A Term Paper Summitted To Stephen Runge

In Partial Fulfillment Of A

Master Of Applied Lingistics And Exegesis

Bil 501

Vera Wilhelmsen

April 6th 2004

Introduction

I chose Ephesians 4 because I have been interested in the passage about apostles and prophets for some time. It is an interesting and fairly complex passage, so it presented me with a challenge. Some of the clauses and relationship between them are still unclear to me, but this is a tentative attempt to make some sense of it, based on a discourse analysis facilitated by some grammatical analysis.

Conjunctions and the relationship between clauses

The sentence conjunctions I found in the text were oun, de, kai, dio, ei and alla. The most common ones are kai and de. Levinsohn (1992) suggests that if de is to be used, it must contain not only something distinctive, but also a new development in the story or argument (p. 72). This might be the case in verses 7 and 9, which are introduces with de. They seem to signal a new development in Pauls argument. The next de shows up in verse 15, and the next section can also be taken as a further development of the argument. in verse 17 there is an oun, because it builds on the preceding point. In verse 20 de seems to pose a contrast from the preceding section, and at the same time it is developing the argument even further.  The same this seems to be happening in verse 28, where the de again marks a contrast. In verse 32 there is a  de present in the most reliable text sources, and the concluding sentence can be seen as the final development of the argument Paul is presenting. Chapter 5 is introduced by oun and builds on the argument presented in chapter 4, just as chapter 4  builds on chapter 3. 

           De is also used in verse 11, introducing the prophets, evangelists and shepherds, whereas the apostles are introduced by men and the shepherds and teachers are linked with kai. In a commentary it says that tous men followed by tous de mean some... and other.., and as far as I can ascertain the de in this verse is not a sentence conjunction. Another interpretation is that the listed noun phrases are elliptical, with the verb understood. In that case de can function as a sentence conjunction, bringing a new development. It is not clear to me how this affects the interpretation of the passage, but there might be a hierarchical order suggested, as in 1. Chor. 12:28. The lists are not coordinated, however, and  I am not sure about the significance of shepherds and teachers being linked with kai. It has been suggested that since kai links two elements of equal status, they are the same, or at least at the same level.

There also were several subordinating conjunctions and relative pronouns: kathos, oti, os, hs, ou and otines. Relative clauses are strictly speaking not subordinated, but embedded in noun phrases, but for this analysis I have indented them so that the clause structure becomes evident.

Verb tense and progression of the argument line

In the indicative the different tenses signify time; present indicative indicates present time, aorist indicative indicated past time, etc. Outside of the indicative the tenses or forms of the verb indicate aspect rather then time. I found three aspects in this text; the present, which signifies continuous action, the aorist, which means that the aspect is undefined, and the perfect, which signifies perfected action.

            Most of the indicative verbs in the text are in the aorist tense, signifying past tense. This might be because is reminding them of what already happened, so that they can make use of this in the present. Almost all the imperatives are in the present form, signifying a continuous action.

The participles seem to agree with the verb they modify in most cases. When they dont the aspect might be on significant importance. Such examples are found in verse 18 and 19, where the participle is in perfect and the indicative verb is in the aorist tense. The perfected aspect is stressed here, maybe to underline that the gentiles have utterly cut themselves off from God.

Verb mood and the effects/impact of using non-indicative verbs for mainline action

In this epistle Paul is using many different verb forms. With participles he is able to create background info and describe the manner in which something is done without using full sentences with main verbs. This makes the text more flowing, and also slows it down when he establishes background and elaborate on the main verb. In verse 8, for example, the participle sets the background for the main verb: anabas ei sypsos, hxmalotesen, aixmalasian; going up on high, he led prisoners away. An example of a participle describing the manner in which the main verb is being performed is found in verse 14, where two participles are used to describe what it looks like to be an infant.

            The subjunctive is often used to signify purpose or an expectation of a future event, and is often used after subordinating conjunctions such as ina. There are four instances of the subjunctive after ina in the text; 10, 14, 28 and 29. In 13 the subjunctive is signifying the purpose of the preceding section, and in 15 it possibly functions hortatory.

Word order and the effects of preposing an element to the overall text.

In this text there are some preposed elements which signify point of departure or focus. In verse 7 eni is preposed  because it is a point of departure for the new topic, which interestingly enough is introduced by de. The subject ekasto hmon is also preposed, but for emphasis. Two other clauses that are introduced by de is an element fronted as a point of departure of reference,  namely in verses 9 and 20. This supports the theory that de. marks a new development in the story or argument. Another interesting observation is that in verse 17 the subject is also preposed as a referential point of departure, with the developmental conjunction oun, which functions either inferentially or as a resumption.  In this case it seems to be functioning as a resumption, as he returns to the main point (the one he started with in verse 1).  In verse 16 and 28 the subject is also fronted as a point of departure, but it introduces a new subject, not a new topic. In these cases there is no de in the clause.

            In verse 14 there is a temporal point of departure that marks a change in time; no longer. The same word is preposed in verse 17 for the same reason. Two subjects are preposed in verse 16 because they mark referential point of departure; a change of subject. The fronting makes it clearer when the author switches between several subjects in one line of argument. Such switch of topic is also marked in verse 17, 20, 26 and 32.

In verse 10 and 11 I think the subject (and copula in verse 10) is preposed for emphasis. There is no change of topic or subject, but all the noun phrases and pronouns point to the same person, Jesus. The same seems to happen in verse 19,  and 28. The direct object is fronted for emphasis in verse 20, and the indirect object in 21. It seems to be focused because it is in contrast with the previous section. Verse 29 and 31 has parallel phrases fronted; and because they dont introduce a new topic but fit well together with preceding clauses I assume they are fronted for emphasis.

What practical difference has my analysis of Greek grammar made in my understanding of this passage?

The analysis helped me see how the whole chapter is a unit, building up an argument of why the believers should not live like the gentiles, and how they should live their new life. It also builds on the preceding chapter, and the argument is taken further in the following chapter.

            It was interesting to see that many of the indicative verbs were in the aorist tense, and how Paul draws on what has already happened to explain how the new life is to be lived. It is based on something in the past, namely what Jesus has done for us, not on our effort or a future event.

            Similarly all the imperatives in the last section of the text were in the present form, signifying continuous aspect. This goes to show that what he wants the Christians to do is a lifestyle, not single events. Because aspect is not easily rendered in an English translation, the continuous sense is stronger in the Greek text. It is a neat thing to discover while working with the grammar, and the kind of thing a preacher could point to in a sermon. For translators it will be important to realize the aspect and render this as faithfully as possible in the target language.

            When it comes to the passage concerning apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers I did not reach any significant new insight from the grammar. What is clear is that it was Jesus who gave these to the church, for the building up of the church body into maturity. But the discussion about the five-fold ministry is a theological issue, not a grammatical one.

References

Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, unpublished ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 2004.

Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor.  A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996.