Ephesians 2:15

Eph. 2:15 Andrew Bowman abowman at pc-intouch.com
Thu May 20 14:28:46 EDT 1999

 

hINA + infinitive Keeping up with NT Greek after class I am a beginning Greeker and am writing an exegetical paper for my Exegeting Greek (3rd semester) class. My passage is Eph. 2:11-22. I am having a bit of difficulty with the grammar of vs. 15, specifically in hINA clause. It reads (forgive me if I transliterate incorrectly) hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQROPOV… My question is how do phrases “the two” and “into one new man” connect to the verb “he might make” ? It seems that they are functioning as a double direct object, but BAGD or the other instances of KTIZW in the NT support that conclusion. If I take the prepositional phrase as modifying the verb, I am not at all sure how it would be relating to it. I am equally baffled by how the phrase would be modifying ANQROPOV. Any help would be appreciated.Thanks, Andrew Bowman————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990520/ac3254f5/attachment.html

 

hINA + infinitiveKeeping up with NT Greek after class

Eph. 2:15 Andrew Bowman abowman at pc-intouch.com
Thu May 20 14:28:46 EDT 1999

 

hINA + infinitive Keeping up with NT Greek after class I am a beginning Greeker and am writing an exegetical paper for my Exegeting Greek (3rd semester) class. My passage is Eph. 2:11-22. I am having a bit of difficulty with the grammar of vs. 15, specifically in hINA clause. It reads (forgive me if I transliterate incorrectly) hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQROPOV… My question is how do phrases “the two” and “into one new man” connect to the verb “he might make” ? It seems that they are functioning as a double direct object, but BAGD or the other instances of KTIZW in the NT support that conclusion. If I take the prepositional phrase as modifying the verb, I am not at all sure how it would be relating to it. I am equally baffled by how the phrase would be modifying ANQROPOV. Any help would be appreciated.Thanks, Andrew Bowman————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990520/ac3254f5/attachment.html

 

hINA + infinitiveKeeping up with NT Greek after class

Eph. 2:15 Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Fri May 21 10:33:13 EDT 1999

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after class Keeping up with NT Greek after class Andrew Bowman wrote:> I am a beginning Greeker and am writing an exegetical paper for my> Exegeting Greek (3rd semester) class. My passage is Eph. 2:11-22. I> am having a bit of difficulty with the grammar of vs. 15, specifically> in hINA clause. It reads (forgive me if I transliterate incorrectly)> hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQROPOV… My> question is how do phrases “the two” and “into one new man” connect to> the verb “he might make” ? It seems that they are functioning as a> double direct object, but BAGD or the other instances of KTIZW in the> NT support that conclusion. If I take the prepositional phrase as> modifying the verb, I am not at all sure how it would be relating to> it. I am equally baffled by how the phrase would be modifying> ANQROPOV. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Andrew BowmanOn the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and bothprepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing thesource material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The directobject is never specifically stated. The construction as stated inEnglish, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that hemight, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of thetwo.” I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be evenmore difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And thethree actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (sourcematerial, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be amodifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Paulinegrammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK onthe genitive/ablative phrase.Hope this helps,Paul–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after classKeeping up with NT Greek after class

Eph. 2:15 Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Fri May 21 10:33:13 EDT 1999

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after class Keeping up with NT Greek after class Andrew Bowman wrote:> I am a beginning Greeker and am writing an exegetical paper for my> Exegeting Greek (3rd semester) class. My passage is Eph. 2:11-22. I> am having a bit of difficulty with the grammar of vs. 15, specifically> in hINA clause. It reads (forgive me if I transliterate incorrectly)> hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQROPOV… My> question is how do phrases “the two” and “into one new man” connect to> the verb “he might make” ? It seems that they are functioning as a> double direct object, but BAGD or the other instances of KTIZW in the> NT support that conclusion. If I take the prepositional phrase as> modifying the verb, I am not at all sure how it would be relating to> it. I am equally baffled by how the phrase would be modifying> ANQROPOV. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Andrew BowmanOn the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and bothprepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing thesource material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The directobject is never specifically stated. The construction as stated inEnglish, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that hemight, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of thetwo.” I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be evenmore difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And thethree actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (sourcematerial, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be amodifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Paulinegrammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK onthe genitive/ablative phrase.Hope this helps,Paul–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after classKeeping up with NT Greek after class

Eph. 2:15 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 21 13:49:12 EDT 1999

 

