[B-Greek] Re: We versus You in Eph 1:3-14
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 19 06:45:46 EDT 2003
At 9:57 AM +0900 5/19/03, moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr wrote:
>>
>> Conrad wrote:
>> > The whole text: EN hWi KAI EKLHRWQHMEN PROORISQENTES KATA PROQESIN TOU TA
>> > PANTA ENERGOUNTOS KATA THN BOULHN TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU 12 EIS TO EINAI
>>hHMAS
>> > EIS EPAINON DOXHS AUTOU TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi. 13 EN hWi KAI
>> > hUMEIS AKOUSANTES TON LOGON THS ALHQEIAS, TO EUAGGELION THS SWTHRIAS
>>hUMWN,
>> > EN hWi KAI PISTEUSANTES ESFRAGISQHTE TWi PNEUMATI THS EPAGGELIAS TWi
>>hAGIWi.
>> >
>>
>> > Here the "problem" in
>> > my opinion is the function of the recurrent prepositional phrase EN hWi. I
>> > am assuming that the dative relative pronoun here is functioning as a
>> > demonstrative referring to the antecendent named in EN CRISTWi in verse 10
>> > and named again in verse 12, so that EN hWi here is equivalent to EN
>>TOUTWi
>> > and implicitly equivalent to EN CRISTWi. But at the beginning of verse 13a
>> > the linkage of the EN hWi phrase is a bit murkier than elsewhere within
>> > these verses--and this, I think, is the source of the problem that Moon
>> > finds here; in my view this EN hWi is REPEATED--redundantly--after the
>> > participial phrase AKOUSANTES ... THS SWTHRIAS hUMWN. In sum, I believe
>> > that Moon's option (2) is the right approach.
>> >
>>
>
>[Moon]
>> Thanks, Carl. I think your explanation makes sense to me.
>> Now, what would you say to the following question?
>>
>>
>> > >(3) What is the force of KAI in 13a in front of hUMEIS?
>> > > (a) Does it mean "you also" in contrast to "we" in verses 11 and 12?
>> > >
>> > > (b) Does KAI modify the whole clause hUMEIS AKOUSANTES ....
>> > > so that it means "you, also having heared..."?
>> > >
>[Carl]
>>
>> I think that the KAI does indeed mean "you also" and I think there is
>> indeed a contrast between the preceding hHMEIS and this hUMEIS; I DON'T
>> think that the KAI works adverbially with AKOUSANTES but
>> rather--ultimately--with ESFRAGISQHTE: "you also were sealed, after you
>> heard ... and believed." That is to say, I think that the KAI preceding
>> hUMEIS is adverbial, while the KAI preceding PISTEUSANTES is a conjunction
>> linking AKOUSANTES and PISTEUSANTES.
>> --
>
>[Moon]
>Then, I would like to ask the following questions:
>
>(1) Do "we" and "us" in 1:3-12 refer to the believers who are other than
>those referred to by "you" in 1:13? If so, the most natural reference
>of "we" are Jewish believers and the most natural reference of "you"
>are Gentile believers, because in chapter 2 the oneness of Jewish
>believers and Gentile believers are specifically talked about and
>there "you" refer to Gentile believers.
>
>(2) But, in 1:3-11, there are no indications that "we" refer only to
>Jewish believers. We would have to say that
>"we" in 1:3-11 refer to all believers, both Jewish and Gentile, and
>"we" (hHMAS) in verse 12 refer to Jewish believers because
>it is specifically qualified by TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi
>(those who first had hoped in Christ").
>NIV seems to support this interpretation, which says:
>
> in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be
> for the praise of his glory.
>
>"Those who were the first to hope in Christ" is able to refer to
>Jewish believers, I think.
>
> If this is right, it is not easy to clearly see it in the text, is it?
>
>(3) R. C. H. Lenski objected to this interpretation. Thinking that
>"we" and "you" both refer to all believers, he
>translates the passage as follows:
>
>v 12: that we may be for his Glory-Praise as those who
> have hoped IN ADVANCE in the Christ,
>
>He comments: PRO in the perfect participle (PROHLPIKOTAS)
>refers to the future fulfillment of the hope; we now hope
>"in advance", hope shall finally turn to sight.
>
>
>At the moment, I think that number (2) is the right way to go.
>But Lenski's objection to it also seems to make sense to me.
>What do you think?
Moon, I will tell you what I think, but I must say in advance that I think
you are asking questions that extend beyond what we can with any assurance
derive from the Greek text. I don't, for my part, see any reason whatsoever
in the text of 1:3-14 to link the hHMEIS statements to Jewish, the hUMEIS
statements to Gentile believers. It may well be that the hHMEIS statements
are generalized and refer only to the writer himself who would in that case
be writing in the generalized first-person, and that is certainly not an
uncommon procedure in the Pauline or other letters. I rather think that
Lenski is right about PROHLPIKOTAS: it's not so much "we who fashioned our
hope before others ..." as "we who have our expectations set in advance ..."
Much of how this opening section of Ephesians is to be understood depends
upon one's conception of the letter as a whole, whether it is really
addressed to the Ephesian congregation specifically, or whether it is an
"encyclical" letter addressed to the believing community at large
throughout Christendom, or even whether the letter as a whole is intended
to be a summation of Pauline doctrine, perhaps even an introduction to a
collection of Pauline letters. But these are questions that extend beyond
the scope of B-Greek; I don't think that they are answerable very readily
in terms of what the Greek text indicates, and if you really want to pursue
this line of questioning, I think you'd do better to take it to the CP
(Corpus Paulinum) list.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list