[B-Greek] EPI ERGOIS AGAQOIS
Steven Lo Vullo
slovullo at mac.com
Sat Jun 12 16:31:31 EDT 2004
On Jun 8, 2004, at 1:29 AM, virgil newkirk wrote:
> 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.
(1) Then why did you quote it as authoritative? Note what you wrote,
especially the words I have emphasized:
[Virgil]
"When I looked at this verse in the Greek I was surprised and taken
back by the use of EPI preceeding ERGOIS AGAQOIS. Virtually all English
translations represent this phrase as unto or for or even (NIV) as an
infinitive.."to do"good works. Quite frankly, I said to myself...what's
EPI doing there and how could anyone translate the preposition EPI as
"to do"..or even "unto" ? One of which is verbal...the other inferring
direction towards.
"This contemplation led to the following conclusion on my part and that
that conclusion is DEMANDED [Steve's emphasis] by the Greek. Am I
mistaken and if you think so ..why ?
"ERGOIS AGAQOIS here, is not related to good works that we may or may
not perform, but, in fact, to the good works accomplished in and by
Christ and that these good works and their results are the "basis" of
our KTISQENTES EN CHRISWi IHSOU; EPI ERGOIS AGAQOIS ! I believe this
impression is REQUIRED [Steve's emphasis] by the Greek BECAUSE [Steve's
emphasis]:
"EPI+Dative according to BDAG is a marker of presence or occurrence
near an object or area, at, near--b. with Dative, of immediate
proximity at, near, or by. 6./ Marker of basis for a state of being,
action, or result, on. With
Dative."
[Steve]
So why, according to you, is it that your particular spin on this
construction in Eph 2.10 is "demanded" and "required"? Well, "because"
BDAG says so! We now have quite a conundrum on our hands: BDAG is
quoted as authoritative and is, in fact, the only evidence whatsoever
that you adduce for your understanding of EPI + dative in Eph 2.10
(aside from a hodgepodge of incoherent theological themes totally
unrelated to the issue at hand), yet, when it is pointed out that BDAG
actually disagrees with your assessment of EPI + dative in Eph 2.10,
BDAG all of a sudden is "not authoritative in it's [sic]
interpretations of uses"!
(2) The way in which you refer to BDAG gives the impression that this
is BDAG's last word on the issue. This is simply misleading. I'm not
saying that you were purposely trying to mislead people, just that the
effect was such. Perhaps in your eagerness to prove a point you settled
on a "friendly" definition before checking the whole entry, or perhaps
you simply ignored the "unfriendly" definition. The net result was a
distortion of what BDAG has to say with regard to the specific issue at
hand, and also a disservice to the reader. Just a hunch, but I think
readers of the thread would have wanted to know what BDAG had
specifically to say about EPI + dative in Eph 2.10, particularly since,
as I already mentioned, BDAG was the only evidence you adduced in your
post.
(3) The first part of your quote from BDAG comes from section 2, while
the second part comes from section 6! Yet you splice the two together
as if BDAG indicates some sort of connection between them that is
critical to the understanding of EPI + dative in general and in Eph
2.10 in particular. In fact, section 2 contains SPACIAL uses, while
section 6 contains conceptual uses! Not to mention that section 2 in no
way exhausts the spacial uses, nor does section 6 exhaust the
conceptual uses. It's not at all apparent what it is we are to learn
from one spacial use among others and one conceptual use among others
being haphazardly and seemingly arbitrarily tossed together. This is
another misleading use of BDAG.
> 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."
But BDAG is not your only obstacle among the lexica. Note the following:
LSJ (no Johnny-come-lately reference work) in section B.III., s.v. EPI,
lists various causal senses of EPI + dative. One of these senses (2) is
"of an end or purpose." I won't list the numerous examples here; those
who are interested can peruse them at their leisure.
L&N lists EPI, PROS, and CARIN (89.60) as "markers of purpose, pointing
to the goal of an event or state--'for the purpose of, for the sake of,
in order to.' Like BDAG, it uses none other than Eph 2.10 as an
example.
So the three major lexica stand in opposition to your novel assessment
of Eph 2.10.
But it's not just the lexica. NIDNTT, in its sizable discussion of
prepositions, also lists Eph 2.10 as an example of EPI with the sense
"purpose or destination." It also notes that "EPI, the one NT prep.
used frequently with three cases (acc. 464 times, gen. 216, dat.
176--Moulton, Grammar, I, 107), has a versatility of use that is
matched only by EN. From the simple spatial meaning of EPI there
naturally developed a multitude of derived senses." Those familiar with
Greek literature know just how true this is, and it should serve as a
warning to those who try to trace some direct path from derived senses
to a simple spacial meaning, e.g., the idea that if you can't us the
word "on" (as in "on the basis of") in an English gloss of EPI, you
don't have the correct sense.
Among the grammars, B-D-F (§235, (4)) says EPI with the dative may
indicate "Purpose, result (classical EPI BLABHi) 'at, to the damage'
and the like)." It lists--you guessed it--Eph 2.10 as an example.
