Ephesians 4:11

[] syntatical significance of Eph. 4:11 Clay Lin lin_clay at hotmail.com
Tue May 6 15:10:00 EDT 2003

 

[] Greek trivia: all the letters… [] Greek trivia: all the letters… Greetings,I’m wondering of the significance of the syntax of Eph. 4:11 (MEN… DE… DE…DE… KAI).The significance lies, of course, in whether the last two elements areequal, parallel members with the first three. Also are pastors equal to teachers or be treated completely as two separate elements?ThanksClay Lin_________________________________________________________________MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

 

[] Greek trivia: all the letters…[] Greek trivia: all the letters…

[] Eph 4:11-12 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Wed Dec 29 08:35:00 EST 2004

 

[] Eph 4:11-12 [] Eph 4:11-12 At 08:23 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote:> > So- is it> > eisegetical to see the verse rendered something like “once apostles and> > prophets… but now pastors and teachers” etc?> >Yes, it is. And clearly wrong.> >Iver LarsenI’m not so sure. Anyway, H.J. Klauck hints in this direction in his “Das Amt in der Kirche nach Eph 4,1-16 ” – Wissenschaft und Wahrheit 36 (1973). So, to say it is “clearly wrong” isn’t really quite true.BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

 

[] Eph 4:11-12[] Eph 4:11-12

[] Eph 4:11-12 Charles Rempel CharlesR at mygalaxyexpress.com
Wed Dec 29 10:34:52 EST 2004

 

[] Eph 4:11-12 [] Eph 4:11-12 I am responding with a desire to learn the functional rules of this list.It appears to me that we have two experts who disagree. On the one hand, whoon the basis of personal authority makes a declarative statement. Since Iam not familiar with his qualifications, although I have a tendancy to agreewith him, I would not accept his statments simply on his personal signature.On the other hand we have a ?tri-lingualist” who cites a German referencewhich is not inspired and whose state is on the same standing as the firstassertion, but with whom I would have a tendency to disagree.Arguments from silence are always weak. And I would think that to establishthe “then and now” hypothesis, those who support should cite biblicalexamples where it might be clearly evident, or at least hypotheticallyviable, or the argument becomes moot.Comments?Charles D. Rempel30 year studentWithout portfolio—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Jim WestSent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:35 AMTo: Iver LarsenCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: RE: [] Eph 4:11-12At 08:23 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote:> > So- is it> > eisegetical to see the verse rendered something like “once apostles and> > prophets… but now pastors and teachers” etc?> >Yes, it is. And clearly wrong.> >Iver LarsenI’m not so sure. Anyway, H.J. Klauck hints in this direction in his “DasAmt in der Kirche nach Eph 4,1-16 ” – Wissenschaft und Wahrheit 36(1973). So, to say it is “clearly wrong” isn’t really quite true.BestJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog— home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Eph 4:11-12[] Eph 4:11-12

[] Eph 4:11-12 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Wed Dec 29 10:49:54 EST 2004

 

[] Eph 4:11-12 [] Eph 4:11-12 At 10:34 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote:>I am responding with a desire to learn the functional rules of this list.> >It appears to me that we have two experts who disagree. On the one hand, who>on the basis of personal authority makes a declarative statement.I’m not sure what the last sentence means. Would you mind clarifying?>Since I>am not familiar with his qualifications, although I have a tendancy to agree>with him, I would not accept his statments simply on his personal signature.Its always wise to weigh the merits of ideas on both a person’s qualifications and on the evidence (in the reverse order). What I mean by that is that everyones opinion might matter, but not everyone’s opinion is of equal weight. To put it simply, would you go to a witchdoctor for medical treatment or someone who had been to medical school? Now, transfer that to any discipline- would you ask advice of Jerry Springer regarding biblical exegesis or someone who actually had studied it formally?>On the other hand we have a ?tri-lingualist” who cites a German reference>which is not inspired and whose state is on the same standing as the first>assertion, but with whom I would have a tendency to disagree.I suppose this is a reference to me? And the “tri-linguist” part implies that my mention of German and Greek plus my writing in English persuades you that I am at least somewhat familiar with these languages. I’m just guessing here so correct me if I’m wrong. Your sentence “whose state is on the same standing as the first assertion, but with whom I would have a tendency to disagree” is a bit unclear to me. What do you mean?>Arguments from silence are always weak. And I would think that to establish>the “then and now” hypothesis, those who support should cite biblical>examples where it might be clearly evident, or at least hypothetically>viable, or the argument becomes moot.Well I don’t know that it becomes moot so much as it remains undemonstrated. Carl was kind enough to remind me that in order to understand the passage as I had suggested, and please do recall it was just a suggestion, not a verbum dei, the phrase would have to be “tote men…. nun de”. A reminder for which I am grateful.>Comments?> >Charles D. Rempel>30 year student>Without portfolioI’m not really sure what that means either and if you could flesh it out a bit I would be grateful.Best,Jim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