Overhaul of Greek NT Web Resources Overhaul of Greek NT Web Resources >From: Paul Zellmer>Andrew Bowman wrote:> > > I am a beginning Greeker and am writing an exegetical paper for my> > Exegeting Greek (3rd semester) class. My passage is Eph. 2:11-22. I> > am having a bit of difficulty with the grammar of vs. 15, specifically> > in hINA clause. It reads (forgive me if I transliterate incorrectly)> > hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQROPOV… My> > question is how do phrases “the two” and “into one new man” connect to> > the verb “he might make” ? It seems that they are functioning as a> > double direct object, but BAGD or the other instances of KTIZW in the> > NT support that conclusion. If I take the prepositional phrase as> > modifying the verb, I am not at all sure how it would be relating to> > it. I am equally baffled by how the phrase would be modifying> > ANQROPOV. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Bowman> > >On the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and both>prepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing the>source material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),>and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,>with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The direct>object is never specifically stated. The construction as stated in>English, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that he>might, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of the>two.”> >I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,>but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be even>more difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And the>three actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (source>material, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be a>modifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Pauline>grammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK on>the genitive/ablative phrase.> >Hope this helps,That was a nice job, Paul. I would offer the following tries:Ultra literal:”That the two He might create in Himself into one new man.”Cleaned up a tad:”In order that in Himself he might create the two into one new person.”I have often wondered if the use of the subjunctive in the NT might often mean that without the action or condition prescribed, the subjunctive simply does not happen. This avoids the quid pro quo problem, yet shoulders us with our own responsibility.XARIC ~George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Overhaul of Greek NT Web ResourcesOverhaul of Greek NT Web Resources

Eph. 2:15 George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Fri May 21 13:49:12 EDT 1999

 

Overhaul of Greek NT Web Resources Overhaul of Greek NT Web Resources >From: Paul Zellmer>Andrew Bowman wrote:> > > I am a beginning Greeker and am writing an exegetical paper for my> > Exegeting Greek (3rd semester) class. My passage is Eph. 2:11-22. I> > am having a bit of difficulty with the grammar of vs. 15, specifically> > in hINA clause. It reads (forgive me if I transliterate incorrectly)> > hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQROPOV… My> > question is how do phrases “the two” and “into one new man” connect to> > the verb “he might make” ? It seems that they are functioning as a> > double direct object, but BAGD or the other instances of KTIZW in the> > NT support that conclusion. If I take the prepositional phrase as> > modifying the verb, I am not at all sure how it would be relating to> > it. I am equally baffled by how the phrase would be modifying> > ANQROPOV. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Bowman> > >On the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and both>prepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing the>source material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),>and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,>with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The direct>object is never specifically stated. The construction as stated in>English, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that he>might, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of the>two.”> >I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,>but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be even>more difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And the>three actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (source>material, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be a>modifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Pauline>grammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK on>the genitive/ablative phrase.> >Hope this helps,That was a nice job, Paul. I would offer the following tries:Ultra literal:”That the two He might create in Himself into one new man.”Cleaned up a tad:”In order that in Himself he might create the two into one new person.”I have often wondered if the use of the subjunctive in the NT might often mean that without the action or condition prescribed, the subjunctive simply does not happen. This avoids the quid pro quo problem, yet shoulders us with our own responsibility.XARIC ~George BlaisdellRoslyn, WA_______________________________________________________________Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

 

Overhaul of Greek NT Web ResourcesOverhaul of Greek NT Web Resources

Eph. 2:15 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Fri May 21 17:20:27 EDT 1999

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after class What is “KURIAKOS”? In a message dated 5/21/99 12:28:05 PM, zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph writes:<< On the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and bothprepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing thesource material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The directobject is never specifically stated. The construction as stated inEnglish, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that hemight, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of thetwo.” I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be evenmore difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And thethree actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (sourcematerial, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be amodifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Paulinegrammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK onthe genitive/ablative phrase.Hope this helps,Paul >>I would like to make a correction. TOUS DUO is accusative, not genitive, and therefore it serves as the direct object. The action of KTISHi is performed on the two.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after classWhat is “KURIAKOS”?

Eph. 2:15 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Fri May 21 17:20:27 EDT 1999

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after class What is “KURIAKOS”? In a message dated 5/21/99 12:28:05 PM, zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph writes:<< On the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and bothprepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing thesource material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The directobject is never specifically stated. The construction as stated inEnglish, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that hemight, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of thetwo.” I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be evenmore difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And thethree actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (sourcematerial, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be amodifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Paulinegrammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK onthe genitive/ablative phrase.Hope this helps,Paul >>I would like to make a correction. TOUS DUO is accusative, not genitive, and therefore it serves as the direct object. The action of KTISHi is performed on the two.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

 

Keeping up with NT Greek after classWhat is “KURIAKOS”?

