[B-Greek] Ephesians 2:8 - Anaphoric Use of the Article
rhutchin at aol.com
rhutchin at aol.com
Fri Jul 24 08:15:50 EDT 2009
Is it possible that the introduction of the article in 2:8 (THi...CHARITI) could be read/translated as, "For the grace by which you are saved, (it is) through faith...not works..."?
It seems to be that the claim of anything anaphora in theis verse adds nothing to our understanding of the verse and only confuses matters.? Hendricksen's reference to this is the footnote should have been accompanied by a discussion about what it adds to our understanding of the verse and why anyone should even care about it.
Roger Hutchinson
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry <nebarry at verizon.net>
To: rhutchin at aol.com; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Tue, Jul 21, 2009 5:57 pm
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:8 - Anaphoric Use of the Article
>?
> It's mind boggling to me. I am amazed that this practice could get
> started and even more amazed that someone then figured out what was being
> done. The source of the comment was Hendricksen's commentary on
> Ephesians. It was a cryptic (at least, to me) footnote on Eph 2:8.?
>?
?
I am not sure what you mean by "this practice" and so forth, but ok.
Hendrickson is one commentary I don't have on Ephesians, out of the dozen or
so that I do have.?
?
>?
> You take it back to v 7. Could it refer back to v 5? Could it indicate
> that the writer is now going back to something he had said earlier that he
> now wants to expand upon??
>?
?
I just checked Hoehner on this passage. He also calls it anaphoric, and
sees it going back to verse 5. Hoehner is awesome, but here I disagree. I
think the two articular uses in vss. 7-8 emphasize the concrete fact of
God's grace, whereas the anarthrous use in vs. 5 emphasizes the instrumental
function of the grace. Technically, to be anaphoric, it must be repeated,
so we have to take it from vs. 7.?
?
>?
> The term seems to be completely ignored in the translation of the verse.
> However, it provides critical information that would seem to be necessary
> for the reader of a translation to understand what is happening. Is there
> some translation of the term, THi, that could be used in some manner to
> show what is happening or is it simply impossible to translate?<?
?
Well, it's the definite article with an abstract noun, which is optional in
Greek, and often missing when the noun is used instrumentally, as in vs. 5.
In English, supplying the article with an abstract noun is not idiomatic, so
we normally leave it out in English translation. It's the sort of thing
that we have to pick up by context in the English translation.?
?
>?
> Also, the examples used to illustrate this situation are nothing like what
> we find here. The examples use the exact language repeatedly so that it
> is clear what is being said. This verse lacks that characteristic. I
> find it confusing.<<?
?
It doesn't have to be exactly the same form to be an anaphora, since this is
an inflected language. According to the strict literary definition, it's
not, and until you brought it up, I hadn't really thought of it in that way.
I sometimes get suspicious of imputing too much value to rhetorical devices,
especially when, as here, they don't quite fit the standard. In other
words, for a rhetorical device to be really effective, it has to be used on
purpose, and I am not convinced that Paul said "Aha! Let's use an anaphora
here... " :)?
?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter?
Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair?
http://www.montclair.edu/?
Classics Instructor, The American Academy?
http://www.theamericanacademy.net/?
?
And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog?
?
?
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list