[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