>At 5:37 PM -0400 7/11/97, Jim Beale wrote:
>
>>No! I can't make any sense of either! (But I don't have to have a
>>horse in order to drag someone else off theirs. :^)
>
>Granted! Of course I don't share Paul's (Dixon's, that is) conviction that
>the logic of Ephesians (especially Ephesians) is Euclidean-Aristotelian.
Well, hopefully you don't think it is Boolean-Russell! (i.e. what
other choice is there?)
>Actually Paul didn't say that about Ephesians in particular but about the
>logical consistency of Biblical texts in general. Ephesians has always
>seemed to me to present more problems in this regard, and most of all with
>respect to the way the metaphors in it are strained to the breaking point.
Be that as it may, given my hermeneutical presupposition that the
authorial intent is (in principle) recoverable from the text, once
that is discovered, the coherence of the thought should manifest
itself.
>Nevertheless, I still do believe that the light-darkness imagery is used in
>a manner parallel to that in John 3.
I think so too.
>>How about we go _all_ the way and take ELEGXOMENA as middle? Then we
>>have the sense: "And all that bears reproof manifests itself under the
>>influence of the Light; for everything that manifests itself is Light."
>>This seems to transition more smoothly to 14(b). I think I can agree
>>with the above:- at least it is gramatically/logically consistent!
>
>Really?!!? Actually I think your wording "bears reproof" still reflects a
>passive sense--
I envision a participation of the "reprovee" in the result of being
reproved; i.e. he "bears with" reproof. Without this middle sense, I
can't see the verse as saying something true. Herod, for instance,
was reproved (in a passive sense) by John the Baptist. In what way
did his action manifests itself to be Light?
Further, I think that (wrt the relation of clause 1 to clause 2 by
means of 'GAR') clause 2 is a general principle of which clause 1
is a particular application. The general principle is that "everything
that manifests itself is Light" which indicates to me that the "reprovee"
is cooperating with the agency of the Light in order to manifest the
Light.
If this is correct, then the Baptist's reproof of Herod is not covered
by this verse since he rejected the Light -- i.e. the Light was not at
work within him to manifest itself. Herod did not "bear with" the
reproof.
Does this make sense?
>and I DO think ELEGCOMENA [although I'd PREFER to use X for
>Chi, I've now conditioned myself to use C for Chi and X for Xi]
I'm used to typing 'X' for Chi and C for 'Xi'! This is the TLG
way. I'm sure we can understand each other. :-)
>is PASSIVE
>here rather than middle: the Light functions as both criterion and as judge
>and divider between the blind and the seeing, the unenlightened and the
>enlightened. I think (personally) that the puzzlement in the verse derives
>from the equation here of the "enlightened" with "Light."
True. I think the only middle ground lies in the middle voice and
the interaction of the agency of the Light and the agency of the
one being reproved in coming to the Light. To extend the analogy,
the Light does not merely shine on the exterior, but shines in the
interior (KAQWS 2 Cor 4:6) so that it "shines through" (i.e. the
reprovee becomes a secondary source of the Light.
>Nevertheless, I
>think that works: it seems to me that the idea here is --as in John 3 --
>that those who respond to revelation (the shining of the Light) come to the
>Light and thereby become "citizens" of the realm of Light so that they can
>even be referred to as "light." I would guess that, historically speaking,
>all this light/darkness imagery in the ancient world goes way farther back
>than Plato all the way to Zoroaster.
It would be interesting to trace that through.
>Incidentally, while I certainly do believe that many of the NT verbs
>commonly deemed deponent or passive are really middle, I've never tried to
>argue that there is no passive in NT Koine. In this particular instance I
>DO think ELEGCOMENA is passive and that the clear sign of that is the hUPO
>agent construction.
This sort of gets into my understanding of the relation of Divine
sovereignty and human freedom. I don't have any technical problems
with the question of how the Light can be purely active and the
source of all activity with the middle sense on the part of the
human response.
>>Are you kidding me? ;-)
>
>Well, yes. I didn't seriously think it was a Chomskian formula; on the
>other hand, it DOES have a superficial likeness to Greek diacriticals,
>don't you think?
Oh, I suppose! ;-) What amazes me is that someone probably spent
a few hours putting that together. (It wasn't me.) I think it's
really funny.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The deepest and most pure humility doth not so much arise from
>> the consideration of our own faults and defects as from a calm
>> and quiet contemplation of the Divine purity and goodness. Our
>> spots never appear so clearly as when we place them before the
>> Infinite Light; and we never seem less in our own eyes than when
>> we look down upon ourselves from on high.
>> (Rev. Henry Scougal, _The Life of God in the Soul of Man_, 130)
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Actually, I like this that you've cited. I find it interesting, moreover,
>that it reflects the Ephesians passage here under consideration (did you
>use it here for that reason?)--
It occurred to me. But I didn't intentionally include it for that
reason.
>and also that it is loaded with "middle/reflexive" verbs:
>"consideration of our own faults and defects" = hOTAN TAS TE hAMARTIAS KAI
>TAS ELLEIYEIS TAS hHMWN AUTWN SKEPTWMEQA; "appear so clearly" = SAFESTATA
>FANEROUNTAI; "when we place them before the Infinite Light" = hOTAN
>PROTIQWMEQA AUTAS EMPROSQEN TOU FWTOS TOU APEIROU; "when we look down upon
>ourselves" = hOTAN hHMAS AUTOUS KATAQEWMEQA.
A la bonne heure! Merci beaucoup, Carl.
>It has a ring--shall we say, an effulgence--, moreover, that is at once
>Platonic and Calvinist. What a combination!
C'est moi! :-)
Au revoir,
Jim