[B-Greek] Attraction of the Relative in Eph 2:10
Oun Kwon
kwonbbl at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 01:31:36 EST 2009
Hy Yancy,
Two questions here - this is related to the my original positing on the same
text {Dec 11 - [B-Greek] Eph 2:10 hOIS PROETOIMAZW} :
Question 1: In GNT I have it is hOIS οἷς not OIS οἶς. Can you clarify this
for me?
Question 2: this is reiteration of my original question:
hOIS - is it not dative of reference? Why most take it as if accusative (God
prepared works)? As I see it, the text should be read as 'works for which
God has prepared [us]'. The object 'us' is implicit in the following hINA-
clause (not merely tautological). See Abbott's Critcial Exegesis ICC
commentaries Ephesians &
Colossians<http://www.archive.org/details/criticalexegetic36abbouoft>.
Also in Barnes' commentary and a few translations. If God prepared 'works' -
what sort of works are we talking about?
Oun Kwon.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:36 AM, yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net <
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I think that the point of saying that the attraction is largely semantic
and only loosely or potentially grammatical (conforming to rules of syntax)
is really that attraction/assimilation does, potentially, say something
regarding the thought process of the writer. For example, in the New
Testament Greek relative clauses are sometimes appear to be assimilated
according to semitic usage. The situation is further complicated in that
Greek does not distinguish restrictive from unrestrictive relative clauses.
It seems to me that Eph 2:10 is an example of a restrictive relative, not
just any good works, but those good works God prepared before hand for us to
walk in. That complicates the picture. Ephesians 2:10 is a particularly good
example of how difficult this matter of attraction can be to sort out.
Winer, in his Grammatik neutestamentlich Sprachidioms 24, 4 (p. 225) has an
interesting discussion of this passage. Here is a translation (my German is
not very good, so I will include the original text. Iver or another list
member could do better.) To me, Winer seems to suggest that οἶς is not
necessarily an example of attraction to the antecedent at all, which is why
I suggested it is, rather, "attracted" to ἐν αὐτοῖς (which would not be not
"attraction" at all):
>
> κτισθέντες ... επὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἶς προητοίμασεν ὀ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς
περιπατήσωμεν cannot mean (without attraction to the antecedent): for which
God has prepared us, etc, since ἠμᾶς would not then be elided. But simple
attraction is unacceptable: “the [works] which (οἶς = ἅ) God has prepared
beforehand,” because the phrase would then not construe with the phrase “we
might walk in them” that is, the good works need not be the works
previously prepared. Therefore οἶς (without attraction to the antecedent)
should not therefore be masculine: we, for whom God has prepared them, to
walk in them (Rüchert), taken in this way οἶς would be construed with ἐν
αὐτοῖς = ἐν οἶς as in 22,7 (p. 200). Thus (also) without attraction to the
antecedent: "in which to walk God has prepared for us," or, more closely
replicating the structure: "with regard to which God has prepared that we
should walk in them."
>
<clipped>
>
> Yancy Smith, PhD
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list