[B-Greek] Ephesians 1:11

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Aug 10 16:02:11 EDT 2009


On Aug 10, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Carol & David Weiner wrote:

> In the first part of Ephesians 1:11, can we determine if the  
> participle
> PROORISQENTES modifies the verb, EKLHRWQHMEN, and thus is adverbial in
> function or the subject (we) and thus is adjectival in function?

it is customary to cite the text.

  11 Ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν  
προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ  
πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν  
τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ  12 εἰς τὸ εἶναι  
ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης αὐτοῦ τοὺς  
προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ.

11 EN hWi KAI EKLHRWQHMEN PROORISQENTES KATA PROQESIN TOU TA PANTA  
ENERGOUNTOS KATA THN BOULHN TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU 12 EIS TO EINAI hHMAS  
EIS EPAINON DOXHS AUTOU TOUS PROHLPIKOTAS EN TWi CRISTWi.

One question is word order. The aorist circumstantial participle will  
often, not always, be found prior to the main verb, quote from  
Greenlee 1986:58 who quotes Burton:

"Let us discuss first the aorist circumstantial participle, since it  
is the more subject to misunderstanding and
mistranslation. Actually, as Burton (1900:173–174) correctly states,  
“It is…often equivalent to a coordinate
verb with καí [‘and’].” It differs from a temporal participle  
in that it gives new information, whereas a
temporal participle implies that the information is known and uses  
that information to give a time
relationship for the leading verb. The aorist circumstantial  
participle “[n]ormally precedes the leading verb
in word order [and] describes an action coordinate with, prior to, and  
of the same mood semantically as the
leading verb.…It gives new information.” (Greenlee 1986:58)."

The question is one posed by the traditional framework which imposes  
either/or decisions which often just befuddle the exegete to no good  
purpose. I read through 1:1-14 to get the drift. It seems to me that  
Paul [the author]  is most likely at this point to be describing a  
state of being, the main thrust of the PROORISQENTES being adjectival.  
But this isn't strictly based on syntax, which in this case is  
ambiguous. It is derived from principles of relevance.

3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ  
κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ  
εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ  
πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν  
Χριστῷ,  4 καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν  
αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἶναι  
ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους  
κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ,  5  
προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ  
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν, κατὰ τὴν  
εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ,  6 εἰς  
ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς  
ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ.

3 EULOGHTOS hO QEOS KAI PATHR TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU, hO  
EULOGHSAS hHMAS EN PASHi EULOGIAi PNEUMATIKHi EN TOIS EPOURANIOIS EN  
CRISTWi, 4 KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS EN AUTWi PRO KATABOLHS KOSMOU EINAI  
hHMAS hAGIOUS KAI AMWMOUS KATENWPION AUTOU EN AGAPHi, 5 PROORISAS  
hHMAS EIS hUIOQESIAN DIA IHSOU CRISTOU EIS AUTON, KATA THN EUDOKIAN  
TOU QELHMATOS AUTOU, 6 EIS EPAINON DOXHS THS CARITOS AUTOU hHS  
ECARITWSEN hHMAS EN TWi HGAPHMENWi.
Note how many times hHMAS appears in 3-6

hO EULOGHSAS hHMAS
4 KAQWS EXELEXATO hHMAS
EINAI hHMAS hAGIOUS
PROORISAS hHMAS
ECARITWSEN hHMAS
With this in mind, I would prefer to read (tentative) v.11 EN hWi KAI  
EKLHRWQHMEN PROORISQENTES as having in implied pronoun qualified by  
PROORISQENTES. This is nothing more than thinking out loud (e-text =  
speech act).


Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list