Eph. 2:15 Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Sat May 22 08:11:21 EDT 1999

 

Greek courses Keeping up with NT Greek after class CEP7 at aol.com wrote:> In a message dated 5/21/99 12:28:05 PM, zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph writes:> > << On the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and both> prepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing the> source material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),> and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,> with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The direct> object is never specifically stated. The construction as stated in> English, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that he> might, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of the> two.”> > I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,> but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be even> more difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And the> three actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (source> material, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be a> modifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Pauline> grammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK on> the genitive/ablative phrase.> > Hope this helps,> > Paul >>> > I would like to make a correction. TOUS DUO is accusative, not genitive, and> therefore it serves as the direct object. The action of KTISHi is performed> on the two.> > Charles Powell> DTS> cep7 at aol.com> OOPS! I know, in this paperless age, that we can’t pull out the scratchsheetand produce proof of previous drafts, but that was exactly my first handling ofthe passage. I should have stopped while I was ahead.Which all goes to prove that (1) we shouldn’t respond when we’re too tired, and(2) we should go with our first instincts.Thanks for correcting me on such a basic error. Guess I’d better creep backover to the sister list. (I only responded because Carl apparently didn’t seethis question!)And then, when I first sent this acknowledgement out, I forgot to change the addressto the list. I wish I were old enough to blame it on old age!Paul–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph

 

Greek coursesKeeping up with NT Greek after class

Eph. 2:15 Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Sat May 22 08:11:21 EDT 1999

 

Greek courses Keeping up with NT Greek after class CEP7 at aol.com wrote:> In a message dated 5/21/99 12:28:05 PM, zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph writes:> > << On the surface, it appears to me as if the genitives and both> prepositional phrases modify the verb, the genitives describing the> source material, the EN phrase, giving the sphere (or perhaps agency),> and the EIS phrase, the goal or end. The object of EIS is ANQRWPON,> with hENA and KAINON being adjectives describing ANQRWPON. The direct> object is never specifically stated. The construction as stated in> English, with the necessary change of word order: “in order that he> might, in him[self], create [a creation] into one new man out of the> two.”> > I realize it doesn’t flow smoothly when we handle it strictly literally,> but KTIZW doesn’t take a genitive “direct object,” and it would be even> more difficult to make a prepositional phrase play that role. And the> three actions expressed by the phrases *are* all of the same ilk (source> material, sphere of activity, and final product). To have each be a> modifier of the verbal action does seem to follow a common Pauline> grammatical pattern, although we many times would expect to see EK on> the genitive/ablative phrase.> > Hope this helps,> > Paul >>> > I would like to make a correction. TOUS DUO is accusative, not genitive, and> therefore it serves as the direct object. The action of KTISHi is performed> on the two.> > Charles Powell> DTS> cep7 at aol.com> OOPS! I know, in this paperless age, that we can’t pull out the scratchsheetand produce proof of previous drafts, but that was exactly my first handling ofthe passage. I should have stopped while I was ahead.Which all goes to prove that (1) we shouldn’t respond when we’re too tired, and(2) we should go with our first instincts.Thanks for correcting me on such a basic error. Guess I’d better creep backover to the sister list. (I only responded because Carl apparently didn’t seethis question!)And then, when I first sent this acknowledgement out, I forgot to change the addressto the list. I wish I were old enough to blame it on old age!Paul–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph

 

Greek coursesKeeping up with NT Greek after class

Eph 2:15 Andrew Bowman abowman at pc-intouch.com
Mon May 24 18:10:44 EDT 1999

 

Christian…suffix vs. prefix Christian I would like to thank all that contributed answers to my question regarding Eph. 2:15. They have been informative. Unfortunately, they have not addressed what I specifically wanted to know. The phrase which we are dealing with is hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIC hENA KAINON ANQROPWN. TOUS DUO is definitely the direct object of KTISHi referring to what is being created. EN AUTWi is”in himself (Christ)” modifying the verb explaining where the action is taking place, or how the action is taking place (some clarity or opinion here would be appreciated). The main question that I have to how to grammatically link EIS ANQROPON to the rest of the sentence. Is it modifying the verb, expressing “?” (I have no idea what it would be expressing), or is it modifying DUO and again I am not sure how is would be relating to it. Paul Zellmer indicated that it is not likely that it would functioning as the direct object of the verb, which was my initial thought. My reasoning is that the this is the result of the creation process that Christ is doing within himself, as God created man, So Christ is creating the new man. I have a sense of what Paul is communicating through this passage, but I would like to be very precise both in diagramming it grammatically, and discussing it technically in my paper. Any help answer these two questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Bowman.————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990524/6d51365d/attachment.html

