Bill Dickson wrote:
>I am not entirely pleased with the suggestion that the Letter to the
>Ephesians is something one must muddle through in the original. In
fact, I
>believe the sustained benediction of chapter 1 is utterly stunning in
its
>grandeur and style. It is true that one idea cascades upon another
like a
>giant waterfall of inspired eulogia, but it is a piece of work which
I
>believe drives one to his knees not only for its content but also for
its
>passion and splendor. Scott, in the Moffatt series, I believe
rightly
>compares it to the sublime work of Handel.
>
>"Throughout the first section, as we have already seen, the epistle
takes
>the form of a prayer. Ancient letters began with some pious formula,
>thanking the gods for the reader's well-being, and Paul regularly
follows
>this practice, except that he changes the conventional phrases into
the
>language of heartfelt Christian prayer. In Ephesians, however, the
>introductory prayer is extended over the man part of the letter. The
>theological ideas are woven into the prayer. It is this that explains
not
>only the sustained elevation of the style but also the weight and
>impressiveness of the thought. If Paul had written argumentatively
he
>might have felt, as we sometimes do in Romans, that he was running off
into
>arbitrary speculation. But he does not argue. He only utters the
thoughts
>that rise in his heart as he holds communion with God. Elsewhere he
tells
>us of a man who was caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable
words,
>and in this epistle he seems to be imparting the knowledge that came
to him
>in those moments of ecstatic vision. Just as Handel composed the
>'Hallelujah Chorus' on his knees, so Paul wrote this sublime epistle,
in
>which he tries to penetrate the 'mystery'--the ultimate design of
God." p.
>124-5
This discussion is a good illustration of how different people see the
same text differently. Bill Dickson concentrates, I think, on the
thought of Ephesians, and sees it as grand, elevated, sublime, the apex
almost of Paul's writing.
Carl Conrad comes to the text with classical language and rhetoric
ringing in his ears--and shares the opinion of Eduard Norden in his
ANTIKE KUNSTPROSA that the opening thanksgiving in Ephesians in the
"most monstrous conglomerate sentence in the [ancient] Greek language.
I am one of those who hold that for the very reasons Bill cites to
praise the language that Paul did not write it. [That is an aside.] I
find its Greek a bit turgid, making much use of plerophoria, with long
chains of synonyms and extended genetival constructions.
On the other hand it has a marvellous view of the chcurch and its
unity. the seven-fold one in 4:1-6 (with the "one Lorc, one faith, one
baptism" at its center) still haunts the church when it insists on
certain structures as a pre-condition for unity.
Pardon my longer post. It does take off from the language of Ephesians,
but goes beyond the limits, perhaps.
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 EAST 55TH STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60615
Tel: [773] 256-0752; (H) [773] 947-8105
Reply to: <color><param>FFFF,0000,0000</param>ekrentz@lstc.edu </color>