From: Jürg Buchegger (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 11:22:47 EST
<x-charset iso-8859-1>Dear B-Greekers,
I was just looking through the archives to find something on Eph 4:22-24.
22 APOQESQAI hUMAS KATA ThN PROTERAN ANASTROFhN TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON
FQEIROMENON KATA TAS EPIQUMIAS ThS APAThS.
23 ANANEOUSQAI DE TW PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN.
24 KAI ENDUSASQAI TON KAINON ANQRWPON TON KATA QEON KTISQENTA EN
DIKAIOSNh KAI hOSIOThTI ThS ALhQEIAS.
There was a thread back in 1997 (initiated by Tom Launder; his question
beeing, whether the infinitives are to be understood as imperatives or to be
translated in the indicative) on this passage. What became clear is
1. The three infinitives are dependant on EDIDAXQhTE in V.21
2. The three infinitives give an indirect discourse
3. The aorist (and change to present in ANANEOUSQAI) should not be
interpreted in any "temporal" way
4. The construction makes the infinitves the direct object of the verb "you
Now, for me, one important question was not addressed (and is not addressed
in one commentary I had a chance to take a look into), and that is:
What role does the hUMAS in V.22 play? Is it true that we have an
"accusative + Infinitive" (AcI) construction here? My Grammatical Analysis
by Zerwick/Grosvenor makes me think I am right with that, and Markus Barth
in his Commentary says in a footnote (p 506, fn 38): "The syntax of Eph
4:22-24 may well be that of an accusative with infinitive." Does "may well
be" mean that there are other possibilities to interpret hUMAS?
If we have an AcI here what does this mean for the question of translating
the infinitives as imperatives or in the indicative form?
And: If the EDIDAXQhTE in V.21 logically (not because of the Aorist) must be
understood to have temporally happened in the past and this is followed by
an AcI (and not only by a direct object in the form of an infinitive), would
this have some impact on the content of the infinitive in terms of the
Last question: What function does the DE in V.23 have? Wouldn't it be
possible that the change from the aorist to the present together with this
DE (see KAI in V.24, where we have aorist again) is a strong marker and hint
for at least the following: The first and third infinitive talk about an
action that has the same time and circumstance(aspect). The second
infinitive is deliberately marked in a way that wants to have it understood
in a different way concerning time and circumstance(aspect).
Taking all this together I am asking myself (for one second leaving aside
all the theological questions and concerns around this text): Wouldn't
someone reading this text for the first time, in the most natural way have
understood something like:
"You have been taught ... 22 that you have put off (AcI) ... the old man ...
23 (=kind of paranthesis) but you are being renewed ... 24 and you have put
on ... the new man..."
Any thoughts on this?
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:03 EDT