[B-Greek] Ephesians 1:22

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Mar 9 00:51:18 EST 2010


I am not sure I understand what your position is on language use, so I'll just 
make a few comments below:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yancy Smith" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 9. marts 2010 00:07
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 1:22


> Iver said:
> Well, I am hesitant to rely much on the LXX because of its translation Greek,
> and I do not accept Eph 1:22 to be a semitism.
> NaTaN has a large semantic range which according to TWOT fall in three main
> classes:
> "The three broad areas of meaning of the verb natan are 1) give, 2) put or 
> set,
> and 3) make or constitute."
>
> [Yancy Smith]
> I'm not sure what is to be gained by denying LXX influence in a place where 
> the LXX is being woven in and out of Paul's prose. Futhermore, the 
> co-ordination of a finite verb and a participle looks LXX-ish to me. Ἣν 
> ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν 
> τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις hHN ENERGHSEN EN TWi CRISTWi EGEIRAS AUTON EK NEKRWN KAI 
> KAQISAS EN DEXIA AUTOU EN TOIS EPOURANIOIS. The ability to turn the influence 
> of one's sources on and off in composition is a skill that would be neither 
> easy nor particularly desirable.

[IL:]  Sorry, I don't know what you mean by the co-ordination of a finite verb 
and a participle. The subordination of one or more participles to a finite verb 
is very common Greek.
As a native speaker of English are you not able to distinguish between when you 
speak "Biblical English" and ordinary English? I am happy to accept LXX or 
Semitic influence in those books or passages which quote or allude to the OT or 
which were written by people whose first language was Hebrew or Aramaic, but 
this does not apply to Eph 1:22.

> Iver said:
> The semantic verb "give" has three roles: A, P and B. The semantic verb
> "put/place" is very similar. It also has three roles: A, P, and L(ocation). In
> many languages the same word would be used in the same frame for these two.
> Whether the Beneficiary or Location is marked as a dative or with a
> prepositional phrase is not important.
>
> [Yancy Smith] That is just the issue, in idiomatic phrases the semantics of 
> verbs get skewed.

IL:
Again, I don't know what you mean by idiomatic phrases here. Maybe I should 
explain a bit more about my approach to semantic frames and roles.

A clause like "Peter has a book" has two semantic roles, Patient and 
Beneficiary. Peter is B and the book is P. Some languages express this as "A 
book is to Peter." Different grammar, same semantics. You can add a Cause or 
Agent valency to this frame, and you get "I caused Peter to have a book" or "I 
gave Peter a book". The Cause role is wider and more general than Agent, and it 
includes indirect agency. Agent is +animate, Cause can be anything.

A clause like "The book is on the table" has two semantic roles, Patient and 
Location. You can add a Cause or Agent and get "I caused the book to be on the 
table" or "I put/placed the book on the table".

> --------
>> DIDWMI is used for the action of designating, choosing, electing or 
>> appointing
>> someone to an office or function. The Numbers 14:4 shows that no pronoun is
>> necessary. Paul could have said, "KAI EDWKEN KEFALHN hUPER PANTA THi
>> EKKLHSIAi" without AUTON, meaning "he chose/appointed a leader over 
>> everything
>> for the church."
> ------------
> IL: I don't think Paul could have said that, but how can we be sure? Nor can I
> find a basis for your explanation of DIDWMI in BAGD. Does it come from 
> somewhere
> else?
> [Yancy Smith] I assume that if the construction is in Paul's Bible (Numbers 
> 14:4) Paul could have said it. Why not?

IL:
Because the LXX has lots of translation-Greek that Paul knows is not proper 
Greek.
I don't think you can argue by constructing an imaginary example that is made to 
fit what you like to propose.

>
> Elizabeth mentioned #5 in BAGD. Unfortunately I don't have BDAG.
> BAGD says:
> "5. equivalent to TIQENAI put, place ARGURION EPI TRAPEZAN put money in the 
> bank
> Lk 19:23; appoint someone (Num 14:4) KRITAS judges Ac 13:20; w. double acc.
> appoint someone someth. (PLille 28, II [III bc] ...) TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS some
> (to be) apostles Eph 4:11. TINA KEFALHN make someone head 1:22. Also D. TINA 
> EIS
> TI B 14:7 (Is 42:6).—For POIEIN, which is read by some mss., in SUMBOULION D.
> hold a consultation Mk 3:6."
> [Yancy Smith] BDAG is a considerable update from BAGD. Here is definition 7:
>
> 7. appoint to special responsibility, appoint (Num 14:4) κριτάς judges Ac 
> 13:20; w. double acc. appoint someone someth. (PLille 28, II [III B.C.] αὐτοῖς 
> ἐδώκαμεν μεσίτην Δωρίωνα) τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους some (to be) apostles Eph 4:11. 
> τινὰ κεφαλήν make someone head 1:22. Also δ. τινὰ εἴς τι B 14:7 (Is 42:6).

IL:
Thanks, I can see that the newer addition has not done the revision needed for 
this point except renumbering it from 5 to 7 and moving part of number 5 to one 
of the many extra numbers that have been added.
Most, if not all, English translations also seem to disagree with BDAG here. I 
have a program that allows me to look at 8 versions simultaneously on the 
screen, and all of them from the KJV to the GNB and NLT use "give" rather than 
"appoint" in Acts 13:20. By the way, Numbers 14:4 is an entirely different 
context, where the people themselves chose a leader in contrast to what God gave 
them, while in Acts 13:20 it was God who gave them judges. What is happening is 
that the Hebrew uses natan here in a sense that is normally outside the range of 
DIDWMI, and the LXX made a poor and mistaken translation. No English version of 
Num 15:4 would use "give" to translate natan here, regardless of the fact that 
the LXX used DIDWMI. Maybe this is one of the problems in BDAG? Septuagintal 
translation-Greek ought to be distinguished from ordinary non-translation Greek.

Now, my main problem in Eph 1:22 is the use of hUPER PANTA and of KEFALH in 
connection with SWMA in the next verse.
One aspect is that God put all things under the feet of Jesus (first half of 
verse 22). Another aspect is that God gave Jesus to be the KEFALH of the 
EKKLHSIA, which is his SWMA.  In the first half, everything in the universe is 
included, but what are the PANTA in the second half? I am inclined to think that 
it refers to all things related to the EKKLHSIA. If this is correct, the point 
seems to be, first, that God is the one who put Jesus in these positions, one as 
ruler of the universe, second as head of the church in all things related to the 
church. That his position as head of the church is a gift to the church is IMO 
better expressed by using give than appoint. This gift from God applies to Acts 
13:20, Eph 4:11 and Eph 1:22, but not to Num 14:4.

I can see from my 8-versions display that the shift from the church as recipient 
of this gift changed from the KJV (gave him to be the head over all things to 
the church) to the RSV (made him the head over all things for the church). RSV 
was copied by NIV and some others, but not NET and GNB. Why RSV made this 
change, I do not know.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list