[B-Greek] Eph 3:17 ERRIZWMENOI KAI TEQEMELIWMENOI
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jan 15 09:17:25 EST 2005
At 7:07 AM -0600 1/15/05, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:
>> >> INA DWi UMIN KATA TO PLOUTOS THS DOXHS AUTOU DUNAMEI KRATAIWQHNAI
>>>> DIA
>> >> TOU PNEUMATOS AUTOU EIS TON ESW ANQRWPON, (17) KATOIKHSAI TON
>>>> CRISTON
>>>> DIA THS PISTEWS EN TAIS KARDIAIS UMWN, EN AGAPH ERRIZWMENOI KAI
>>>> TEQEMELIWMENOI
George Somsel:
>>>"Grant" rather than "give" would yield a smoother translation.
>>>I would take EIS TON ESW ANQRWPON with what precedes rather than putting
>>>a full stop before it since it indicates where the strengthening is to
>>>take place.
>>>TON XRISTON in the acc. is the subject of the inf. KATOIKHSAI.
Carl Conrad:
>>I would add that EIS TON ESW ANQRWPON does not express purpose but is
>>rather an accusative of specification "as to," "with respect to"
>>strengthened with an EIS, which is not really essential for this but is
>>more commonly used in later Greek.
>
>HH: Also, KATOIKHSAI is a purpose infinitive like KRATAIWQHNAI,
>continuing the thought verse 16 with a translation like: "so that
>Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith."
What is really problematic here but as yet hasn't been mentioned in this
thread, is the final participial phrase, EN AGAPHi ERRIZWMENOI KAI
TEQEMELIWMENOI; one must understand this loosely with either hUMIN at the
beginning of verse 16 or with EN TAIS KARDIAIS hUMWN, but syntactically
there is no standard grammatical linkage with anything that precedes. My
own sense is that this is consistent with this writer's (i.e. the writer of
Eph) characteristic loose linkage of syntactic units which markedly
characterizes the opening sequence in chapter 1. This might by some be
called a "nominative absolute" but I think it might more accurately be
called either an instance of Anacoluthon (a grammatical non sequitur) or
even a "solecism" (a syntactic barbarism). We've been talking about
solecisms in Revelation; some of those may, as has been argued, be
deliberate, but this one doesn't seem to me to be deliberate at all so much
as a matter of thinking in phrases, as if the author were thinking "you
should be rooted and grounded in love"--e.g. hOPWS HTE EN AGAPHi
ERRIZWMENOI KAI TEQEMELIWMENOI, or an imperatival hUMEIS OUN EN AGAPHi
ERRIZWMENOI KAI TEQEMELIWMENOI HTE, but attached the participial phrase to
what preceded without supplying the normally required syntactic linkage.
--
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