Re: Ephesians 5:14
Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:04:23 EDT
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 08:21:14 -0400 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>At 5:37 PM -0400 7/11/97, Jim Beale wrote:
>>At 1:17 PM -0400 7/11/97, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>
>>>>The translation,
>>>>
>>>> But everything which is reproved by the light is made
>>>> manifest, because all that reveals itself is light.
>>>>
>>>>doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I fail to see how
>>>>your interpretation of the latter clause gives a reason for
>>>>the former. How do you see this working? (I need more light;)
>>>
>>>Hold your horses, Jim: "TO FWS EN THi SKOTIAi FAINEI, KAI hH SKOTIA
>AUTO OU
>>>KATELABEN." Do you really think that "all that is revealed is light"
>makes
>>>any MORE sense as an explanation of "But everything which is
>reproved by
>>>the light is made manifest"? Is it that which is reproved by the
>light that
>>>is itself light?
>>
>>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.
>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.
>Nevertheless, I still do believe that the light-darkness imagery is
>used in
>a manner parallel to that in John 3.
>
>>>Let me try taking FANEROW in both clauses in the middle/reflexive
>sense: TA
>>>DE PANTA ELEGCOMENA hUPO TOU FWTOS FANEROUTAI, (14) PAN GAR TO
>FANEROUMENON
>>>FWS ESTIN. "And all that is put to the proof comes to illumination
>under
>>>the impact of the Light, for everything that manifests itself is
>Light."
>>
>>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--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] 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."
>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.
>
>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.
>
>>>> Reason #173 to fear technology...
>>>>
>>>> o o o o o <o <o> o> o
>>>> .|. \|. \|/ // X \ | <| <|>
>>>> /\ >\ /< >\ /< >\ /< >\ />
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Asciihead learns the Macarena.
>>>
>>>This is nice, Jim. Before I looked at your explanation about Mr.
>Asciihead,
>>>I thought this was either (a) an outline of the "deep structure" of
>the
>>>propositions of Eph 5:13-14, or (b) a chart explaining how to key
>the Greek
>>>accents: circumflex, smooth + grave, etc., etc. But the third one
>doesn't
>>>quite work: it can't be rough + acute because the elements are
>reversed.
>>
>>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?
>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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?)--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. It has a ring--shall we
>say,
>an effulgence--, moreover, that is at once Platonic and Calvinist.
>What a
>combination!
>
>
>
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics/Washington University
>One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
>Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
>cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>
>