Re: Colossians 1:21-23

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 16 1999 - 09:38:58 EST


<x-rich>At 5:26 AM -0600 12/16/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:

>Thought I would throw out these ideas and questions, hoping to get
some

>good feed back.

>

>Most English translations of this paragraph (Col. 1:21-23) render it
in

>such a way that a condition seems to exist, based mainly upon the
particle

>EI or EIGE of verse 23. Most render it as "if", hence..."if indeed you

>remain in the faith having been and remaining established and
steadfast..."

>{the "having been and remaining" is one of the methods by which I
render

>some prefect passive participles).

>

>Instead, I suggest translating EI as "since", and removing the
possible

>misconception here. Viewing this "EI" as presenting an epexegetical

>statement demonstrating WHY we will be presented before God as HOLY
and

>BLAMELESS. (Because we do remain in the faith, via the power of
Christ).

>

>In verse 22, we have an emphatic contrast to the statement presented
in

>verse 21. I accept the aorist infinitive as genuine here (which
supports my

>scheme) APOKATHLLAXEN. This fact, this one-time accomplishment, allows
Paul

>to be able to present before God, some of the fruits of his labor.
Herein I

>suggest that Paul is the presenter. What thinketh you?

>

>I see no true protasis/apodosis condition existing, if an "if" were
correct

>-- we are left with no resolution other than to suppose that "we"
would not

>then be presentable? this seems awkward, but appears to be the
reasoning of

>most English translators.

>

>How can one become "unreconciled"? Does "SINCE" make better sense here
to

>some of you? It is a fairly common meaning of this particle (see the

>lexicons).

>

>I realize that some of the above observations may repel some
theological

>persuasions (Arminian vs Calvinism) but I hope to keep this on a

>contextual/grammatical level. Another point strengthening the aorist

>"reconcile" of verse 22, is the use of the term in verse 20, it
appears to

>be a timeless reality, a settled fact.

You may want to keep this out of the theological realm, but (please do
forgive me if I'm mistaken about this) it appears to me that you are
seeking an answer to a theological question from this text precisely
because you find possible implications of the EI GE troublesome.

The text:(21) KAI hUMAS POTE ONTAS APHLLOTRIWMENOUS KAI ECQROUS THi
DIANOIAi EN TOIS ERGOIS TOIS PONHROIS, (22) NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN EN
TWi SWMATI THS SARKOS AUTOU DIA TOU QANATOU PARASTHSAI hUMAS hAGIOUS
KAI AMWMOUS KAI ANEGKLHTOUS KATENWPION AUTOU, (23) EI GE EPIMENETE THi
PISTEI TEQEMELIWMENOI KAI hEDRAIOI KAI MH METAKINOUMENOI APO THS
ELPIDOS TOU EUAGGELIOU hOU HKOUSATE TOU KHRUCQENTOS EN PASHi KTISEI THi
hUPO TON OURANON, hOU EGENOMHN EGW PAULOS DIAKONOS.

<color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>I would agree that there's an
emphatic contrast between the statements of 21 and 22, BUT I think that
you are laying too much weight on the aorist 'tense' of the verb
APOKATHLLAXEN in 22 when you say it is "a timeless reality, a settled
fact." I don't think the aorist can bear that weight and it appears to
me that you are wanting to give it the force of a perfect tense form,
i.e. indicating that the action is complete and, to use a vulgar
metaphor, "the money's in the bank." In fact, however, it seems to me
that 23 stands solidly against such an interpretation with its
enumeration of an array of circumstances that could yet undermine the
status provisionally gained. EPIMENETE is present tense and should, I
think, imply a deliberate and ongoing effort to persist in the status
described (TEQEMELIWMENOI, hEDRAIOI, MH METAKINOUMENOI) in view of
ongoing threats to that persistence.

In sum I DO think there's a condition here with a protasis (the EI GE
... clause) and an apodosis (the NUNI DE APOKATHLLAXEN clause); the
efficacy of the action described by APOKATHLLAXEN is dependent upon
persistent effort on the part of those addressed to withstand the
challenges yet facing them. To be sure, it's not a full-scale
generalizing or future-more vivid condition employing EAN GE with a
subjunctive in the protasis; nevertheless the two clauses are related,
and I for one don't think we can read the EI GE as causal. While I
might be willing to concede that to a simple EI + indicative
(particularly an indicative in a past tense), I think the suggested
reading ignores the very strong limiting force of the
GE.</color><underline><fontfamily><param>Geneva</param><bigger>

</bigger></fontfamily></underline><color><param>0000,7777,0000</param>Here
are the other GNT instances of the EI GE combination, all of them in
the Pauline corpus:

2 Cor 5:3 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI hEURHQHSOMEQA ('provided,
that is, that once we have disrobed = been stripped of the body, we
won't turn out to be naked = void of discernible identity')

Gal 3:4 TOSAUTA EPAQETE EIKHi? EI GE KAI EIKHI. ('Did you go through
all of that for nothing?--if in fact it really WAS for nothing ... ')

Eph 3:2 EI GE HKOUSATE THN OIKONOMIAN THS CARITOS ...
<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>(</fontfamily>"that is, if you did in
fact hear about my ministry of grace ... "

</color><underline><fontfamily><param>Geneva</param>

</fontfamily></underline>Eph
4:21<underline><color><param>0000,7777,0000</param> EI GE AUTON
</color>HKOUSATE KAI EN AUTWi
EDIDACQHTE</underline><color><param>0000,7777,0000</param> . . .('if in
fact you really listened to him and were instructed by/in him</color>
...')

 

Carl W. Conrad

Department of Classics/Washington University

One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018

Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649

cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu

</x-rich>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:50 EDT