>After days of abusing my synapses, I still have three remaining
questions
>about this passage:
>
>1. Eph 3:1-2 In my Zuercher Bibel, the translators connect TOUTOU
XARIN with
>DIO AITOUMAI from verse 13 to create the phrase: Therefore I, Paul,
beg you,
>I who am a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you, the heathens,
to
>not lose courage if you have heard differently [EI GE HKOUSATE]...
(Deshalb
>[bitte ich], Paulus, der ich der Gefangene Christi Jesu um eurer, der
>Heiden, willen bin [, nicht mutlos zu werden], wenn ihr anders von
der
>Veranstaltung der Gnade Gottes gehoert habt...
>
>Whether this makes sense seems to hang on this question: can EI GE
HKOUSATE
>mean "if you have heard differently"?
This reading of EK GE HKOUSATE does seem unnatural to me--unless, at
least, "anders" can mean "sonst." It does seem to me that what he means
by this lengthy parenthesis beginning with those words and extending
through vs. 12 is to recapitulate the nature of Paul's ministry to the
Gentiles, and if Paul is the author, he may not be sure that the
recipients of this encyclical letter are aware of his credentials; on
the other hand, on the view that this is a deutero-Pauline letter, the
intent may be to assert the Pauline credentials underlying this letter
and the doctrines set forth in it. Maybe my German is insufficiently
nuanced, but could the "anders" here have the sense of "anderswoher,"
or, as I said previously, of "sonst?"--"assuming, at any rate, that you
have heard from some source or other, the nature of my ministry." I do
think that the linkage of TOUTOU CARIN in 3:1 and DIO in 3:13 is right,
and this big anacoluthon (of thought, at least, even if not of grammar)
is characteristic of this writer (whom I personally remain reluctant to
identify positively with Paul).
>2. Eph 3:8 ANEKSICNOASTON PLOUTOS. According to Zerwick,
ANEKSICNOASTON is
>derived from AN + EX + ICNOS (footprint), and means "untraceable",
>"unfathomable". BAGD says it literally means "not to be tracked out".
This
>word only occurs here and in Romans 11:33 in the New Testament, but it
is
>also used in Job 5:9 and Job 9:10. I couldn't find it in the online
LSJ.
>None of these usages really shed a lot of light on the meaning of the
word.
>The etymology would suggest invisible, a meaning which comes out in
the KJV
>"unsearchable" or the Lutheran "unausforschlich". But BAGD and many
>translations also suggest "unfathomable" for this. Why?
Because "unfathomable" is a different metaphor that has the same
meaning: "beyond discovery or rational understanding." I have only the
minimal Langenscheidt Taschenwoerterbuch at home here, but it offers
the verb EXICNOSKOPEW in the sense "investigate"--and unless my memory
fails me, I've seen EXICNEUW in Plato's Republic. The metaphor of
following a trail to its end for unraveling a mystery, that fundamental
gumshoe metaphor, first appears, if I remember rightly, in Sophocles'
Oedipus Rex; Plato picks it up and it becomes standard Greek parlance.
Our word "investigate" derives from the Latin equivalent, from IN and
VESTIGIA, meaning the same thing,"follow the footprints." So the
etymology in this instance is, I think, a valid clue to understanding
ANEKSICNOASTON as AN- (the form of alpha-privative before a vowel), the
verb EXICNOAZW, and the -TOS verbal adjective indicating "possible to
be done."
>3. Eph 3:9 FWTISAI [PANTAS]. I'm still weak with infinitives - if it
weren't
>for the PANTAS in some manuscripts, I assume there would be no way of
>knowing whether Paul is the one being illuminated or whether the grace
is
>given to Paul so that others might be illuminated. Is this true?
I think the simplest way to understand FWTISAI here is in the sense
"illuminate the question" and then take the following TIS hH OIKONOMIA
KTL. as an indirect-question substantive functioning as the object of
FWTISAI.
Jim Oxford asks about what Metzger has to say on the variant set in
square brackets after FWTISAI, namely PANTAS. Here's the comment (from
2nd ed.):
"Several important witnesses read only FWTISAI (aleph* A 424c 1739 1881
Origen Ambrosiaster1/2 Hilary Jerome <italic>al</italic>). It is
difficult to decide whether PANTAS was omitted, eiher accidentally or
intentionally (as not congruent with TOIS EQNESIN, ver. 8), or was
inserted because the verb FWTISAI seems to require an expressed
accusative (which it usually has elsewhere in the NT). Since, however,
here are no other variant readings (such as AUTOUS <italic>et
sim.</italic>) as would be expected if PANTAS were not original, a
majority of the Committee preferred to retain the word on the authority
of p46 alephc B C D G K P Psi 33 81 614 <italic>Byz Lect</italic> it vg
syrp,h copsa, bo goth arm <italic>al</italic>, but to enclose it within
square brackets, indicating doubt that it has a right to stand in the
text."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/