 

[] Eph 4:11-12[] Eph 4:11-12

[] Eph 4:11-12 Charles Rempel CharlesR at mygalaxyexpress.com
Wed Dec 29 12:39:30 EST 2004

 

[] Eph 4:11-12 [] John 1:1 At 10:34 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote:>I am responding with a desire to learn the functional rules of this list.>It appears to me that we have two experts who disagree. On the one hand,who>on the basis of personal authority makes a declarative statement.JW – I’m not sure what the last sentence means. Would you mind clarifying?CDR – Pardon my brevity. On the one hand a statement was made that thehypothetical question was definitely false. On what basis was it determinedto be false? The only basis of authority was ones personal identity, i.e.Iver Larsen, with whom I am not personally familiar. His declarativestatement was “No.”>Since I am not familiar with his qualifications, although I have a tendancyto agree>with him, I would not accept his statments simply on his personalsignature.JW – Its always wise to weigh the merits of ideas on both a person’squalifications and on the evidence (in the reverse order). What I mean bythat is that everyones opinion might matter, but not everyone’s opinion isof equal weight. To put it simply, would you go to a witchdoctor formedical treatment or someone who had been to medical school? Now, transferthat to any discipline- would you ask advice of Jerry Springer regardingbiblical exegesis or someone who actually had studied it formally?CR – Some things appear obvious, but there are those who like witch doctorsand Jerry Springer:-) One should also understand that both Jesus and Hisdisiples were declared to be uneducated and unlearned men.>On the other hand we have a ?tri-lingualist” who cites a German reference>which is not inspired and whose state is on the same standing as the first>assertion, but with whom I would have a tendency to disagree.JW – I suppose this is a reference to me? And the “tri-linguist” partimplies that my mention of German and Greek plus my writing in Englishpersuades you that I am at least somewhat familiar with these languages.I’m just guessing here so correct me if I’m wrong. Your sentence “whosestate is on the same standing as the first assertion, but with whom I wouldhave a tendency to disagree” is a bit unclear to me. What do you mean?CR – The person whom you quoted in German made a declarative statement justas IL did. For all I know IL and the German are of equal authority,therefore their statements have the same standing with me. I have a tendencyto agree with IL and disagree with the German. (Since I am without portfoliomy opinion has no real bearing on anything and cannot be used to determineeither the truth of the argument, or its fallacy.>Arguments from silence are always weak. And I would think that to establish>the “then and now” hypothesis, those who support should cite biblical>examples where it might be clearly evident, or at least hypothetically>viable, or the argument becomes moot.Well I don’t know that it becomes moot so much as it remains undemonstrated.Carl was kind enough to remind me that in order to understand the passage asI had suggested, and please do recall it was just a suggestion, not a verbumdei, the phrase would have to be “tote men….nun de”. A reminder for which I am grateful.>Comments?> >Charles D. Rempel>30 year student>Without portfolioJW – I’m not really sure what that means either and if you could flesh itout abit I would be grateful.CDR – I have been studying the Koine Greek of the Bible for 30 years. I’veread ATR, Dana & Mantey, Blass DeBrunner and a few others along with a “few”other volumes. I completed my masters of Biblical languages from anuncertified seminary. I am not published and have no qualifications whichwould be acceptable to the academic community. All statements I might makewill have to be evaluated on the basis of what I say and the quality ofargument that I give. And I will give you the same courtesy.:-) CharlesBest,Jim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

 

[] Eph 4:11-12[] John 1:1

[] RE: Eph 4:11-12 Paul Toseland toseland at blueyonder.co.uk
Thu Dec 30 13:52:06 EST 2004

 

