[B-Greek] Re (2): The function of MESOU in Col 2:14

Thomas J. Schaum nua-schaum at t-online.de
Mon May 29 11:00:53 EDT 2006


Monday, May 22, 2006, 1:33:25 PM, you wrote:

HH> Dear Kelton,

>> Col 2:14EXALEIYAS TO KAQ hHMWN CEIROGRAFON TOIS DOGMASIN hO HN
>> hUPENANTION hHMIN KAI AUTO HRKEN EK TOU MESOU PROSHLWSAS AUTO TWi
>> STAURWi 
>>I'll stab at this one, BDAG on page 635 views this as a neuter
>>substantive which gives the idea of "among something."  Then it goes
>>on to say that  EK (TOU) MESOS means "From among."  
>>So with that in mind, one could come up with...
>>"He has taken it away from among (them), nailing it to the cross.
>>  
>>

HH> The use of EK MESOU in 2 Thess 2:7 seems similar to the usage in Col
HH> 2:14. Something disappears from the scene.

HH> Yours,
HH> Harold Holmyard


Dear Harold,

What's your opinion about this statement?

“It has been proposed, in rendering the next clause of this passage (2.Thess 2:7),
to alter the punctuation and the translation thus - “For the mystery of lawlessness
doth already work (only there is at present One that restraineth) [and will continue
so to work] until it be developed out of the midst “ -
TO GAR MUSTHRION HDH ENERGEITAI THS ANOMIAS (MONON hO KATECWN ARTI) hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI.
In this case the words “mystery of lawlessness“ becomes the nominative to GENHTAI, and not hO KATECWN.
In support of this rendering it may be urged, that although EK MESOU when connected
with words signifying abstraction or withdrawal (such for example, as AIRW, EXERCOMAI, hARPAZW) does,
in virtue of those words, gain the meaning of removal, yet that GIGNOMAI,
when used independently, imparts to EK MESOU no thought of abstraction or withdrawal;
and that consequently the simple rendering of hEWS EK MESOU GENHTAI
would be “donec e medio fiat“ or if applied to the manifestation of something that had been hidden,
“donec e medio appareat“ but that it could not rightly be rendered “donec e medio tollatur“.
When we speak of the moon as emerging from the midst of clouds; or of a horn appearing
out of the midst of the head of an animal; or of an individual emerging from the midst of a crowd
that had environed and concealed him, there is no thought of abstraction but merely of emerging
into distinctness of manifestation.
Thus it is said of Phineas, EXANESTH EK MESOU THS SUNAGWGHS (Num. 25:7),
where there is no thought of abstraction, nor even of departure until it is
said in the next verse where he went. So again, PROFHTHS ANASTHSW AUTOIS EK MESOU(1) TWN ADELFWN AUTWN (Deut. 18:18).
Also, EKALESE KURIOS TON MWUSHN EK MESOU THS NEFELHS (Ex. 24:16).
Compare also, ANQ’ hOU hOSON hUYWSA SE APO  MESOU TOU LAOU (1.Kings 14:7)
[EK MESOU would have been a more suitable rendering of the Hebrew here. See following foot note.].
It may be further urged that whereas the working of lawlessness is spoken of in the first part of the passage
as a hidden thing (MUSTHRION) proceeding in the midst of society secretly,
we might expect that its development is taught by the words EK MESOU GIGNESQAI.
Moreover, that this rendering is consonant with the use of “GIGNOMAI EK“ in other passages in the New Testament; as 

FWNH EGENETO EK TWN OURANWN (Mark 1:11); 
EGENETO FWNH EK THS NEFELHS (Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35); 
EK SOU KARPOS GENHTAI (Matth 21:19); 
FWNHN EX OURANOU GENESTAI (Luke 3:22); 
GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS (Gal 4:4);
EX WN GINETAI FQONOS (1.Tim 6:4) and
MH EK FAINOMENWN TA BLEPOMENA GEGONENAI (Hebr 11:3).