Likewise Robertson says that we probably have the true dative of
purpose here with EPI (WP under Eph 2.10; Grammar, p. 605).
Finally, as you yourself noted, virtually every translation indicates
purpose or object.
> 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".
(1) The only absurdity here is the idea that for a negative statement
to be valid or yield good sense, the positive must of necessity be
possible. You would apparently have us believe, for example, that when
Jesus said, "OUK ELHLUQA KALESAI DIKAIOUS ALLA hAMARTWLOUS EIS
METANOIAN," it of necessity must have been possible for him to come to
call the righteous to repentance rather than sinners in order for the
negative to be a valid or sensical statement! This is a logical fallacy
of the first order.
(2) You suggest that the meaning here is that God did not call the
Thessalonians "on the basis of impurity." In doing so, you seem
oblivious to the fact that, if indeed the positive must be possible in
order for the negative to be valid or sensical, you have condemned your
own suggestion, for how could it be possible that the BASIS for God's
calling could be impurity?
(3) The whole focus of this section is on how the Thessalonians ought
to live and please God more and more (v. 1) by heeding his will (vv. 3,
8). God's will is for their sanctification, that they abstain from
sexual immorality (v. 3), that each one of them know how to control his
own body in holiness and honor (v. 4) rather than in lustful passion
(v. 5), and that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this
matter, since the Lord would avenge such wrongdoing (v. 6). So the
whole thrust of this exhortation is that the Thessalonians should live
holy, rather than impure, lives according to God's will, as summarized
in v. 3. Then comes v. 7, where GAR introduces an explanation for why
Paul has said what he has said in the preceding context. The reason the
Thessalonians should be sanctified sexually, should know how to control
their own bodies in holiness and honor rather than give reign to lust,
and should not wrong their brothers in sexual matters, is that GOD HAS
NOT CALLED THEM TO LIVE IN AN UNCLEAN WAY, but rather to live in
holiness. It is exceedingly difficult to see how basis (at least
conventionally understood) fits this context in any meaningful way
whatsoever. The whole focus is on how the Thessalonians should RESPOND
to God's will (v. 3) and call (v. 7) in order to please him (v. 1).
This assessment of v. 7 fits the context in a perfectly natural way.
Rhetorically speaking, v. 7 is simply telling the Thessalonians that
since God did not call them to live in impurity, they should NOT live
in impurity but, conversely, in holiness. The inference (TOIGAROUN)
that Paul draws in v. 8 from what what he has just said in v. 7
solidifies this position. The idea here is that since God himself did
not call them to live in impurity, to do so would be to disregard God.
It is important to note the connection here between hAGIASMWi in v. 7
and hAGION in v. 8. If you live in impurity rather than HOLINESS,
contrary to God's calling, you disregard God himself, since he gave his
HOLY Spirit for the practice of HOLINESS. The mention of the giving of
the Holy Spirit to God's people is not gratuitous, and it indicates
once again the it is holy vs. impure living that is in view in v.7.
(4) Despite your contention, when we apply your suggestion to v. 7 it's
hard to discern any practical or rhetorically meaningful contrast at
all between AKAQARSIAi and hAGIASMWi. hAGIASMWi clearly refers to the
holiness in which God has called the Thessalonians to live (cf.
hAGIASMOS in v. 3, EN hAGIASMWi in v. 4, and TO PNEUMA AUTOU TO hAGION
in v. 8). Yet, on the other hand, you contend that AKAQARSIAi indicates
the basis of the call. So, instead of a stark contrast between two ways
of life, one to which the Thessalonians WERE NOT called and one to
which they WERE called, we have a so-called contrast between basis of
calling and purpose or aim of calling. The true contrast here is that
between not being called to impurity on the one hand, and being called
to live in holiness on the other, which understanding fits the context
beautifully. It is a powerful contrast meant to spur the Thessalonians
to reject impurity, since God did NOT call them to that, and to embrace
holiness, since God DID call them to that. This is not only
rhetorically meaningful, but eminently practical in a context that is
concerned with the practical outworking of God's will and call
concerning sexual matters.
(5) It is appropriate at this point, I think, to consider Gal 5.13,
since it not only contains EPI + dative used to mark purpose or goal,
but parallels 1 Th 4.7 in that EPI + dative modifies the verb KALEW.
Here is the text:
hUMEIS GAR EP' ELEUQERIAi EKLHQHTE, ADELFOI; MONON MH THN ELEUQERIAN
EIS AFORMHN THi SARKI, ALLA DIA THS AGAPHS DOULEUETE ALLHLOIS.
Again, the idea of freedom being the basis of calling makes no sense of
the passage. The calling in question was not ESTABLISHED or BASED ON
freedom; rather freedom was the purpose or aim of God's call. That
actual freedom to be lived out in the life is in view is established by
the second clause in the verse, where the Galatians are told that they
should not use their freedom as an opportunity for the flesh. The most
natural conclusion is that the freedom associated with the call is the
same freedom which the Galatians are not to use as an opportunity for
the flesh. Paul is simply telling them that they should not use the
freedom which God purposed for them for Illegitimate ends. Once again,
mental contortions are necessary to understand EP' ELEUQERAi in the
sense of "basis."
