Ephesians 4:26 Louise Cafolla lcafolla at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 12 22:07:04 EDT 2000
Previous message: Greek diagraming Next message: Ephesians 4:26 Friends discussing Ephesians have a question concerning the tense of the verb “angry” in this passage. Some references seem to indicate the text is a continual command, i.e., “continually be angry.” Roberts Word Pictures states that be angry is “permissive imperative” and specifically NOT a command to be angry, but rather a way to indicate the sinful danger inherent in being angy. I can’t find anything on a verb tense called permissive imperative anywhere – does anyone have further information? Thank you so much.
Previous message: Greek diagramingNext message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 Wayne Leman wleman at mcn.net
Wed Apr 12 23:30:47 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: Ephesians 4:26 >Friends discussing Ephesians have a question concerning the tense of the>verb “angry” in this passage. Some references seem to indicate the text is>a continual command, i.e., “continually be angry.”Louise the aspect (tense is a misnomer which has been used for many years)of this imperative verb is imperfective, meaning that there is not adefinitive point in time (signaled by the other aspect, aorist) at which theaction is to take place. The action can, indeed, take place over a period oftime, which is characteristic of the imperfective aspect of Greek. I,personally, do not think there is enough evidence, though, simply from thegrammatical aspect of the verb to extrapolate to saying that the verb is acommand calling for continuous action. That’s reading too much into just oneaspect (so to speak!) of the grammar of this verb.Roberts Word Pictures>states that be angry is “permissive imperative” and specifically NOT a>command to be angry, but rather a way to indicate the sinful danger>inherent in being angy.Roberts can be interesting but he is not considered one of the best scholarsof Greek. Instead, I have found his writings to be more homiletical,spiritually well intentioned, but not always based on the best languageevidence.IMO, the safest translation of ORGIZESQE KAI MA AMARTANETE in Eph 4.26 issimply:”Be angry but do not sin”Wayne—Wayne LemanBible translation site: http://bibletranslation.lookscool.com/
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 Wayne Leman wleman at mcn.net
Wed Apr 12 23:49:47 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: Ephesians 4:26 Ouch, Wayne, you read something wrong. ORGIZESQE is actually a present, notimperfective. It’s a good thing you’re getting your new prescription glassestomorrow.Your altar (humbly prostrating thereupon) ego,Wayne>>Friends discussing Ephesians have a question concerning the tense of the>>verb “angry” in this passage. Some references seem to indicate the textis>>a continual command, i.e., “continually be angry.”> >Louise the aspect (tense is a misnomer which has been used for many years)>of this imperative verb is imperfective, meaning that there is not a>definitive point in time (signaled by the other aspect, aorist) at whichthe>action is to take place. The action can, indeed, take place over a periodof>time, which is characteristic of the imperfective aspect of Greek. I,>personally, do not think there is enough evidence, though, simply from the>grammatical aspect of the verb to extrapolate to saying that the verb is a>command calling for continuous action. That’s reading too much into justone>aspect (so to speak!) of the grammar of this verb.> >Roberts Word Pictures>>states that be angry is “permissive imperative” and specifically NOT a>>command to be angry, but rather a way to indicate the sinful danger>>inherent in being angy.> >Roberts can be interesting but he is not considered one of the bestscholars>of Greek. Instead, I have found his writings to be more homiletical,>spiritually well intentioned, but not always based on the best language>evidence.