[B-Greek] Eph 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN
David Bielby
dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Tue Apr 19 14:23:52 EDT 2005
Dear Carl,
Thank you for your comments. Here are some interesting comments from Jerome
on this phrase. My ancient Christian commentary shows Jerome commenting on
this phrase as well...but he has a reversed insight on it-which makes sense
to me, I just don't know if it's right either.
"JEROME: (The Greeks) speak of trespass as the first step toward sin. It is
when a secret thought steals in, and, though we offer a measure of
collusion, it does not yet drive us on to ruin...but sin is something else.
It is when a collusion is actually completed and reaches its goal. EPISTLE
TO THE EPHESIANS 1.2.1" from the Ancient Christian Commentary Vol.VIII pg
128
So in a sense Jerome sees a sequential relationship between these two
words...almost making TOIS PARAPTWMASIN a synonym with unhealthy desires not
yet acted on. I think from my checking, that I would rule out Jerome's take
on PARAPTWMASIN because I cannot find an instance where that definition
would make sense in context outside of this one.
So now I have a bigger question...FF Bruce says they are synonyms...P.
OBrien says it's a Hendiadys of synonyms...Stott a play of commission vs
omission. And Jerome says what I wrote above...So if most of these guys
know Greek a lot better than I do then what criteria can I apply to see
who's probably right and who's off here? When I look at the uses in the NT
I see PARAPTWMASIN seems to refer to sinful deeds including evil thoughts.
Thanks again for your input-I've enjoyed this thread quite a bit.
David Bielby
dbielby at bloomingtonvineyard.org
Pastor
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:45 AM
To: David Bielby
Cc: 'Carl W. Conrad'; 'Big Greeks'
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] Eph 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI
TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN
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