 

Christian…suffix vs. prefixChristian

Eph 2:15 Andrew Bowman abowman at pc-intouch.com
Mon May 24 18:10:44 EDT 1999

 

Christian…suffix vs. prefix Christian I would like to thank all that contributed answers to my question regarding Eph. 2:15. They have been informative. Unfortunately, they have not addressed what I specifically wanted to know. The phrase which we are dealing with is hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIC hENA KAINON ANQROPWN. TOUS DUO is definitely the direct object of KTISHi referring to what is being created. EN AUTWi is”in himself (Christ)” modifying the verb explaining where the action is taking place, or how the action is taking place (some clarity or opinion here would be appreciated). The main question that I have to how to grammatically link EIS ANQROPON to the rest of the sentence. Is it modifying the verb, expressing “?” (I have no idea what it would be expressing), or is it modifying DUO and again I am not sure how is would be relating to it. Paul Zellmer indicated that it is not likely that it would functioning as the direct object of the verb, which was my initial thought. My reasoning is that the this is the result of the creation process that Christ is doing within himself, as God created man, So Christ is creating the new man. I have a sense of what Paul is communicating through this passage, but I would like to be very precise both in diagramming it grammatically, and discussing it technically in my paper. Any help answer these two questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Bowman.————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990524/6d51365d/attachment.html

 

Christian…suffix vs. prefixChristian

Eph 2:15 Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Tue May 25 08:29:16 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian Andrew, let me make another brief attempt. Let’s take the Englishsentence, “Time changes the boy into a man.” I think you’ll have noproblems seeing “the boy” as the direct object. What is the function ofthe prepositional phrase, “into a man”? It’s adverbial, giving the goalof the action. A similar function is being done in the Greek in Eph2:15.Diagramming? The EIS phrase is placed as an adverbial modifier ofKTISHi, just like the EN phrase. I know of no way to relate the EISphrase to the direct object (adjectivally).A suggestion: you might want to check an English grammar to see how thatlanguage handles such constructions. I’ll bet you’ll find somethingvery similar to what I described above.HTH (Hope this helps),PaulAndrew Bowman wrote:> I would like to thank all that contributed answers to my question> regarding Eph. 2:15. They have been informative. Unfortunately, they> have not addressed what I specifically wanted to know. The phrase> which we are dealing with is hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIC hENA> KAINON ANQROPWN. TOUS DUO is definitely the direct object of KTISHi> referring to what is being created. EN AUTWi is”in himself (Christ)”> modifying the verb explaining where the action is taking place, or how> the action is taking place (some clarity or opinion here would be> appreciated). The main question that I have to how to grammatically> link EIS ANQROPON to the rest of the sentence. Is it modifying the> verb, expressing “?” (I have no idea what it would be expressing), or> is it modifying DUO and again I am not sure how is would be relating> to it. Paul Zellmer indicated that it is not likely that it would> functioning as the direct object of the verb, which was my initial> thought. My reasoning is that the this is the result of the creation> process that Christ is doing within himself, as God created man, So> Christ is creating the new man. I have a sense of what Paul is> communicating through this passage, but I would like to be very> precise both in diagramming it grammatically, and discussing it> technically in my paper. Any help answer these two questions would be> greatly appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Bowman.–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph

 