In all these passages it is evident that the thought of  “issuing or springing from“ is that implied by GIGNESQAI EK.
APO is the preposition that is commonly used with GIGNOMAI, when “separation“ is intended(2).
The chief argument against the rendering proposed, is founded on the use of EIS MESON, EN MESWi and EK MESOU,
especially in classical Greek.
The first - EIS MESON is frequently used of any thing brought into the midst of men;
so that, EIS MESON TIQENAI TI, in medio aliquid ponere, would be said of any thing which we set as a prize for public competition;
and EIS TO MESON FEREIN would be “to bring forward any thing in public“:
and EIS MESON would be applied to any one who had gone into the arena of strife or competition.
EN MESWi not unfrequently signifies “interposition“ or the being in a middle place,
so as to stand obstructively in the way of any thing. Thus, Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 2:26 -
TI D’ EFH, EN MESWi ESTI TOU SUMMIXAI; what stands in the way of their uniting with us?
As the opposite to EN MESWi thus used, EK MESOU, sometimes, when connected with words signifying removal,
implies removal from such obstructive place.
Scripture supplies several examples of this use of EK MESOU, e.g., Col 2:14:
EXALEIYAS TO KAQ’ hHMWN CEIROGRAFON TOIS DOGMASIN, hO HN hUPENANTION hHMIN, KAI AUTO hHRKEN EK TOU MESOU &c.
Two passages from Herodotus are also quoted as shewing a similar use of EK MESOU, viz., Herod. 3:83 and 8:22(3).
But neither of these two passages are of any value in determining the independent force of EK MESOU,
because the words KAQEZESQAI and EZESQE, as here used, necessarily give to EK the meaning of  “secession“,
quite as much as its conexion with AIRW in Col 2:14 gives to it there the meaning of removal.
The passage most relied on to shew that EK MESOU has the independent force of removal or withdrawal, is from AEschin. Epist.
The passage is as follows:
TIS GAR OUK OIDEN, hOTI APOQANONTES hOI ANQRWPOI hOUTW KAI FEUGONTES EK THS PATRIDOS, TOTE DH KAI MALISTA,
hOPOIOI TINES EGENONTO TOUS TROPOUS, DIADEIKNUNTAI; KAI GAR hA SUNEKRUPTON AUTOI PROTERON,
EK MESOU GENOMENWN ANAFAINETAI KAQARWS (AEsch. Epist. 12).
On this passage Stephens remarks as follows:
“Ego vero non dubitem hanc significationem TOU EKTOS s. EXW dare praepositioni EK in isto loquendi genere,
EK MESOU GENOMENOS, apud AEschin. Epist. pro ‘e medio sublatus’; nam GENOMENOS verti non posset ‘sublatus’,
nisi respectu signif. illius quae datur praepositioni EK.“
The remark Stephens here makes, viz., that GIGNOMAI, taken by itself, cannot imply “secession“ or “removal“,
is very obviously true. But a word that may, in its independent use, be of very wide and undetermined meaning,
may, by means of its context, become closely defined and limited. And is it not so in this passage from AEschines?
In the first part of the passage quoted, he speaks of those removed either by death or by banishment.
To them the words, EK MESOU GIGNOMENWN, avowedly refer, and therefor virtually mean, “when they have been so removed“,
i.e., by death or by banishment (death, &c. supplying the thought of the removing agency) -
“when by death or banishment they have been removed out of the midst“.
The first part of the sentence defines the second. Nor do I know any passage
in which GIGNOMAI, or TIQHMI, or KAQEZOMAI, or EZOMAI are used with EK MESOU in the sense
of “abstraction or separation from the midst“, in which that meaning is not derived from the context.
A word like EKPODWN, which is always used in the unvarying sense of removal out of the way, as opposed to EMPODWN,
needs not the help of its context: but no one pretends that EK MESOU has any such unvarying meaning.
In Deut 23:18, it is used of raising up out of the midst without any thought of removal:
in 1.Cor 5:13, being connected with EXAIPW, it is used of removal from the midst of an associated company:
in Col 2:14, being connected with AIRW, it is used of removal from an obstructive position:
in Luke 9:35, of a voice issuing from the midst of a cloud, without any thought of removal;
and to these may be added another meaning assigned to it by some, who speak of EK MESOU as used, sometimes, in the sense of EN MESWi.
Thus Hederic, “EK MESOU, in medio, quod omnibus propositum est - TOIS TROPOIS ZHTWN PRIASQAI TO FILOTIMON EK MESOU,
“blandis moribus quaerens acquirere principatum quod in medio jacebat.“ - Eurip. Iph. in Aulid. 324. 
[Hederic seems here to take EK MESOU as if necessarily connected with TO FILOTIMON;
but it may be connected with PRIASQAI - to purchase or secure to himself,
out of the midst (where it was set for general competition) the leadership of the Greeks.
EK is sometimes used adverbially, as EK MEROUS “in the way of part“ - 1.Cor 12:27.
There may be instances (though I am not aware of any) in which it is so used with MESOU, which would then mean “midways“ and be equivalent to EN MESWi].
These various uses of EK MESOU sufficiently shew how it must depend on the context for its specific defenition.
Is there then any word or words denoting removal in the former part of the sentence to which GIGNOMAI EK in 2.Thess 2 belongs,
of which GIGNOMAI EK may be considered the exponent, as in the passage just quoted from AEschines?
If we suppose that hO KATECWN is the nominative of GENETAI, we must supply the ellipsis and translate the passage thus:
“for the mystery of lawlessness doth already work, only there is at present one who restraineth, and who will continue to restrain until“ &c.
There is in this clause no mention of “removal“ but only of cessation of restraining agency.
One who acts in the way of restraint may suspend his agency, or cause it to cease without being himself removed, or even withdrawing himself.
There is, therefore, nothing in the clause that would authorize us, as in the passage from AEschines,
to regard the words GIGNOMAI EK as expository of, or, connected with, previous words denoting removal.
If there had been a distinct reference to any removing agency, we might then have said “until he became, by such removal, set aside out of the midst“.
But there is no word in the former part of the sentence that denotes or necessarily implies removal.
Moreover, if “removal“ had been the thought intended, why, as in every other case in the New Testament where removal is meant, is not AIRW,
or EXAIRW, or some word distinctively implying removal used? Why do we not find the word hEWS EK MESOU ARQHi?
Why should we find the words, GIGNOMAI EK, used in a different sense from that in which they are used in every other passage in the New Testament?
Why should we find the words EK MESOU used in a different sense from that which they ever bear, both in the New Testament
and in the Septuagint, whenever they are used apart from words that signify removal?
The same remark applies to the Hebrew expressions brqm and kwtm(4), of which EK MESOU is the representative.
It may, perhaps, be said that the reason why a word signifying “removal“ is not used, is, that the expression hO KATECWN refers to God,
or else to some personal agent acting by His authority, and that a word like AIRW or EXAIRW as implying compulsory removal would be
totally inapplicable to God, and not likely to be employed of an agent acting in the manner supposed for Him -
that a word expressive of retirement or withdrawal is more suitable than one that would imply “taking away“.
There is no doubt truth in this. It may be truly said that the words MONON hO KATECWN ARTI do necessarily imply the cessation
at some future time of the agency of such restrainer; and that such cessation virtually involves the retirement
or withdrawal of the restrainer as such; and that consequently the thought of “withdrawal or retirement“ might be taken
(on the same principle as in the passage from AEschines) and attached to GIGNOMAI EK as expository of these words.
This, no doubt, is the meaning, if hO KATECWN is to be taken as the nominative of GENHTAI.
But here it may again be asked, why should not EXERCOMAI, or some such unambiguous word, signifying withdrawal or retirement,
have been used, if such were the meaning; and why should the Hebraist or Hellenist use of GIGNOMAI EK and of EK MESOU,
when used with words not distinctly signifying withdrawal, be departed from; and a very peculiar passage in classical Greek made our guide instead?
If we enclose MONON hO KATECWN ARTI in a parenthesis, and take TO MUSTHRION THS ANOMIAS as the nominative to GENHTAI, no ambiguity remains;
and the use of GIGNOMAI EK in the New Testament is not departed from, nor the meaning which EK MESOU bears in every passage where
it occurs independently of words signifying removal or withdrawal. However, I have endeavoured to state both sides of the question impartially,
and now leave it to the judgment of others. It is true, that when I last published some observations on this passage I was not prepared
to admit that there could be two sides to the question: for I was not then acquainted with the passage to which I have referred in AEschines.
I cannot, therefore, now say that the rendering which would explain the words as referring to withdrawal or retirement is altogether inadmissible.
At the same time there are three rules which should be adhered to as rigorously as we can, in translation: 
first, to give the most simple and direct rendering; 
secondly, to take the fullest scope of truth that the words simply rendered can comprise;
thirdly, to consider how far any proposed translation is such as to commend itself by its harmonising with the general tenor of Scripture
on the point in question.
In the present case, that translation which leads our thoughts to the present secret working, and to the future manifestation
of the mystery of lawlessness is that which appears to me most to conform itself to these rules.
The rendering is more simple; there is no tautology - on the contrary, a fresh truth is revealed; and the truth so revealed
is consistent with all other parts of Scripture that treat of the same subject(5).