Before leaving Galatians, I just want to briefly deal with the
correspondence between Joseph Brian Tucker and Carl Conrad concerning
Gal 5.1 and your use of it. You begin by saying, "I hope I'm not
mis-understanding or mis-construing something Carl said." While Carl
can certainly speak for himself, I'd like to make a few observations
that in my opinion indicate that you misunderstood the whole
correspondence and in fact used these posts in a misleading way.
First, these posts had absolutely nothing to do with EPI + dative.
Joseph's question had to do with the use of the BARE dative THi
ELEUQERAi and how he should understand it as a modifier of HLEUQERWSEN.
So when Carl didn't recognize any authentic "dative of purpose," he was
NOT commenting on the possibility of EPI marking purpose with the
dative. That was not under consideration.
Second, it seems to me that Carl wasn't even closing the door
completely on the idea that the BARE dative could be used to indicate
purpose. He notes that it is one of the most common of all Latin
datives and seems to indicate that Joseph's question was something he
was going to look into at greater length in an intended study of Latin
influence on Koine Greek.
So, despite your quotation of this correspondence, I still have no idea
what Carl's opinion is of EPI marking purpose or object with a dative.
I would like to know what he thinks, since he is an experienced and
careful student of Greek and Latin. I would also appreciate his
assessment of what LSJ, BDAG, L&N, the Grammars, etc., have to say
about EPI as a marker of purpose or object.
Finally, despite the fact that these posts were not even dealing with
EPI + dative, and despite the fact that Carl seemed to leave open the
possibility that even the bare dative could indicate purpose, and
despite the fact that this correspondence had nothing to do with Eph
2.10, you say, "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.'" The
fact is that there is nothing at all in this correspondence that would
lead one to draw such a conclusion.
> 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.
I'm not going to argue this one out, since I think this example is not
as certain as the others we have dealt with. However, I do think basis
is nonsensical here and that for EP' OUDEN CRHSIMON most would opt for
purpose, goal, or result (BDAG 11., s.v. EPI) and for EPI KATASTROFHi
object or purpose (BDAG 16., s.v. EPI).
> 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.
Well, Virgil, I think you've finally gone "basis bonkers"! Do people
seek healers on the BASIS of treatment? Or do they seek healers IN
ORDER TO BE TREATED?
Same problem with the other quotes. They simply don't make good sense
when EPI is taken as a marker of basis. Note a few more:
EPI THi TWN ANQRWPWN SWTHRIAi (SIG 888). "On the basis of salvation"
would indicate that the act of salvation is the basis of the act of
salvation! This is utterly nonsensical. "In order to save men" or "for
the purpose of the salvation of men" make infinitely more sense.
hO EPI THi SWTHRIAi THS EMHS YUCHS ELQWN (Test Job 3.5). Again, your
twist on this phrase would lead us to the idea that the act of
salvation serves as the basis for that very act of salvation! "The one
who came in order to save my soul/life" unquestionably makes more
sense.
EPI SWTHRIAi TWN PISTEUONTWN (D. 91, 4). Were those who believe already
saved, and that salvation served as a BASIS FOR the action? Or was the
action taken IN ORDER TO save those who believe?
EP' ELEUQERIAi EKLHQHTE (Gal 5.13). Were the Galatians already free,
and God called them on that BASIS? Or did God call them IN ORDER THAT
they might be free?
EKALESEN ... EPI AKAQARSIAi (1 Th 4.7). Were the Thessalonians not
living impurely, and that formed the BASIS of God calling them? Or did
he call them IN ORDER THAT they might not live impurely?
LOGOMACEIN EPI KATASTROFHi TWN AKOUONTWN (2 Ti 2.14). Is fighting about
words BASED ON the fact that the hearers are ruined, or is it done IN
ORDER TO ruin the hearers?
And then you have all the examples in LSJ to deal with!
I'll let any of those interested enough to read this long post decide
which of these views makes sense.
> 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.
(1) Importing theological concepts from other contexts doesn't
constitute an argument, only a diversion.
(2) Heb 4.3 is talking about the works God performed in creating the
world. Are you suggesting that these are the works in Eph 2.10 in which
Christians are to walk? Are they to create a world?
(3) So is Christ's slaying one of the works in which Christians are to
walk? Must we make sure to be killed? And perhaps resurrect ourselves?
> 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 ?
(1) This only begs the question. The idea, as I have previously stated,
is that the salvation Paul has in view is not BASED ON good works, but
is intended to PRODUCE good works. I've already commented on the place
of GAR in all this, so will not repeat myself.
(2) Of course Christ, God, and grace are the source of good works! The
idea is that we are HIS WORKMANSHIP and are CREATED BY GOD in order to
do good works! Who can boast about being the workmanship and creation
of another?!
>>> 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 agree. You shouldn't have done that.
> I'm going Berean on this one..
Better late than never.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list