ChristianChristian

Eph 2:15 Paul Zellmer zellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph
Tue May 25 08:29:16 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian Andrew, let me make another brief attempt. Let’s take the Englishsentence, “Time changes the boy into a man.” I think you’ll have noproblems seeing “the boy” as the direct object. What is the function ofthe prepositional phrase, “into a man”? It’s adverbial, giving the goalof the action. A similar function is being done in the Greek in Eph2:15.Diagramming? The EIS phrase is placed as an adverbial modifier ofKTISHi, just like the EN phrase. I know of no way to relate the EISphrase to the direct object (adjectivally).A suggestion: you might want to check an English grammar to see how thatlanguage handles such constructions. I’ll bet you’ll find somethingvery similar to what I described above.HTH (Hope this helps),PaulAndrew Bowman wrote:> I would like to thank all that contributed answers to my question> regarding Eph. 2:15. They have been informative. Unfortunately, they> have not addressed what I specifically wanted to know. The phrase> which we are dealing with is hINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIC hENA> KAINON ANQROPWN. TOUS DUO is definitely the direct object of KTISHi> referring to what is being created. EN AUTWi is”in himself (Christ)”> modifying the verb explaining where the action is taking place, or how> the action is taking place (some clarity or opinion here would be> appreciated). The main question that I have to how to grammatically> link EIS ANQROPON to the rest of the sentence. Is it modifying the> verb, expressing “?” (I have no idea what it would be expressing), or> is it modifying DUO and again I am not sure how is would be relating> to it. Paul Zellmer indicated that it is not likely that it would> functioning as the direct object of the verb, which was my initial> thought. My reasoning is that the this is the result of the creation> process that Christ is doing within himself, as God created man, So> Christ is creating the new man. I have a sense of what Paul is> communicating through this passage, but I would like to be very> precise both in diagramming it grammatically, and discussing it> technically in my paper. Any help answer these two questions would be> greatly appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Bowman.–Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at cag.pworld.net.ph

 

ChristianChristian

[] Eph. 2:15 KTIZW Jeff Smelser jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net
Fri Jul 23 17:38:17 EDT 2010

 

[] Theodotian online? [] Eph. 2:15 KTIZW ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὑτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπονhINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPONTo my eye, the use of KTIZW here seems to come close to our expression”make [something] into [something]”;”…that in himself he might make/form the two into one new man”However, I don’t see any clear precedent anywhere for such a use of KTIZW.Really, I suppose the question becomes the function of EIS. The alternative would seem to be to take EIS in a final sense,”…that in himself he might create the two for one new man.”(compare Sirach 39:29, ἔστιν πνεύματα ἃ εἰς ἐκδίκησιν ἔκτισται…πάντα ταῦτα εἰς εκδίκησιν ἔκτισται, ESTIN PNEUMATA hA EIS EKDIKHSIN EKTISTAI…PANTA TAUTA EIS EKDIKHSIN EKTISTAI)I see a problem with that, if for no other reason, simply because the point of the context isn’t that Christ created Jews and Gentiles, but that he created the one new man. It’s also worth noting that Paul has just previously (vs. 10) used EPI with KTIZW in this final sense.Does anyone know of other occurrences of KTIZW with EIS that might shed light on this?Is anyone aware of KTIZW being used in the sense of “make [something] into [something]”?Jeff Smelser

 

[] Theodotian online?[] Eph. 2:15 KTIZW

[] Eph. 2:15 KTIZW George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 23 19:27:07 EDT 2010

 

[] Eph. 2:15 KTIZW [] Theodotian online? I haven’t checked these yet, but you might take a look atPr 8.22Wis 1.14Sir 31.27Am 4.13Is 54.16Je 38.22Ro 1.25Eph 2.151 Ti 4.3 georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Jeff Smelser <jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Fri, July 23, 2010 2:38:17 PMSubject: [] Eph. 2:15 KTIZWἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὑτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπονhINA TOUS DUO KTISHi EN AUTWi EIS hENA KAINON ANQRWPONTo my eye, the use of KTIZW here seems to come close to our expression”make [something] into [something]”;”…that in himself he might make/form the two into one new man”However, I don’t see any clear precedent anywhere for such a use of KTIZW.Really, I suppose the question becomes the function of EIS. The alternative would seem to be to take EIS in a final sense,”…that in himself he might create the two for one new man.”(compare Sirach 39:29, ἔστιν πνεύματα ἃ εἰς ἐκδίκησιν ἔκτισται…πάντα ταῦτα εἰς εκδίκησιν ἔκτισται, ESTIN PNEUMATA hA EIS EKDIKHSIN EKTISTAI…PANTA TAUTA EIS EKDIKHSIN EKTISTAI)I see a problem with that, if for no other reason, simply because the point of the context isn’t that Christ created Jews and Gentiles, but that he created the one new man.  It’s also worth noting that Paul has just previously (vs. 10) used EPI with KTIZW in this final sense.Does anyone know of other occurrences of KTIZW with EIS that might shed light on this?Is anyone aware of KTIZW being used in the sense of “make [something] into [something]”?Jeff Smelser— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Eph. 2:15 KTIZW[] Theodotian online?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>