[B-Greek] Eph 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Apr 15 06:44:39 EDT 2005
At 6:10 PM -0500 4/14/05, David Bielby wrote:
>Thank you Dr. Conrad.
>
>After reading your comments I felt pretty good. In a bible study I had
>challenged Stott's stuff purely using my lexicons and maybe I got it right
>after all! I did some more checking and have a further question or two now.
>Peter O'Brien in his Pillar NT Commentary on Ephesians says that this phrase
>is a Hendiadys with PARAPTWMASIN referring to individual sins because it is
>plural and the addition of the synonym hAMARTIAIS helps form a hendiadys
>bringing out the idea of the comprehensiveness of human evil.
>
>Is this in line with what you were saying or is it going off a bit...?
My "guess" is that the phrase WAS intended to include generally all kinds
of sinful behavior without being at all specific, but I'm not sure that
qualifies it as a hendiadys, wherein two non-synonyms are used together to
express a single notion; here I think we are in fact dealing with synonyms
(or so I believe); you might compare TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS
hUMWN with a phrase like (I'm not suggesting it means the same thing),
"your knavery and mischief."
>Finally, am I correct in saying that the idea of distinguishing between
>these two words (commission vs omission) in Ephesians 2:1 is an example of
>an etymological fallacy?
I am inclined to this that's what it is--that the distinction wouldn't have
been made without resorting to etymological analysis of the words PARAPTWMA
and hAMARTIA. I can remember as a child being concerned about the differing
versions of the Lord's prayer using "debts/debtors" and
"trespass/trespasses" while supposing that these words must be used in some
literal original sense.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:45 AM
>To: David Bielby
>Cc: Big Greeks
>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Eph 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI
>TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN
>
>At 9:39 PM -0500 4/13/05, David Bielby wrote:
>>Eph 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS
>hUMWN
>>
>>
>>
>>I read in Stott's commentary on Ephesians that PARAPTWMASIN refers here to
>>'commission' and
>>
>>hAMARTIAIS refers to 'ommission' sins. He says that hAMARTIAIS refers to
>>'missing the mark'. It seems
>>
>>to me that both terms may include both concepts and I cannot find as neat
>of
>>a dividing line in my lexicons.
>>
>>Does anyone have some insight on the distinction between PARAPTWMASIN and
>>hAMARTIAIS in Eph 2:1?
>>
>>What does that mean exactly?
>
>I don't think there's an ounce of distinction in this verse, especially
>inasmuch as both words are plural and must refer to acts committed.
>hAMARTIA is a more general word and can refer (in the singular) to a state
>of being singful or to a state consequent upon having sinned, but
>PARAPTWMA, a relatively rare word comparatively, regularly refers to a
>specific sinful action. One should not be led astray by etymologizing here,
>as both words are metaphorical in origin, the one (hAMARTIA) originally
>referring to missing what one aims at, the other (PARAPTWMA) originally
>referring to going off course or stumbling.
>
>At any rate, in Eph 2:1 I think the difference between hAMARTIA and
>PARAPTWMA is equivalent to the difference between "six" and "a half dozen."
>--
>
>Carl W. Conrad
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list