_____________________________________________________
footnotes:

(1) Some copies of LXX read only EK in this place.
(2) See the following remark of Stephens: Affertur autem GIGNOMAI et cum EPI e Dem. - GENESQAI EPI PRAGMASI.
Contrariam autem significationem habet cum praep. APO, ut, GENOMENOS APO PRAXEWN EKEINWN, “cum in illis negotiis occupatus esse desiisset.“ Plut. Them.
Item, hOTAN GENOMENOI KAQ hAUTOUS APO THS AKROASEWS. At cum gen. pers. APO TINOS GENOMENOS, Ab aliquo disjunctus.“ (Stephens in voc. GIGNOMAI)
(3) These passages are as follow: - hOUTOS MEN DH SFI OUK ENHGWVIZETO, ALL’ EK TOU MESOU KATHSTO - said of Otanes,
when he retired from competition with his fellow-nobles for the Persian crown. And, hUMEIS DE ETI KAI NUN EK TOU MESOU hUMIN EZESQE -
adressed by Themistocles to the Ionians when he wished to separate them from the Persian confederacy against Greece.
(4) Als Umschrift für die im engl. Originaltext enthaltenen, hebräischen Konsonanten stehen die lat. Buchstaben b für bet, r für resch, q für qof,
m für mem, k für kaf, w für waw und t für taw.
(5) The very fact that the words EK MESOU GENHTAI, depend, if connected with hO KATECWN, on the preceding clause for their definition,
renders them tautological. It is as if we said, only there is at present one that restraineth, who will continue to restrain until he quit
the place of restraining. All this last part is implied in the one word ARTI - at present. In the other case, we learn a fresh truth.
We are taught that the mystery of lawlessness which was already working as a mystery, would continue so to work uninterruptedly,
not until Antichrist should arise to perfect it, but until it should itself become developed, and then Antichrist appears.
The clause in which EK MESOU GENOMENWN occurs in AEschines, is not tautological; and in this respect there is a want of parallelism
between it and 2.Thess 2.“

(from: Notes Expository of the Greek of the first chapter of the Romans; with remarks on the force of certain synonyms, etc.
by B. W. Newton, London, 1856)


Best regards,

Thomas J. Schaum




More information about the B-Greek mailing list