From: dixonps@juno.com
Date: Sat Jul 22 2000 - 14:37:08 EDT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:10:25 EDT CEP7@aol.com writes:
>
> In a message dated 7/21/00 9:25:15 AM, dixonps@juno.com writes:
>
> << Carl, taking EN PNEUMATI in Eph 5:18 indefinitely or
> qualitatively
> does not deny the source or efficient cause of such, particularly
> the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
>
> My only concern here is the likelihood of what the text says and
> means. It may be saying simply that we should be continually
> filled with spiritual matters, such as love, holiness and wisdom.
>
> This then would say nothing, as such, about the source,
> but our understanding of other Scripture would lead us to understand
> that it is the work of the Holy Spirit.
>
> But, are we justified in reading that into the translation here?
> >>
>
> Paul,
>
> Three factors to consider here. How often does the dative PNEUMATI
> refer to spiritual matters and how often does it refer to the Spirit?
Second,
> what is the use of EN. You seem to be understanding EN in terms of
content.
> However that is a very rare usage. The genitive of content would be
more
> natural. Third, would you understand Gal 5:16 in the same way? This
would be
> difficult because the flesh/Spirit antithesis in 5:16-25.
Hi Charles,
The parallel with Col 3:16 may be more helpful, but I will discuss both
passages.
Col 3:16 - hO LOGOS TOU CRISTOU ENOIKEITW EN hUMIN PLOUSIWS.
Surely Col 3:16-25 and Eph 5:18-6:10 are remarkably parallel. If hO
LOGOS
TOU CRISTOU is the command of Christ to love one another, and if this
love is to issue in the teaching and admonishing of one another with all
wisdom,
Col 3:16), then the parallel command in Eph 5:18 to be filled EN PNEUMATI
seems to suggest a filling in love, as well as wisdom and holiness (Eph
5:1-17).
The Gal 5:16 passage, PNEUMATI PERIPATEITE KAI EPIQUMIAN SARKOS
OU MH TELESHTE, may be rendered: walk in spirit (or, spiritually) and
you
will not carry out fleshy desire. The anarthrous nouns certainly do not
require our inserting the definite articles in the translations, do they?
That the same nouns are articularized in the following verses does not
suggest
they are definite in verse 16. Or, does it? If so, why?
I understand that it is often difficult to translate a qualitative
anarthrous Greek
noun into English (cf Jn 4:24, PNEUMA hO QEOS = God is a spirit, or God
is spirit;
certainly not, God is the Spirit). But, I sometimes cringe when I see
translators
inserting "the" when the Greek noun is anarthrous. Surely an anarthrous
noun
can, and often is, definite, but the absence of the article may be
significant.
If so, then inserting "the" in translation may be unfortunate and
misleading.
Paul Dixon
--- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:39:56 EST