[] Hebrews 3.11; 4.3,5 [] 1 Peter 1:15 Dear Charles,Like any other community, it takes time to get o know the community of regular contributors to .However, it is quick and easy to search the archivesfor past contributions by a given individual, andreading a selection of their longer posts will soon giveyou a pretty good idea of the quality of argumentationand breadth of expertise that lends weight to theirmore briefly expressed contributions.RegardsPaul Toseland

 

[] Hebrews 3.11; 4.3,5 [] 1 Peter 1:15

[] Eph. 4:11 A. F. alethof at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 18 07:33:14 EDT 2006

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN [] Eph. 4:11 Dear all, I have some questions concerning the translation of eph 4:11, KAI AUTOS EDWOKEN TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS TOUS DE PROFHTAS TOUS DE EUAGGELISTAS TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS 1. The translations I know all present a construction like the following: And he gave some to be apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, shepherds and teachers, for the But is it possible to use: And he gave the apostles, and the prophets, and the evangelists, and the shepherds and teachers, for the instead? Which one represents truly the idea of the Greek text? Can you propose a literal translation with explanation which explains the reasons? 2. Is it possible to determine if four or five groups are listed in Eph. 4:11 – are the shepherds and teachers put in one and the same group (being consolidated by [tous de kai ])? What are the pros and cons? Thank you AF ———————————Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

 

[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN[] Eph. 4:11

[] Eph. 4:11 kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Tue Apr 18 09:39:29 EDT 2006

 

[] Eph. 4:11 [] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN @A.FI think because of the MEN/DE construction one should supply the words “some…others” when they translate this passage.And he gave some to be apostles, others to be prophets, others to be evangelist….To answer your second question some people do see ‘shepards and teachers’ in the same group since they are under one article. But since it is plural I don’t think one could argue for a TSKS construction (Granville Sharp), I personally think that Paul is just saying that the two groups are closely related.–Kelton Graham KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net————– Original message ————– From: “A. F.” <alethof at yahoo.com> > > Dear all, > > I have some questions concerning the translation of eph 4:11, > > KAI AUTOS EDWOKEN TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS TOUS DE PROFHTAS TOUS DE EUAGGELISTAS > TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON > DIAKONIAS… > > 1. > The translations I know all present a construction like the following: > > And he gave some to be apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, > and some, shepherds and teachers, for the … > > > But is it possible to use: > > And he gave the apostles, and the prophets, and the evangelists, and the > shepherds and teachers, for the … > > instead? > > Which one represents truly the idea of the Greek text? Can you propose a > literal translation with explanation which explains the reasons? > > > 2. > Is it possible to determine if four or five groups are listed in Eph. 4:11 – > are the shepherds and teachers put in one and the same group (being consolidated > by [tous de … kai … ])? What are the pros and cons? > > > Thank you > AF > > > > ——————————— > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ > countries) for 2¢/min or less. >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ > mailing list > at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Eph. 4:11[] Mt. 28:17 hOI DE EDISTASAN

[] Eph. 4:11 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Tue Apr 18 11:54:44 EDT 2006

 

[] Eph. 4:11 [] Eph. 4:11 Dear A F,> I have some questions concerning the translation of eph 4:11,> > KAI AUTOS EDWOKEN TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS TOUS DE >PROFHTAS TOUS DE EUAGGELISTAS TOUS DE POIMENAS >KAI DIDASKALOUS PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN >EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS> > 1.> The translations I know all present a construction like the following:> > And he gave some to be apostles, and some, >prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, >shepherds and teachers, for the > > > But is it possible to use:> > And he gave the apostles, and the prophets, >and the evangelists, and the shepherds and >teachers, for the > > instead?HH: I don’t think so. MEN with DE separates these items in the list from one another. Use of repeated DE suggests some contrastive element as well. The BAGD lexicon lists the use of the definite article here as coordinated with MEN and DE to imply an idea like “some” and “others” for the definite article.> Which one represents truly the idea of the >Greek text? Can you propose a literal >translation with explanation which explains the >reasons?HH: I’m not sure that I understand what your asking for. The standard translations are good.> 2.> Is it possible to determine if four or five >groups are listed in Eph. 4:11 – are the >shepherds and teachers put in one and the same >group (being consolidated by [tous de kai >])? What are the pros and cons?HH: There are four groups, with shepherds and teachers being lumped together as one group under the definite article.Yours,Harold Holmyard

 

[] Eph. 4:11[] Eph. 4:11

[] Eph. 4:11 Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Wed Apr 19 02:53:10 EDT 2006

 

[] Eph. 4:11 [] Eph. 4:11 Hi, AF (Al Fisher??)The Greek MEN … DE indicates that different ministries are in view.In your first translation, the fact that these are different is in focus and clearly stated. But I think it gives an undue focus on the individuals rather than the ministries. In your second translation, there is less focus on the fact that they are different, but it is still understood. None of the two translations are natural in English.NLT has a somewhat more natural and freer translation:”He is the one who gave these gifts to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors andteachers.”CEV: “Christ chose some of us to be apostles, prophets, missionaries, pastors, and teachers,” (Not my favouriterendering of this verse, because I am a missionary, but not an evangelist.).God’s Word: “He also gave apostles, prophets, missionaries, as well as pastors and teachers as gifts [ to his church ].”My own translation would be something like:”Christ gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers.”I don’t think the sentence makes it clear whether the last two terms refer to one or two groups, that may iverlap. However, from other texts in the NT, my understanding is that the last two are intended in principle to be different ministries, just as the other three are different. That these ministries are different does not preclude that a particular peson may function in more than one ministry. For instance, Jesus himself was both an apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd and teacher. You may want to look at earlier discussions of this verse in the archives under 4:11 and under DIDASKALOS.Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “A. F.” <alethof at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:33 PMSubject: [] Eph. 4:11 Dear all, I have some questions concerning the translation of eph 4:11, KAI AUTOS EDWOKEN TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS TOUS DE PROFHTAS TOUS DE EUAGGELISTAS TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS PROS TON KATARTISMON TWN AGIWN EIS ERGON DIAKONIAS. 1. The translations I know all present a construction like the following: And he gave some to be apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, shepherds and teachers, for the. But is it possible to use: And he gave the apostles, and the prophets, and the evangelists, and the shepherds and teachers, for the . instead? Which one represents truly the idea of the Greek text? Can you propose a literal translation with explanation whichexplains the reasons? 2. Is it possible to determine if four or five groups are listed in Eph. 4:11 – are the shepherds and teachers put in oneand the same group (being consolidated by [tous de . kai . ])? What are the pros and cons? Thank you AF

 

[] Eph. 4:11[] Eph. 4:11

[] Eph. 4:11 Scott Stocking scottsox at conxxus.com
Sat Apr 29 23:16:08 EDT 2006

 

[] 1 Cor. 6;20, could it indicate the source? [] Rm 9:7a Seed of Abraham or Children of Abraham To answer your second question, Wallace’s _Grammar_ suggests that the TSKSconstruction with plural nouns, while not strictly fitting the GranvilleSharp rule, may indicate either overlap of the two groups, or that one groupmay be a subset of another. In other words, one could be a pastor/shepherdwithout actually teaching (i.e., more emphasis on the caring aspect), but itwould be difficult to be a teacher without having a shepherding attitude. Scott StockingAdjunct Professor, Lincoln Christian College

 

[] 1 Cor. 6;20, could it indicate the source?[] Rm 9:7a Seed of Abraham or Children of Abraham

[] Eph 4:11-12 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Dec 28 19:42:09 EST 2004

 

[] SBL Southeastern Region meeting [] Eph 4:11-12 Is it possible that men…de indicates something of the idea of succession or replacement? “on the one hand… on the other”; could this also carry the notion or the sense of “once…now”. I ask because, in the early Church, Apostles and prophets (as official titles) were on the decline when Ephesians was written and Pastors and teachers on the rise. So- is it eisegetical to see the verse rendered something like “once apostles and prophets… but now pastors and teachers” etc?thanksJim++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

 

[] SBL Southeastern Region meeting[] Eph 4:11-12

[] Eph 4:11-12 Iver Larsen ialarsen at multitechweb.com
Wed Dec 29 08:23:31 EST 2004

 

[] Eph 4:11-12 [] Eph 4:11-12 > Is it possible that men…de indicates something of the idea of > succession or replacement?No.> “on the one hand… on the other”; could this also carry > the notion or the sense of “once…now”. No.> I ask because, in the early > Church, Apostles and prophets (as official titles) were on the decline > when Ephesians was written and Pastors and teachers on the rise. A rather speculative assumption, based on a disputed date of writing.> So- is it > eisegetical to see the verse rendered something like “once apostles and > prophets… but now pastors and teachers” etc?Yes, it is. And clearly wrong.Iver Larsen

 

[] Eph 4:11-12[] Eph 4:11-12

[] Ephesians 4:11 MEV…DE construction Mildred christluv1us at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 20 17:03:05 EDT 2005

 

[] Eph 1:15 Provisional Translation [] Ephesians 4:11 MEV…DE construction In working with my weekly Bible study, I have beenworking through the Greek of Ephesian. There are manycases where I have questions, but this time I am goingto ask it because I can’t find an answer.In 4:11 the construction MEV…DE is used todistinguish differing calls on people God has chosen. I am used to this construction being translated on onehand…On the other hand. How can this be resolved? I would appreciate any input that can be given forthis dilema.In Christ, Mildred JesseeRochester, MN__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

 

[] Eph 1:15 Provisional Translation[] Ephesians 4:11 MEV…DE construction

[] Ephesians 4:11 MEV…DE construction Jim West jwest at highland.net
Wed Apr 20 17:09:10 EDT 2005

 

[] Ephesians 4:11 MEV…DE construction [] Romans 12:10 Mildred wrote:>In 4:11 the construction MEV…DE is used to>distinguish differing calls on people God has chosen. >I am used to this construction being translated on one>hand…On the other hand. How can this be resolved? > > You could try something like “to the one person… and to the other person” or “to some people…. to other people”. men… de is a fairly normal construction. Blass- Debrunner calls it a correlative use. The words framed by men… de are correlated.BestJim– Jim WestBiblical Studies Resources – http://web.infoave.net/~jwestBiblical Theology Weblog – http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com

 

[] Ephesians 4:11 MEV…DE construction[] Romans 12:10

[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five? Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 24 10:19:04 EDT 2010

 

[] Acts 13,48 [] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five? EPHESIANS 4:11 KAI AUTOS EDWKEN TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS, TOUS DE PROFHTAS, TOUS DE EUAGGELISTAS, TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS I really couldn’t find much on this in the archives, but are there any new thoughts on whether the writer of Ephesians is referring to five groups of individuals as opposed to four groups of individuals? I certainly concede that the phrase TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS is being set apart from the rest, but this appears to just indicate that these two groups of individuals are being considered distinct by the writer, (in some way), but not that he is delineating a single group of individuals called Pastor Teachers.  If that was the thought he was trying to communicate, would it not have been easier to leave out the conjunction and simply put DIDASKALOUS in apposition to POIMENAS? Sincerely,Blue Harris

 

[] Acts 13,48[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five?

[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 24 10:45:08 EDT 2010

 

[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five? [] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five? It’s always hazardous to be too overly exact in interpreting what anyone says since we don’t tend to speak absolutely precisely (some more, some less).  The fact that we have a μεν MEN .. δε DE construction which is then concluded by και KAI would seem to imply that the item joined by the και KAI is to be considered a unit with what has preceded.   One of the commentators I tend to trust more than some is B. F. Westcott who states in regard to this   τοὺς μέν …] Someof those whom He had taken and fashioned for His service as apostles, and some, as prophets ….The three groups ‘apostles,’ ‘prophets,’ ‘evangelists,’ represent ministers who had a charge not confined to any particular congregation or district. In contrast with these are those who form the settled ministry, ‘pastors and teachers,’ who are reckoned as one class not from a necessary combination of the two functions but from their connexion with a congregation. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: The Greek text with notes and addenda. 1909 (B. F. Westcott, bp. of Durham & J. M. Schulhof, [from old catalog, Ed.) (62). London; New York: Macmillan and co., limited; The Macmillan company. While I obviously would tend to agree with him, I would hesitate to adamantly maintain that position.  How often do we hear statements such as “not to mention” followed precisely by a mention of that which was supposedly not to be mentioned and other similar usages?  Language is a funny thing. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Fri, September 24, 2010 7:19:04 AMSubject: [] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five?EPHESIANS 4:11 KAI AUTOS EDWKEN TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS, TOUS DE PROFHTAS, TOUS DE EUAGGELISTAS, TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS I really couldn’t find much on this in the archives, but are there any new thoughts on whether the writer of Ephesians is referring to five groups of individuals as opposed to four groups of individuals? I certainly concede that the phrase TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS is being set apart from the rest, but this appears to just indicate that these two groups of individuals are being considered distinct by the writer, (in some way), but not that he is delineating a single group of individuals called Pastor Teachers.  If that was the thought he was trying to communicate, would it not have been easier to leave out the conjunction and simply put DIDASKALOUS in apposition to POIMENAS? Sincerely,Blue Harris      — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five?[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five?

[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Sep 24 10:48:01 EDT 2010

 

[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five? [] MONOGENHS in the fourth gospel Did you look in the archives for Eph. 4:11 and Eph 4:11? A number of posts have covered the question in the past. I doubt that much new can be said.Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “Blue Meeksbay” <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 24. september 2010 17:19Subject: [] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five?> EPHESIANS 4:11 KAI AUTOS EDWKEN TOUS MEN APOSTOLOUS, TOUS DE PROFHTAS, TOUS DE> EUAGGELISTAS, TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS> > I really couldn’t find much on this in the archives, but are there any new> thoughts on whether the writer of Ephesians is referring to five groups of> individuals as opposed to four groups of individuals?> > I certainly concede that the phrase TOUS DE POIMENAS KAI DIDASKALOUS is being> set apart from the rest, but this appears to just indicate that these two > groups> of individuals are being considered distinct by the writer, (in some way), but> not that he is delineating a single group of individuals called Pastor > Teachers.> > > If that was the thought he was trying to communicate, would it not have been> easier to leave out the conjunction and simply put DIDASKALOUS in apposition > to> POIMENAS?> > Sincerely,> Blue Harris

 

[] EPHESIANS 4:11 – four groups or five?[] MONOGENHS in the fourth gospel

Jonathan Robie » September 10th, 2013, 9:25 pm

καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους, πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ,

I’ve been reading this as though τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς were equivalent to τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους ἐστίν, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας ἐστιν, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς ἐστιν … that μὲν and δὲ delimits different groups who were given these gifts. Someone suggested to me that this could equally be read as more or less equivalent to:

ἔδωκεν πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας τοὺς ἀποστόλους, τοὺς προφήτας, τοὺς εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους …

Do you agree? I am trying to understand if the use of μὲν .. δὲ makes the first reading more likely, or if anything in the context or grammar tells us which reading to prefer.

 David Lim » September 11th, 2013, 5:38 am

Jonathan Robie wrote:I’ve been reading this as though τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς were equivalent to τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους ἐστίν, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας ἐστιν, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς ἐστιν … that μὲν and δὲ delimits different groups who were given these gifts.

How is “εστιν” supposed to go with the accusatives?

Jonathan Robie wrote:Someone suggested to me that this could equally be read as more or less equivalent to:
ἔδωκεν πρὸς τὸν καταρτισμὸν τῶν ἁγίων εἰς ἔργον διακονίας τοὺς ἀποστόλους, τοὺς προφήτας, τοὺς εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους …

Sorry I don’t get why you put commas in place of “και” or something. Also, the purpose of the original sentence seems to be to say that God himself gave different groups of people for the purpose of preparing his holy ones for ministry work, for building of the body of Christ. So it is more than just conjunction, but a contrast with the earlier part in which the author mentions oneness. In short, he is saying that any differences that God gave is for the sake of the one body of Christ. The direct object is put in front because the other clauses follow one after another: “for work of ministry”, “for building of the body of Christ”, … and after a while I lose track of what modifies what…

Stephen Hughes » September 17th, 2013, 3:36 pm

I’ve been thinking about your question for a while and it seems to me that you have been looking at the microscope so long that you have begun to see the glass of then lens rather than what is on the other side of it being magnified.

Jonathan Robie wrote:I’ve been reading this as though τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς were equivalent to τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους ἐστίν, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας ἐστιν, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς ἐστιν … that μὲν and δὲ delimits different groups who were given these gifts.

I am trying to understand if the use of μὲν .. δὲ makes the first reading more likely, or if anything in the context or grammar tells us which reading to prefer.

I think the μὲν .. δὲ is a simply a way to indicate that all of the things in the list are affected in the same (or similar) way.

I think it groups together groups (or individuals) with some sort of equivalence. The focus of attention is not on the delimiting and separation but on the unification and (supposed) equivalence in the syntax of similar units.

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]