On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:10:25 EDT CEP7@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 7/21/00 9:25:15 AM, dixonps@juno.com writes: > > << Carl, taking EN PNEUMATI in Eph 5:18 indefinitely or > qualitatively > does not deny the source or efficient cause of such, particularly > the promptings of the Holy Spirit. > > My only concern here is the likelihood of what the text says and > means. It may be saying simply that we should be continually > filled with spiritual matters, such as love, holiness and wisdom. > > This then would say nothing, as such, about the source, > but our understanding of other Scripture would lead us to understand > that it is the work of the Holy Spirit. > > But, are we justified in reading that into the translation here? > >> > > Paul, > > Three factors to consider here. How often does the dative PNEUMATI > refer to spiritual matters and how often does it refer to the Spirit? Second, > what is the use of EN. You seem to be understanding EN in terms of content. > However that is a very rare usage. The genitive of content would be more > natural. Third, would you understand Gal 5:16 in the same way? This would be > difficult because the flesh/Spirit antithesis in 5:16-25. Hi Charles, The parallel with Col 3:16 may be more helpful, but I will discuss both passages. Col 3:16 - hO LOGOS TOU CRISTOU ENOIKEITW EN hUMIN PLOUSIWS. Surely Col 3:16-25 and Eph 5:18-6:10 are remarkably parallel. If hO LOGOS TOU CRISTOU is the command of Christ to love one another, and if this love is to issue in the teaching and admonishing of one another with all wisdom, Col 3:16), then the parallel command in Eph 5:18 to be filled EN PNEUMATI seems to suggest a filling in love, as well as wisdom and holiness (Eph 5:1-17). The Gal 5:16 passage, PNEUMATI PERIPATEITE KAI EPIQUMIAN SARKOS OU MH TELESHTE, may be rendered: walk in spirit (or, spiritually) and you will not carry out fleshy desire. The anarthrous nouns certainly do not require our inserting the definite articles in the translations, do they? That the same nouns are articularized in the following verses does not suggest they are definite in verse 16. Or, does it? If so, why? I understand that it is often difficult to translate a qualitative anarthrous Greek noun into English (cf Jn 4:24, PNEUMA hO QEOS = God is a spirit, or God is spirit; certainly not, God is the Spirit). But, I sometimes cringe when I see translators inserting "the" when the Greek noun is anarthrous. Surely an anarthrous noun can, and often is, definite, but the absence of the article may be significant. If so, then inserting "the" in translation may be unfortunate and misleading. Paul Dixon --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu