Edgar,
Many thanks for the opinion of Eduard Norden. I had not come across that
before. There is no question about the uniqueness of Ephesians chap. I,
rather the question is whether the author succeeds in his purposes or not.
Frederick Danker said "As a syntactical salmagundi, the marvelous spiral of
Eph. 1:3-14 is probably without rival in Greek literature." (ISBE Vol. 2)
So those reading the same text come to the wildly diverse opinions that the
text is either monstrous and turgid or instead marvelous and sublime. I do
not find the syntactical complexity of the blessing a distraction from its
perfection, but rather a formal correspondent to the rich, lavish
complexity of its thought. I think ambiguity both semantic and syntactical
when deliberate and well-done contributes to the richness of literature. I
am convinced it is intentional and exceptionally well done in Ephesians I.
Although you only mentioned the authorship question as an aside and I
carefully avoided making reference to that question initially (only Scott's
quotation made any claims on this front), I do admit to finding most
arguments against Pauline authorship unconvincing. I think the uniqueness
of the form of Eph. 1-3 is an adequate explanation of the differences in
style when compared to Paul's other letters.
Bill+
The Rev. Dr. R. William Dickson
Chaplain of All Saints Episcopal School
Tyler, TX
http://ns.gower.net/Community/All.Saints/index.html