[B-Greek] Eph 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN

Carl W.Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 19 14:50:10 EDT 2005


On Apr 19, 2005, at 2:23 PM, David Bielby wrote:

> 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...

This disturbs me as a matter of definition: I normally think of 
hendiadys (hEN DIA DUOIN) as the coupling of two not-obviously-related 
notions by a conjunction to express a single notion; the example by 
which I learned the term was the opening of Vergil's Aeneid: "arma 
virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris/Italiam ... " Here, it is 
commonly stated, "arma virumque" (i.e. "arms and the hero") is a 
hendiadys representing the conception of "heroic warfare." So I'm 
somewhat disturbed by calling the coupling of words said to be 
synonymous as a hendiadys; I'd prefer to call that a redundant 
expression, even if it has a rhetorical purpose, as in "You sir, are a 
cad and a bounder!" I'm not cognizant that "cad" and "bounder" are 
really distinct in their meanings. But then, we might say, "Forgive us 
our sins, and our trespasses, and our transgressions as well." Are we 
presenting three different petitions or being deliberately and 
rhetorically redundant?

> 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.

I would simply note that B-Greek list-members can offer several 
alternative interpretations of a Biblical Greek text, many of which are 
quite plausible, some more than others--and it may be that some of the 
more plausible interpretations do not in fact express the original 
author's intent. My own view is that, even if we individually come to 
our own preferred understanding of a passage, it is worth the effort to 
think through the alternatives that have been offered by others.

> -----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 ioa.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list