[bible passage=”Ephesians 2:18″]
People who read this article also liked:
[AuthorRecommendedPosts]0 people found this article useful
0 people found this article useful
[bible passage=”Ephesians 2:18″]
0 people found this article useful
0 people found this article useful
Is it possible that in Eph. 2:18 OTI is to be understood emphatically, rather than as a causal subordinator or relative? Can anyone cite for me several examples of OTI in such a usage, both from biblical texts and from non-biblical hellenistic texts?
Thank you,
Mark Bruffey L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446
As I have no resources ready to hand for extra-biblical Greek in my mountain hideaway, I can’t cite such instances. I am, however, one of those who think Ephesians is stylistically different from the undisputably Pauline letters in several ways. I think that hOTI is indeed emphatic here, but I would not be inclined to argue that it is extraordinary. Had DI’ AUTOU GAR EXOMEN … been written instead of hOTI DI’ AUTOU EXOMEN … the essential sense would not be significantly different but the rhetorical emphasis would be weaker. I think hOTI is emphatic enough here that it would be appropriate to translate this verse as: “The reason is that … ”
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130 (314) 935-4018 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com WWW:http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/ http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecwconrad/
Is it possible that in Eph. 2:18 OTI is to be understood emphatically, rather than as a causal subordinator or relative? Can anyone cite for me several examples of OTI in such a usage, both from biblical texts and from non-biblical hellenistic texts?
Thank you,
Mark Bruffey L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446
As I have no resources ready to hand for extra-biblical Greek in my mountain hideaway, I can’t cite such instances. I am, however, one of those who think Ephesians is stylistically different from the undisputably Pauline letters in several ways. I think that hOTI is indeed emphatic here, but I would not be inclined to argue that it is extraordinary. Had DI’ AUTOU GAR EXOMEN … been written instead of hOTI DI’ AUTOU EXOMEN … the essential sense would not be significantly different but the rhetorical emphasis would be weaker. I think hOTI is emphatic enough here that it would be appropriate to translate this verse as: “The reason is that … ”
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130 (314) 935-4018 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com WWW:http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/ http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecwconrad/