επὶ [τῷ] παροργισμῷ Eph. 4:26

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

επὶ [τῷ] παροργισμῷ Eph. 4:26

Post by Scott Lawson » January 2nd, 2012, 5:02 pm

ὁ ἥλιος μὴ επιδυέτω επὶ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν.
Do not let the sun set while you are angry.

Under επί 18 (b) BDAG indicates that επί with the dative can be a marker of temporal association; time at or during which. BDAG specifically references Ephesians 4:26 with παροργισμῷ anarthrous. By making παροργισμῷ definite does επί become locative rather than temporal?

ὁ ἥλιος μὴ επιδυέτω επὶ [τῷ] παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν.
Do not let the sun set upon your anger.

Scott Lawson
0 x


Scott Lawson

timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 256
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: επὶ [τῳ] παροργισμῳ Eph. 4:26

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » January 2nd, 2012, 5:18 pm

1) The presence or absence of an article rarely is decisive for the sense

2) How could 'anger' be a location? If it's 'locative' that would have to be figurative

3) The sense of the command is pretty transparent, so does it really matter which 'function of the dative' this is?
0 x

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: επὶ [τῳ] παροργισμῳ Eph. 4:26

Post by Scott Lawson » January 2nd, 2012, 6:00 pm

timothy_p_mcmahon wrote:1) The presence or absence of an article rarely is decisive for the sense

2) How could 'anger' be a location? If it's 'locative' that would have to be figurative

3) The sense of the command is pretty transparent, so does it really matter which 'function of the dative' this is?
1) Really?

2) It's the use of the preposition with the dative that gives either the locative or temporal sense not the noun.

3) Sorry to be so picky. ;)

Scott Lawson
0 x
Scott Lawson

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: επὶ [τῳ] παροργισμῳ Eph. 4:26

Post by Scott Lawson » January 2nd, 2012, 6:38 pm

BDAG under παροργισμός indicates that it is the state of being intensely provoked, angry mood, angry.

The footnote on Ephesians 4:26 in the NET Bible says in part:

“33tn The word παροργισμός (parorgismo"), typically translated “anger” in most versions is used almost exclusively of the source of anger rather than the results in Greek literature (thus, it refers to an external cause or provocation rather than an internal reaction). The notion of “cause of your anger” is both lexically and historically justified...”

Does definitizing παροργισμός make it more likely to point to the source of one’s provocation while its being indefinite would indicate the state of being provoked?

The difference is clear:

Do not let the sun go down on the source of your provocation. (Locative)

Here, one would have to travel to possibly confront/expose the source of one’s anger before the sun set.

Do not let the sun go down while you are in a provoked state. (Temporal)

Here one need only control his emotions before the sun set.

Scott Lawson
0 x
Scott Lawson

timothy_p_mcmahon
Posts: 256
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:47 pm

Re: επὶ [τῳ] παροργισμῳ Eph. 4:26

Post by timothy_p_mcmahon » January 2nd, 2012, 7:22 pm

Scott Lawson wrote:Really? Yes, really. The article is but one factor in the meaning of any phrase, and there are so many motivations for it that attempting to base one's interpretation of a text on its presence or absence is ill-advised.

2) It's the use of the preposition with the dative that gives either the locative or temporal sense not the noun. Yes, but if it's locative, the noun is the location, and (unless one is being figurative) anger is not a location.

3) Sorry to be so picky. ;) I don't think you're being picky. I think you're just engaging in the common mistake of focusing on the so-called 'function' rather than simply reading the text as closely as possible to the way a native speaker would have read it. The list of 'functions of the dative' (or genitive or whatever) is simply a grammarian's attempt to analyze the use of the case, and will vary from one analyst to another.
BDAG actually offers both the active and the passive senses of παροργισμὸς. NETBible's note, I think, is somewhat off-base, especially their citation of Ps. Sol. 8:8-9 (did they actually read the Greek — ἐν καταγαίοις κρυφίοις αἱ παρανομίαι αὐτῶν ἐν παροργισμῷ υἱὸς μετὰ μητρὸς καὶ πατὴρ μετὰ θυγατρὸς συνεφύροντο — or just use Charles?). It's certainly possible to take παροργισμῷ in the active sense of 'provocation' rather than the passive sense of 'being angered', although I find the passive sense better (my own anger is something I am responsible to control). Pace NETBible, I take the first part of the verse as a quasi-conditional, so the passive sense fits better in that context for me. While you're quite justified in taking the other view, I don't see how that interpretation makes παροργισμῷ 'locative' — I would still understand 'don't let the sun go down' as indicating that the παροργισμῷ must be dealt with promptly (in other words, it's 'temporal').

I don't believe the article makes any difference as to whether the verbal action implicit in παροργισμῷ is active or passive.
0 x

Scott Lawson
Posts: 363
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: επὶ [τῷ] παροργισμῷ Eph. 4:26

Post by Scott Lawson » January 2nd, 2012, 7:38 pm

Thank you Timothy!

Scott
0 x
Scott Lawson

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”