consult two opposing articles
from recent years of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS):
-Wayne Grudem, "He Did Not Descend into Hell: A Plea for Following
Scripture Instead of the Apostles' Creed," JETS 34 (March 1991," 103-113.
-David Scaer, "He Did Descend to Hell: In Defense of the Apostles'
Creed," JES 35 (March 1992), 91-99.
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
102630.1150@compuserve.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:30 EDT