[B-Greek] EPI ERGOIS AGAQOIS
virgil newkirk
virgilsalvage1 at msn.com
Tue Jun 8 02:29:33 EDT 2004
Steve, you wrote:
> Well, BDAG lists no less than 18 uses of EPI. The selection you have
> proffered above is in fact **not** the section in which BDAG includes
> the use of EPI in Eph 2.10 as an example. That would be section 16,
> where EPI is described as a "marker of object or purpose, with dat. in
> ref. to someth." This usage, it is noted, goes all the way back to
> Homer. Other examples included from the NT besides Eph 2.10 are 1Th 4.7
> and 2 Ti 2.14.
Steven,
BDAG is and should be a source we access for defintions, meanings, and
possible implications of uses. It it not authoritative in it's
interpretations of uses. I would say in some cases BDAG goes to far in these
"uses" much the same as Wallace may go to far in his "list of categories of
the genitive case." Let's look, for example at a few of the locations that
BDAG lists the use of EPI indicating object or purpose. First 1 Thess 4:7 ;
For God has not called us "for" impurity ? Is this even a possibility ? Does
this not also point to a possible mis-understanding of EPI ? Like it could
even be possible for God to call us "for" impurity. But, what about the
possibility that Paul is saying to back up and further explain his
admonition for our being careful about the matters mentioned in the first
several verses of 1 Thess 4, that Hey ! God has not called you EPI "on the
basis of impurity" but-- ALL' EN AGIASMWi. Paul sets up a contrast not an
absurdity by the use of EPI "on". 2 Tim 2:14 Paul admonishes Timothy don't
"word fight". Why ? Because word-fighting has as it's basis (EPI)--"no
value" and word-fighting has as it's basis (EPI) destuction to the ones
listening. BDAG's mention of PTebt 44, 6 [114 BC] ONTOS MOU EPI QERAPEIAi EN
TWi ISIEIWi (more of the statement found under QERAPEIA) CARIN T.
ARRWSTIAS.. BDAG states that is means I was in the.. shrine of Isis "for"
treatment of a malady. I would suggest that it indicates this one and what
characterized his condition (MOU) was there EPI "on the basis of" treatment
for his malady. I would say the "on the basis of" fits very well for the
other examples there also.
I hope I'm not mis-understanding or mis-construing something Carl said in a
post under the heading: "THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1 Dative of Advantage or
Purpose?..from Tue Jun 1 10:42:12 EDT 1999" where he responded to:
" At 4:35 PM -0400 5/31/99, Joseph Brian Tucker wrote:
>Greetings
>
>THi ELEUQERIAi hHMAS CRISTOS HLEUQERWSEN STHKETE OUN KAI PALIN ZUGW
>DOULEIAS ENECESQE
>
>Gal 5.1 begins with no transition and it seems a peculiar use of the dative
>case. Is it better to see it as advantage or purpose? My concern is how to
>understand THi ELEUQERIAi as a limitation of the verb HLEUQERWSEN.
Carl's response was:
This is a good question, and your phrasing of it is interesting. I can't
say that I recognize any authentic "dative of purpose" in Greek (unless one
wants to consider EPI + Dative phrases, perhaps) although it is one of the
most common of all LATIN datives (which is more grist for my intended study
of Latin influence on Koine Greek
The aforementioned items are more of the reasons I see for taking EPI in Eph
2:10b to mean "on" or "on the basis of."
Steven, you went on to say,
This definition fits the context much better, since it
> is clear that it is good works prepared beforehand by God for
> **Christians** to walk in that is in view.
I don't believe this is clear at all. Rather the suggestion that I have
made regarding Eph 2:10 is, I believe similar and related to another mention
of these "good works" that are Christ and what He has done. Hebrews 4:3c
states something about "works" that were "before" : although the works from
the foundations of the world had been completed. Even Christ is described as
the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.
Surely this is evidence that what is indicated by our having been
established in Christ Jesus EPI on good works--is what Paul is saying and
what the Greek is indicating in Eph 2:10
This is obvious from the
> relative pronoun hOIS. Additionally, even if we were to entertain your
> suggestion, there would be nothing in the sentence that would clarify
> that it is **Christ's** good works that form the basis of the creation
> in question.
>
Steven, this is "exactly what GAR does here. It is as you said--an
explaining of how it is not our good works or of anything that we can boast
about. That only leaves Christ, God, and Grace for the source and reality of
good works. Eh ?
> > One other matter that is key in this verse and that everything turns
> > on....GAR. Whatever follows is an extension and expansion of what is
> > contained in verse 9 at least. Yes ?
>
> No. GAR is a marker of explanation. Paul's comments in v. 10 explain
> why he said what he did in vv. 8-9. There he points out that believers
> are saved by grace through faith, not by works. He then explains why it
> cannot be that we are saved **by** works: It is because we are God's
> **workmanship**, created **for the purpose or with the object** of good
> works.
>
> No English translation always gets it right, but usually when there is
> unanimity or near unanimity among translations, there is good reason
> for it.
Steven, I would agree with the first part of your statement which may
include anything I've suggested. That's why I put it out for all to see and
possibly to dis-credit. I want proof, that's all. Not just supposition such
as....well BDAG says that this is it's use; therefore that must be right ??
Huh ? I'm going Berean on this one..
I appreciate your comments, Steven, and the challenges they present.
Virgil Newkirk
Salt Lake City, Utah
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list