From: Paul S. Dixon (dixonps@juno.com)
Date: Sat Dec 13 1997 - 13:26:26 EST
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 10:04:18 -0500 Jim Beale <beale@uconect.net> writes:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I'm having trouble understanding whether believers are the
>inheritance or whether they are heirs in the first chapter
>of Ephesians.
>
>Commentators and translators have taken EKLHRWQHMEN in verse
>11 to mean
>
>1. we were chosen by lot
>2. we have obtained an inheritance
>3. we have been made God's inheritance
>
>My survey indicates that #2 is the most popular choice. But
>how can this be since EKLHRWQHMEN is passive? Wouldn't either
>#1 or #3 be preferable? Of these two, #1 seems preferable to
>me in context. Am I missing something here?
>
>In verse 14, there is no difficulty with the Greek, but there
>is a problem of interpretation. I don't have a clear idea of
>how "the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance" relates
>to "until the redemption of the possession." Are we the heirs
>or the inheritance? Or perhaps both?
Jim:
Welcome back. You are always missed.
The first question I have is whether the text is EKLNRWQHMEN or
EKLHQHMEN. I was surprised to find the UBS (3rd ed.) did not even
have this in the critical apparatus and, of course, neither would the
majority text or the TR. The Nestle text, however, shows that several
manuscripts (A, D, F, G), at least two of which (A, D) are from some of
the earliest manuscripts and from different text families (Alexandrian
and
Western), support the EKLHQHMEN reading. Metzger, of course, says
nothing about this textual problem (at least, not in the 3rd ed of his
textual
commentary, inasmuch as the 3rd ed of the UBS does not note it). I also
note that hardly anybody I checked out even considers the reading. Hmm,
what's going on here?
J. Armitage Robinson does make this observation regarding EN hWi KAI
EKLRWQHMEN PROORISQENTES, "This is practically a restatement in the
passive voice of EXELEXATO hMAS ... PROORISAS (vv. 4, 5) ... We might
perhaps be content to render EXELEXATO (v. 5) and EKLHRWQHMEN by
'chose' and 'chosen', as was done in the Geneva Bible of 1557: an ancient
precedent for this is found in the Peshito, which employs the same verb
in both senses ..."
We can certainly understand why and how the EKLHQHMEN reading crept in,
if it is not original.. Yet, the external support for the reading
indicates it very
well might be original. If so, it would make sense and would greatly
help to alleviate the problems you address.
Sincerely,
Paul Dixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:38 EDT