From: James H. Vellenga (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Aug 01 1996 - 08:32:42 EDT
> At 3:01 PM -0400 7/31/96, L. Mark Bruffey wrote:
> >Is it possible that in Eph. 2:18 OTI is to be understood emphatically,
> >rather than as a causal subordinator or relative? Can anyone cite for me
> >several examples of OTI in such a usage, both from biblical texts and from
> >non-biblical hellenistic texts?
And Carl W. Conrad replied:
> As I have no resources ready to hand for extra-biblical Greek in my
> mountain hideaway, I can't cite such instances. I am, however, one of those
> who think Ephesians is stylistically different from the undisputably
> Pauline letters in several ways. I think that hOTI is indeed emphatic here,
> but I would not be inclined to argue that it is extraordinary. Had DI'
> AUTOU GAR EXOMEN ... been written instead of hOTI DI' AUTOU EXOMEN ... the
> essential sense would not be significantly different but the rhetorical
> emphasis would be weaker. I think hOTI is emphatic enough here that it
> would be appropriate to translate this verse as: "The reason is that ... "
Is it also possible to treat hOTI as introducing a clause that is
apposition with "peace," as in
... he preached peace to you [who are] far off and to the ones
[who are] near: that through him we both have access to the Father
by means of one Spirit.
-- that is, that our "having access in common" is what constitutes peace
(with each other and with God), and is the essence of his preaching?
James H. Vellenga | firstname.lastname@example.org
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-480-0881
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-480-0882
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:47 EDT