[B-Greek] Attraction of the Relative in Eph 2:10
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Dec 14 06:38:12 EST 2009
----- Original Message -----
From: <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 14. december 2009 08:36
Subject: [B-Greek] Attraction of the Relative in Eph 2:10
>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."
>
> κτισθέντες … επὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἶς προητοίμασεν ὀ θεὸς ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς
> περιπατήσωμεν kann nicht (ohne Assimilation) heißen: für die uns Gott
> vorherbereitet hat, damit usw., da ἠμᾶς dann nicht zu entbehren wäre. Aber
> auch die einfach Assimilation ist unannehmbar: die (ἅ) Gott vorherbereitet
> hat; denn dazu, dass die Menschen in guten Werken wandeln, müssen nicht die
> Werke vorherbereitet werden. Soll also οἶς nicht (ohne Assimilation)
> Maskulinum sein: wir, denen es Gott vorherbereitet hat, in ihnen zu wandeln
> (Rüchert), so ist es nach 22,7 mit ἐν αὐτοῖς zusammenzufassen = ἐν οἶς (also
> ebenfalls ohne Assimilation): in denen zu wandeln Gott für uns vorherbereitet
> hat, oder mit genauerer Nachbildung der Struktur: bezüglich deren Gott
> vorherbereitet hat, dass wir ihnen wandeln sollen.
>
So, Winer first says that he does not think hOIS is the indirect object for the
verb as Oun Kwon was asking, because then hUMAS should be there. I agree that it
is not the indirect object, although a few commentators have suggested that
possibility (Not followed by any translation). The following is from SIL
Exegetical Summaries. The array of abbreviations until the ; are commentaries,
the rest are English translations:
"QUESTION—How is the relative pronoun hOIS ‘which’ related to the verb
PROHTOIMASEN ‘he prepared beforehand’?
1. It is the object of the verb [AB, Alf, BAGD, Cal, Can, Ea, EBC, ECWB, EGT,
El, HG, Ho, IB, Lns, MNTC, My, NIC, NTC, Rob, Si, St, TH, TNTC, WBC, We; NAB,
NASB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]: God planned these good works beforehand.
hOIS ‘which’ occurs in the dative case because it refers back to ERGOIS AGAQOIS
‘good works’ in the previous clause which is in the dative case, so it is
attracted to that case from the accusative case which it would normally take as
object of the verb [BAGD, El, WBC]. This means that the good works have been
prescribed and adapted to us in order that we might walk in them [Alf, Ea, EGT,
El, IB, WBC].
2. It is the indirect object of the verb [Ba, ICC, NCBC]: God prepared us
beforehand for doing these good works."
But then, Winer goes on to say that it is not attracted, but I don't understand
his reasoning.
He then suggests a third option, which no one else seems to accept, and takes
the hINA as introducing content rather than purpose (or result). His final
suggestion is very much like the first option that he rejected. I don't follow
his argumentation, whether in English or German, and find it entirely
unconvincing.
The simplest option is to accept attraction which is a standard procedure in
Classical and Hellenistic Greek.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list