[B-Greek] Ephesians 1:22

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Mon Mar 8 03:48:42 EST 2010


On Mar 7, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Elizabeth Kline" <kline_dekooning at earthlink.net>
> To: "greek B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: 8. marts 2010 07:13
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 1:22
> 
> 
>>> KAI AUTON EDWKEN KEFALHN hUPER PANTA THi EKKLHSIAi
>> On Mar 7, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>> 
>>> For EDWKEN the agent is QEOS, the recipient is AUTON, the patient KEFALHN 
>>> hUPER PANTA, the direction is THi EKKLHSIAi.
>> 
>> This isn't the only possibility. AUTON could be the patient and THi THi 
>> EKKLHSIAi the recipient. In that case KEFALHN hUPER PANTA would be ... not 
>> sure. It all depends on how you understand the semantics of EDWKEN. I you read 
>> it something like "appoint" then the first analysis would hold, but if you 
>> read it something like "give" then you are moving toward the second analysis.
>> 
>> Elizabeth Kline
> 
> I cannot recall any instance where the semantic role of Recipient or Beneficiary 
> is expressed with an accusative. Dative would be the case to use. So, I would 
> take AUTON as the Patient (direct object) and THi EKKLHSIAi as Beneficiary 
> (indirect object). The extra accusative KEFALHN hUPER PANTA is a complement to 
> AUTON. It gives further details about EDWKEN AUTON. Such a complement is 
> normally expressed in English by using "as" or "to be".
> 
> The NIV is questionable, since EDWKEN can hardly mean "appoint". L&N does give 
> one example for this sense, namely Acts 13:20, but "give" works fine here as 
> indeed NIV and all translations I have checked have it in this place.
> 
> You may want to compare other similar double accusatives. One that comes to mind 
> is
> 2 Cor 4:5 οὐ γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς κηρύσσομεν ἀλλὰ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν κύριον, ἑαυτοὺς δὲ 
> δούλους ὑμῶν
> OU GAR hEAUTOUS KHRUSSOMEN ALLA IHSOUN CRISTON KURION, hEAUTOUS DE DOULOUS hUMWN
> 
> for we do not proclaim ourselves but rather Jesus Christ (as/to be) lord, but 
> (we proclaim) ourselves (as/to be) your servants

Thank you Iver,

As usuall, we are not "on the same page". I don't own an NIV, electronic or paper. Have never read the NIV. Didn't consult any English versions. [1] 

If you take a look at BAGD (2nd ed) page 193 #5 you will see "appoint" as a gloss for DIDWMI with two refferences from Ephesians and one Acts. For those who have BDAG, the page is 242 #7. The article in the third edition has been extensively revised but "Appoint" is used as a gloss for DIDWMI in Eph 1:22 in both editions. 

I do seem to recall that it is common practice to map a dative "direct object" to a fixed set of semantic roles. However, this seems a rather mechanical approach to semantic analysis. I can't see much reason for going to the trouble,  if it is just a different set of terms for traditional grammatical categories. So we probably will just end up disagreeing on this one.

Here is my admittedly muddled (it's after midnight here) thinking on this. I am going to go with "appoint" on the authority of BADG and BDAG, plus some technical commentaries which I don't have at my disposal. If we read EDWKEN as appoint, or to bestow an "office" on someone, the "office" KEFALHN hUPER PANTA is the semantic patient, it is "what is bestowed" and AUTON is the the semantic recipient of the office. The bestowing of this office is done on behalf of THi EKKLHSIAi. So perhaps, breaking all the rules, we might suggest that the recipient and the beneficiary are not the same.   

Elizabeth Kline
 
[1] I do use english translations when working on Sophocles and other Classical texts, because of difficulty of obtaining secondary literature on these works, a translation serves as a sort of cryptic commentary. 





More information about the B-Greek mailing list