87 EPHESIANS 4,12. A REVISED READING Some verses are a clear sign of purpose, for example Eph 4,29 : “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for (prov ¥ oıkodomhn) necessary edification” (NKJ). Here the expression prov ß ¥ ¥ oıkodomhn depends on the verb mh ekporeyesuw indicating one of its ß ¥ ùß ¥ purposes : for necessary edification. Another example is in Eph 6,11: “Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able (prov to dynasuai) to stand against the wiles ù ù¥ (prov tav meuodeıav) of the devil” (NRS). The syntagma prov to ¥ ù ¥ ù ù dynasuai, besides the preposition, is composed of to + infinitive which ¥ ¥ explicitly denotes purpose. Nevertheless, the second prov in this phrase ¥ reveals a relation of hostility, as in Eph 6,12 29. The examples quoted above indicate purpose. However a different relation can be found in Eph 3,4: prov o dynasue anaginwskontev nohsai thn synes¥n moy ù©¥ ß ¥ ˜ ù ¥ ı en t√ mysthrıw toy Xristoy ß ¥∞ ˜ ˜ The expression prov o depends on the verb dynasue as indirect com- ù™ ¥ plement pointing to an agreement between what it is read and under- stood 30. This textual analysis shows several different possible readings for the construction prov + accusative in Eph 4,12 31. If it expresses purpose, as ¥ many scholars suppose, it must be demonstrated. In fact, the prepositional phrase could indicate an indirect complement pointing to a different relationship, for example, agreement; but this can be shown only after a study of the line of thought found in the whole section. “ For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against 29 the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (NRS). “ In accordance with what (prov o) I wrote, you may be able by reading ù™ 30 to understand my comprehension of the mystery of Christ”. J.C. O’Neill interprets the first prepositional phrase as a verbal con- 31 struction. He alleges a corrupt reading based on minuscules (1, 242, 1149) from the XII-XIII Century. He contends that prov should not be followed by ¥ ton. Most of the ancient scribes were wrong to introduce the article after ¥ prov ; they wrote from custom because “they forgot that there is a clear class ¥ of cases where the preposition is followed by a noun that stands for a verbal action and where the article is omitted” (O’NEILL, “The Work of Ministry”, 339). O’Neill’s textual evidence is extremely weak in comparison with the majority of ancient manuscripts. See K. ALAND, Kurzgefasste Liste der grie- chischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (ANTT ; Berlin 21994) 47, 61, 114.