> >IMO, the safest translation of ORGIZESQE KAI MA AMARTANETE in Eph 4.26 is>simply:> >“Be angry but do not sin”> >Wayne> >—>Wayne Leman>Bible translation site: http://bibletranslation.lookscool.com/> > >—> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: wleman at mcn.net>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Apr 13 00:01:46 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: Greek diagraming Dear Louise, I do not know about a permissive imperative other than that such seemsto be the usage in the Septuagint of Psalm 4, from which Paul quotes in Eph4:26. The psalmist is praying to God for help. Then he seems to launch intoan apostrophe aimed at the wrongdoers causing his problems. He bemoanstheir slow-heartedness, their love of vanity, and their pursuit offalsehood. He will have them know that God has done wonderful things forhim (“His pious one”) and would answer his cry. “Be angry and do not sin;as to what you speak in your hearts, upon your beds be pricked (inconscience). Selah. Sacrifice a sacrifice of righteousness and hope in theLord” (vv. 4-5). The psalm continues with confidence in the Lord. So the authordisplayed his faith in God in the midst of trouble by addressing his foes.They could be angry if they must, but they should not sin. Rather theyshould consider their inmost hearts in the still of night and repent. Theyshould change their ways so as to be able to offer a righteous sacrificeand trust in God. The Greek verb ORGIZOMAI translates the Hebrew verb RFGAZ, which inthe Qal can mean: “be agitated, quiver, quake, be perturbed, be excited.”The excitation can be in rage. The LXX translator chose the sense “beexcited in anger” for Psalm 4, but another possible translation would be”quake” (before the Lord). At any rate, the context of Psalm 4 shows thatthe viewpoint of Roberts Word Pictures correctly describes the use of theverb in Psalm 4 LXX. I would assume the meaning to be the same in Eph 4:26,where Paul is recommending a change in life just as the psalmist was.Yours,Harold Holmyard
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: Greek diagraming
Ephesians 4:26 Wayne Leman wleman at mcn.net
Thu Apr 13 00:29:48 EDT 2000
Previous message: Greek diagraming Next message: Greek diagraming >Thank you, Wayne, for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your>consideration in view of my (obvious) lack of knowledge – if you’re a>teacher I imagine your students consider themselves fortunate!Yes, sometimes I teach and I enjoy it a lot. I’ll share>this information with my friends – again, thanks! LouiseI suggest you also read Harold’s response and those from others here whoknow Greek far better than I do.Wayne
Previous message: Greek diagramingNext message: Greek diagraming
Ephesians 4:26 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Thu Apr 13 00:44:35 EDT 2000
Previous message: Greek diagraming Next message: Ephesians 4:26 In a message dated 4/12/00 10:08:48 PM, lcafolla at hotmail.com writes:<< Friends discussing Ephesians have a question concerning the tense of the verb “angry” in this passage. Some references seem to indicate the text is a continual command, i.e., “continually be angry.” Roberts Word Pictures states that be angry is “permissive imperative” and specifically NOT a command to be angry, but rather a way to indicate the sinful danger inherent in being angry. I can’t find anything on a verb tense called permissive imperative anywhere — does anyone have further information? Thank you so much. >>Wallace, in his grammar, argues fairly convincingly that this should not be treated as a permissive or conditional imperative because all clear examples of conditional imperatives in the NT are followed by KAI + future indicative. Thus it should be treated as a command imperative. In this case, the meaning of ORGIZESQE needs to be nuanced.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com972-231-4166
Previous message: Greek diagramingNext message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 Louise Cafolla lcafolla at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 13 00:51:20 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: TIQEME in John Harold – Thanks to you, also, for your response – it was very enlightening. My friends and I will have a lot of material to consider!I am so impressed with this site – I only just sent my inquiry and have already received two very intelligent replies…the phrase “You are a gentleman and a scholar” certainly applies here. Thank you for sharing your wisdom 🙂 Louise
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: TIQEME in John
Ephesians 4:26 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu Apr 13 08:02:26 EDT 2000
Previous message: independent adjective 1 Cor. 7:12 Next message: Ephesians 4:26 At 05:01 13/04/00, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:>I do not know about a permissive imperative other than that such seems>to be the usage in the Septuagint of Psalm 4, from which Paul quotes in Eph>4:26.Harold:The term “permissive imperative” is used in:Daniel B. WallaceGreek Grammar Beyond the Basics :An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament[ This was published in 1996 by Zondervan, but I am using the version on CD-ROM ]In his introduction to the Imperative, Wallace writes: >>The imperative mood is the mood of intention. It is the mood furthest removed from certainty. (Those who have strong-willed children understand this!) Ontologically, as one of the potential or oblique moods, the imperative moves in the realm of volition (involving the imposition of one’s will upon another) and possibility.There are many exceptions to this twofold “flavor” of the imperative in actual usage, although in almost every instance the rhetorical power of the imperative is still felt. Thus, when Paul says, “If the unbeliever departs, let him depart (XWRIZESQW_” (1 Cor 7:15), the permissive imperative is more strongly addressed to the heart than if he had said, “If the unbeliever departs, that is OK!” In Jas 4:7 the conditional imperative has not lost its injunctive flavor: “If you resist (ANTISTHTE) the devil-and you should!-he will flee from you.” Technically, then, it is not best to call this the mood of command because it may be used for other than a command. But that volitional force is nevertheless still lurking beneath the surface, even when the speaker is not barking orders. <<He further says: >>4. Permissive Imperative (Imperative of Toleration)a. DefinitionThe imperative is rarely used to connote permission or, better, toleration. This usage does not normally imply that some deed is optional or approved. It often views the act as a fait accompli. In such instances, the mood could almost be called “an imperative of resignation.” Overall, it is best to treat this as a statement of permission, allowance, or toleration. The connotations of “permission” are usually too positive to convey adequately the nuances involved in this type of imperative.>>>The Greek verb ORGIZOMAI translates the Hebrew verb RFGAZ, which in>the Qal can mean: “be agitated, quiver, quake, be perturbed, be excited.”Just a small point; the verb is R-G-Z, and ORGIZEIN is only one of a dozen equivalent verbs listed in:Muraoka, Takamitsu. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint. Keyed to to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.(along with several others which he encloses in double square brackets to indicate his disagreement with the equivalence indicated in Hatch and Redpath )RegardsMauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Previous message: independent adjective 1 Cor. 7:12Next message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Apr 13 10:46:36 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: independent adjective 1 Cor. 7:12 Dear Maurice and Charles, Thank you for the clarification about the category of permissiveimperative used by Dan Wallace. I had ordered the book before your posts, Ibut have not received it. Dan describes just the usage of ORGIZESQE in Psa4:4, but he doubts its presence in Eph 4:26, because, as Charles adds, “allclear examples of conditional imperatives in the NT are followed by KAI +future indicative.” Charles states that ORGIZESQE should then be treated asa command imperative. The question in my mind is whether the quotation of Ps 4:4 in Eph 4:26carries its context. Not every OT quotation in the NT must, but this is anormal expectation. G. K. Beale’s NIGTC commentary, The Book of Revelation,derives many of its insights from this principle. The context of Psalm 4:2-5 is nearly that of Eph 4:25-29. Ephesians4:25 commands converts to put away lying. Ephesians 4:28 tells the thief nolonger to steal but to work to share with the needy. Similarly, Psalm 4:2addresses men who love falsehood and vain things, telling them to repent,offer a sacrifice of righteousness, and hope in the Lord. It is a sacrificeof righteousness for the thief in Ephesians to work so as to give away hisgain to the needy. The imperative ORGIZESQE in Ps 4:4 must be permissive; so Paulprobably alludes to this connotation in his mirrorlike context. The clauseafter the quotation of Ps 4:4 in Eph 4:26 is: “let not the sun go down uponyour wrath.” This clause evokes the scene in Ps 4:4 where the sinners areto repent upon their beds concerning what is in their hearts (anger). Inboth places nighttime should bring an end to the anger.Yours,Harold Holmyard
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: independent adjective 1 Cor. 7:12
Ephesians 4:26 Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Thu Apr 13 13:29:02 EDT 2000
Previous message: TIQEME in John Next message: Ephesians 4:26 At 05:01 13/04/00, Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:>I do not know about a permissive imperative other than that such seems>to be the usage in the Septuagint of Psalm 4, from which Paul quotes in Eph>4:26. The psalmist is praying to God for help. Then he seems to launch into>an apostrophe aimed at the wrongdoers causing his problems. He bemoans>their slow-heartedness, their love of vanity, and their pursuit of>falsehood. He will have them know that God has done wonderful things for>him (“His pious one”) and would answer his cry. “Be angry and do not sin;>as to what you speak in your hearts, upon your beds be pricked (in>conscience). Selah. Sacrifice a sacrifice of righteousness and hope in the>Lord” (vv. 4-5).> This is certainly not how the medieval Jewish commentators saw these verses.Rashi said: ” ‘Quake’ Tremble before the Holy One, blessed be He, and do not sin.’ say [this] in your heart on your bed and be forever silent’ Bring back to your heart [the thought] that the Holy One, blessed be He, admonished [you] concerning that”Radak said: ” Said David: ‘ if you lack a sense of awe for me, your KIng, at least fear Hashem who endorses me and do not rebel ‘ “.A modern rabbinic commentary [ Tehillim: ArtScroll ] remarks:” Homiletically, this verse exhorts Israel to tremble from the spectre of sin, to the point where sin becomes disturbing and traumatic; R-G-Z thus mean ‘ be distressed and upset ‘ by the prospect of sin “RegardsMauriceMaurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie
Previous message: TIQEME in JohnNext message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Thu Apr 13 15:30:52 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: Greek diagrams Dear Maurice, Thank you for the medieval Jewish interpretation of Psalm 4:4-5. Wasthis not my point when I originally wrote: “The LXX translator chose thesense ‘be excited in anger’ for Psalm 4, but another possible translationwould be ‘quake’ (before the Lord)”? My comment suggests a rendering ofR-G-Z that might be better than the word choice of the LXX translator of Ps4:4, given the base meaning of R-G-Z and the context in Ps 4:2-5. Iunderstand that the Jewish community more or less refrained from using theSeptuagint after the Christian community employed it to supportChristological doctrine. So medieval Jewish interpreters would probablyhave been working from the Hebrew rather than the Greek. However, the apostle Paul in Eph 4:26 was using the Septuagint. Hiswording is exactly the same as that of the LXX. Since Paul knew the Hebrew,he probably could have changed the translation if it had struck him ascompletely incorrect. He must have been satisfied with Ps 4:4 in the Greek.It is not necessary to conclude that the LXX translator translated withoutany basis in fact, for R-G-Z can mean rage, or be angry, in several stems,and even in the Qal (Prov 29:9; Ezek 16:43; cf. Isa 28:21). The lexiconsindicate that ORGIZESQE means “be angry,” not “quake.” So the permissiveimperative is the best handling of ORGIZESQE in Psalm 4:4 LXX.Yours,Harold Holmyard
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: Greek diagrams
Ephesians 4:26 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Apr 13 18:02:31 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: Proleptic Aorist……Psalms from LXX In a message dated 4/13/2000 6:09:48 AM Central Standard Time, mauros at iol.ie writes:<< There are many exceptions to this twofold “flavor” of the imperative in actual usage, although in almost every instance the rhetorical power of the imperative is still felt. Thus, when Paul says, “If the unbeliever departs, let him depart (XWRIZESQW_” (1 Cor 7:15), the permissive imperative is more strongly addressed to the heart than if he had said, “If the unbeliever departs, that is OK!” In Jas 4:7 the conditional imperative has not lost its injunctive flavor: “If you resist (ANTISTHTE) the devil-and you should!-he will flee from you.” Technically, then, it is not best to call this the mood of command because it may be used for other than a command. But that volitional force is nevertheless still lurking beneath the surface, even when the speaker is not barking orders. << He further says: >>4. Permissive Imperative (Imperative of Toleration) a. Definition The imperative is rarely used to connote permission or, better, toleration. This usage does not normally imply that some deed is optional or approved. It often views the act as a fait accompli. In such instances, the mood could almost be called “an imperative of resignation.” Overall, it is best to treat this as a statement of permission, allowance, or toleration. The connotations of “permission” are usually too positive to convey adequately the nuances involved in this type of imperative.>> >>Frankly, regardless of how esteemed he may be, I think Wallace is simply wrong here. I don’t think there is any such think as a “permissive” imperative. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, “An imperative is an imperative, is an imperative.” He doesn’t say “You may let him go.” He says, “Let him go!” The command has nothing to do with whether it is proper for him to go, but with the reaction of the believer. I think he’s allowing his theology (and I would agree with upholding the sanctity of marriage) interfere with his Greek studies.gfsomsel
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: Proleptic Aorist……Psalms from LXX
Ephesians 4:26 Cindy Smith cms at dragon.com
Thu Apr 13 17:15:34 EDT 2000
Previous message: EKTOS EI MH Next message: Ephesians 4:26 I think the translation in Psalm 4:5 has the connotation of being deeply moved with religious awe. In other words, we shouldn’t sin because of our deep religious awe of God.Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish CarpenterGO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ // A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms at dragon.com >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< “Delay not your conversion cms at romancatholic.org// /// to the LORD, Put it not off cms at 5sc.net from day to day” Ecclus/Sira 5:8
Previous message: EKTOS EI MHNext message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 JFantin at aol.com JFantin at aol.com
Sat Apr 15 01:01:30 EDT 2000
Previous message: doulos Next message: Ephesians 4:26 Please forgive my respose if this has already been covered. I receive the digest and all posts are received once a day.gfsomsel states:<<Frankly, regardless of how esteemed he may be, I think Wallace is simply wrong here. I don’t think there is any such think as a “permissive” imperative. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, “An imperative is an imperative, is an imperative.” He doesn’t say “You may let him go.” He says, “Let him go!” The command has nothing to do with whether it is proper for him to go, but with the reaction of the believer. I think he’s allowing his theology (and I would agree with upholding the sanctity of marriage) interfere with his Greek studies.>>I would like to respond to this briefly and use this to further develop this tread in a more general direction. 1. Please note that Wallace does not deny the imperative force of the mood in the permissive usage. Your quote of Wallace can be repeated here: “There are many exceptions to this twofold ‘flavor’ of the imperative in actual usage, although in almost every instance the rhetorical power of the imperative is still felt. Thus, when Paul says, “If the unbeliever departs, let him depart (XWRIZESQW_” (1 Cor 7:15), the permissive imperative is more strongly addressed to the heart than if he had said, “If the unbeliever departs, that is OK! . . .” (p. 485 CD ed.). Thus concerning the issue at hand, I read Wallace to be saying that permission is a possible nuance of the imperative. It is not embody the entire meaning of the mood in such occurrences. This leads to my second point. 2. On the surface I agree with the Stein quote mentioned: “An imperative is an imperative, is an imperative.” However, it is easy to confuse “imperative” with “command.” Some of the problem with imperative analysis is the terminology. I share gfsomsel’s frustration with the term “permission” as a label for a usage of the imperative. My research of the imperative has caused me to conclude that the essence of the mood is volitional (and to some extent ‘directive’ using a term from speech act theory–using the term with its primary meaning within the theory without full acceptance of the theory). For lack of a better term, “permission” within traditional Greek grammar has been used to label a specific usage. Wallace seems to use the term with some hesitation: “The connotations of ‘permission’ are usually too positive to convey adequately the nuances involved in this type of imperative.” (p. 489 CD ed.). Nevertheless, the term is used for lack of a better label (though other terms such as ‘toleration’ are mentioned).It seems clear that the imperative mood can be used in instances which cannot be forceful commands (e.g., 1 Cor 7:15 and see the various examples given in grammars for usages not listed as “command” or prohibition”). I prefer a system of classification which is based on relative strength of the usage in context. Various factors such as ‘rank’ of participants, politeness, and rhetorical considerations (e.g., where does the imperative fit into the larger discourse: is it early when building an argument, later when exhorting, etc.) may contribute to the force of the mood in context. In such a system a permissive imperative would be classified as an imperative with weak force (certain factors would be considered to classify the imperative). Such an approach would help clarify why the imperative mood is used in a specific instance. The simple imperative = command notion cannot be sustained. Also, the imperative is not the only mood which can realize a command. The study of imperatives is a morphologically driven study. The study of commands is semantic. In other words, imperative has structural coding but commands are not so limited (for lack of a better term). These are related but not identical.Finally, to get back to the original issue, for a more complete discussion of Wallace’s view on Eph 4:26 (if it has not already been mentioned), see his article in The Criswell Theological Review 3 (1989): 353-72.Joe FantinSheffield
Previous message: doulosNext message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Sat Apr 15 02:22:07 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: doulos In a message dated 4/14/2000 11:02:44 PM Central Standard Time, JFantin at aol.com writes:<< 2. On the surface I agree with the Stein quote mentioned: “An imperative is an imperative, is an imperative.” However, it is easy to confuse “imperative” with “command.” Some of the problem with imperative analysis is the terminology. I share gfsomsel’s frustration with the term “permission” as a label for a usage of the imperative. My research of the imperative has caused me to conclude that the essence of the mood is volitional (and to some extent ‘directive’ using a term from speech act theory–using the term with its primary meaning within the theory without full acceptance of the theory). >>No, an imperative is not simply a command. It can be used in a slightly different sense as well. Cf. the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary entry s.v. “imperative.”im*per*a*tive [1] (adjective)[Middle English imperatyf, from Late Latin imperativus, from Latin imperatus, past participle of imperare to command — more at EMPEROR]First appeared 15th Century 1 a : of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that expresses the will to influence the behavior of another b : expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortationSo an imperative could signify an entreaty or exhortation as well as command — but it is not “permissive” (He even feels the need to say that it has a little more force than saying “It’s OK.”). Wallace also speaks of a “permissive middle.” There I think he is on firmer ground. He states426• The permissive middle has a certain affinity with the direct middle in that with both the subject is the receiver of the action. But whereas with the direct middle the subject is also the actor, with the permissive middle the subject does not perform the action.• The permissive middle is also like a passive in that the subject is the receiver of the action, but it is unlike the passive in that the middle always implies acknowledgment, consent, toleration, or permission of the action of the verb. The passive normally implies no such cognition. An exception to this principle is the permissive passive. It is important to note that although both categories are rare (some grammarians even dispute the legitimacy of the permissive passive), the volitional element is almost always a part of the middle voice while it is almost always lacking in the passive. Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software) 1999, c1996.ŒNote, however, that the concept of “permission” here is derived from the fact that the subject of the verb is the recipient, but not the initiator, of the action. This may carry over somewhat in the imperative of 1 Cor. 7.15EI DE hO APISTOS XWRIZETAI, XWRIZESQWHere the subject is permitting something to happen (“Let him leave”). It is needlessly confusing, however, to speek of a “permissive” imperative. The imperative gives a command, entreaty or exhortation. That the command (etc.) is to allow something to happen does not make it permissive. It is even more apparent that Eph 4.26 cannot be “permissive.” ORGIZESQE KAI MH hAMARTANETEThis is not allowing something to happen. The subject addressed by the imperative also effects the act. “Be angry and/but do not sin.” This is not “It’s OK to be angry”, but “Go ahead, do it.”gfsomsel
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: doulos
Ephesians 4:26 Wayne Leman wleman at mcn.net
Sat Apr 15 18:16:35 EDT 2000
Previous message: 1Cor 4:2 Next message: Ephesians 4:26 Forward from my friend, Dan Wallace:>Joe Fantin got it right. I argue in Eph 4.26 that ORGIZESTHE has the forceof a command, NOT a>condition or permission or even toleration. Are you sure that thisindividual>was looking at what I said on Eph 4.26??? I speak with no uncertain termsthere>that the force is a command–both in my grammar, in my note in the NETBible>(which also impacted the translation), and in my Criswell article. Frankly,>very few exegetes see the verb as a command. The two recent commentaries on>Ephesians (Ernest Best, Peter O’Brien) explicitly disagree with me here,>calling ORGIZESTHE a conditional imperative. (They provide no grammatical>evidence–i.e., other references where a conditional imperative would be>semantically parallel to what is going on here–only arguing from context.)So,>on the one hand, gfsomsel agrees with me on this one; on the other hand,he/she>simply misread what I wrote on the subject.> >dbw> Wayne—Wayne LemanBible translation site: http://bibletranslation.lookscool.com/
Previous message: 1Cor 4:2Next message: Ephesians 4:26
Ephesians 4:26 JFantin at aol.com JFantin at aol.com
Sun Apr 16 00:49:33 EDT 2000
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26 Next message: Book Review Joe Fantin writes:<<<<2. On the surface I agree with the Stein quote mentioned: “An imperative is an imperative, is an imperative.” However, it is easy to confuse “imperative” with “command.” Some of the problem with imperative analysis is the terminology. I share gfsomsel’s frustration with the term “permission” as a label for a usage of the imperative. My research of the imperative has caused me to conclude that the essence of the mood is volitional (and to some extent ‘directive’ using a term from speech act theory–using the term with its primary meaning within the theory without full acceptance of the theory). >>>>gfsomsel replies:> No, an imperative is not simply a command. It can be used in a > slightly different sense as well. Cf. the Merriam-Webster Collegiate > dictionary entry s.v. “imperative.” > > im*per*a*tive [1] (adjective)> [Middle English imperatyf, from Late Latin imperativus, from Latin > imperatus, past participle of imperare to command — more at EMPEROR]> > First appeared 15th Century> > 1 a : of, relating to, or constituting the grammatical mood that > expresses the will to influence the behavior of another> > So an imperative could signify an entreaty or exhortation as well > as commandFirst, I am not sure if you are disagreeing with my point. Forgive me if I was unclear. By using the terms “volitional” and “directive” I was attempting to cast a larger net for the imperative than simply “command.”Second, though I agree with much of your dictionary definition of the imperative you quote, I have a few concerns about the use of this in the present discussion. A. This is the description of the English imperative and its development from Latin and Middle English. This may not be applicable to Greek (though there does seem to be much in common with Greek). B. The definition states the development from the 15th century. C. And most importantly, though I assume a morphological imperative mood may have existed in English at some time, modern English does not parallel the Greek system. The Greek morphological imperative mood contrasts with the indicative, subjunctive and optative. However, the English imperative is a sentence type (not a “mood” proper in the sense of the Greek imperative which has distinct imperative morphology) which contrasts with the declarative and interrogative. My distinction here may seem too picky for some but I believe it is based on sound linguistic theory (see for example John Lyons, Semantics [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 633-35, 745-46).> So an imperative could signify an entreaty or exhortation as well > as command.Also, I suggest the imperative mood may have other uses as well (e.g., advice, warning, etc.). [snip about “permissive” impv]> It is even more apparent that Eph 4.26 cannot be “permissive.” > ORGIZESQE KAI MH hAMARTANETE> > This is not allowing something to happen. The subject addressed by the> imperative also effects the act. “Be angry and/but do not sin.” This is not> “It’s OK to be angry”, but “Go ahead, do it.”I agree. This is not an example of a permissive imperative. Also, Wallace would agree. He classifies this as a “command” not permission. (see p. 492 CD).Joe FantinSheffield
Previous message: Ephesians 4:26Next message: Book Review
[] Eph. 4:26 translation question Webb webb at selftest.net
Fri Jun 2 12:14:12 EDT 2006
[] The Antikythera Mechanism [] Eph. 4:26 translation question hO hHLIOS MH EPIDUETO EPI TWi PARORGISMWi HUMWN MHDE DIDOTE TOPON TWiDIABOLWi I’m having difficulty making a satisfactory translation of this statement. My current attempt looks like this: Don’t let the sun go down on your anger, and don’t give space to the devil. Is the first clause slightly misleading? (Would it be closer to the Greek torender, “The sun shouldn’t go down on your anger”?) Leaving that aside, inEnglish, the second part doesn’t obviously connect to the first-although itseems clear to me that Paul is saying, “don’t let the sun go down on youranger, BECAUSE THAT WILL give space to the devil”. Can anyone comment onthis? Does MHDE introduce a separate idea here or does it complete thecurrent idea? I prefer the first, so I wonder if the sense doesn’t comeacross better as follows (translating MHDE with an em-dash): Don’t let the sun go down on your anger-don’t give space to the devil. Or: Don’t let the sun go down on your anger-don’t give the devil a foothold[lit. room]. Any other proposals? Thanks for your thoughts, Webb Mealy
[] The Antikythera Mechanism[] Eph. 4:26 translation question
[] Eph. 4:26 translation question George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 2 13:32:46 EDT 2006
[] Eph. 4:26 translation question [] TIMWSI TON HUION KAQWS TIMWSI TON PATERA “They shouldhonor the Son just as they honor the Father” I don’t know what makes you think that “Don’t let the sun go down on your anger” is misleading since that is what it says. I would suggest though that it wouldn’t hurt to use a different word from the glosses in the lexicon. Why not “Don’t let the sun decend while you are provoked (i.e. “in your being in a condition of being provoked”)”? As regards MHDE, it as basically two uses “and not (or neither)” and “not even” — for the latter see Eph 5.3 PORNEIA DE KAI AKAQARSIA PASA H PLEONECIA MHDE ONOMAZESQW EN hUMIN. I don’t see a causitive sense as a possibility. Most likely hOTI would have been used for that. Webb <webb at selftest.net> wrote: hO hHLIOS MH EPIDUETO EPI TWi PARORGISMWi HUMWN MHDE DIDOTE TOPON TWiDIABOLWiI’m having difficulty making a satisfactory translation of this statement.My current attempt looks like this:Don’t let the sun go down on your anger, and don’t give space to the devil.Is the first clause slightly misleading? (Would it be closer to the Greek torender, “The sun shouldn’t go down on your anger”?) Leaving that aside, inEnglish, the second part doesn’t obviously connect to the first-although itseems clear to me that Paul is saying, “don’t let the sun go down on youranger, BECAUSE THAT WILL give space to the devil”. Can anyone comment onthis? Does MHDE introduce a separate idea here or does it complete thecurrent idea? I prefer the first, so I wonder if the sense doesn’t comeacross better as follows (translating MHDE with an em-dash):Don’t let the sun go down on your anger-don’t give space to the devil.Or: Don’t let the sun go down on your anger-don’t give the devil a foothold[lit. room].Any other proposals? Thanks for your thoughts,Webb Mealygeorgegfsomsel_________———————————Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
[] Eph. 4:26 translation question[] TIMWSI TON HUION KAQWS TIMWSI TON PATERA “They shouldhonor the Son just as they honor the Father”
[] Eph. 4:26 translation question Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jun 2 13:25:44 EDT 2006
[] Eph. 4:26 translation question [] Eph. 4:26 translation question On Jun 2, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Webb wrote:> hO hHLIOS MH EPIDUETO EPI TWi PARORGISMWi HUMWN MHDE DIDOTE TOPON TWi> DIABOLWiI suppose you mean EPIDUETW (3d person sg. imperative)> > I’m having difficulty making a satisfactory translation of this > statement.> > > > My current attempt looks like this:> > > > Don’t let the sun go down on your anger, and don’t give space to > the devil.> > > > Is the first clause slightly misleading? (Would it be closer to the > Greek to> render, “The sun shouldn’t go down on your anger”?) Leaving that > aside, in> English, the second part doesn’t obviously connect to the first- > although it> seems clear to me that Paul is saying, “don’t let the sun go down > on your> anger, BECAUSE THAT WILL give space to the devil”. Can anyone > comment on> this? Does MHDE introduce a separate idea here or does it complete the> current idea? I prefer the first, so I wonder if the sense doesn’t > come> across better as follows (translating MHDE with an em-dash):> > Don’t let the sun go down on your anger-don’t give space to the > devil.> > Or: Don’t let the sun go down on your anger-don’t give the devil a > foothold> [lit. room].I take it that the implicit sense is “Settle your differences, however heated they may be, before day’s end; don’t let them fester overnight so they can bring you into sin against your opponent(s).”I’d say that the MHDE clause explains what is set forth in the initial pithy exhortation.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
[] Eph. 4:26 translation question[] Eph. 4:26 translation question