[B-Greek] Ephesians 2:1 What kind of dative in ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS?
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 09:41:12 EDT 2006
Since I've snipped the section of the discussion which includes the text, I will post it again only now I will post vv 1-5.
1 Êáé õìáò ïíôáò íåêñïõò ôïéò ðáñáðôùìáóéí êáé ôáéò áìáñôéáéò õìùí,
2 åí áéò ðïôå ðåñéåðáôçóáôå êáôá ôïí áéùíá ôïõ êïóìïõ ôïõôïõ, êáôá ôïí áñ÷ïíôá ôçò åîïõóéáò ôïõ áåñïò, ôïõ ðíåõìáôïò ôïõ íõí åíåñãïõíôïò åí ôïéò õéïéò ôçò áðåéèåéáò·
3 åí ïéò êáé çìåéò ðáíôåò áíåóôñáöçìåí ðïôå åí ôáéò åðéèõìéáéò ôçò óáñêïò çìùí ðïéïõíôåò ôá èåëçìáôá ôçò óáñêïò êáé ôùí äéáíïéùí, êáé çìåèá ôåêíá öõóåé ïñãçò ùò êáé ïé ëïéðïé·
4 ï äå èåïò ðëïõóéïò ùí åí åëååé, äéá ôçí ðïëëçí áãáðçí áõôïõ çí çãáðçóåí çìáò,
5 êáé ïíôáò çìáò íåêñïõò ôïéò ðáñáðôùìáóéí óõíåæùïðïéçóåí ôù ×ñéóôù, - ÷áñéôé åóôå óåóùóìåíïé -
1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS AMARTIAIS hUMWN,
2 EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE KATA TON AIWNA TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU, KATA TON ARXONTA THS ECOUSIAS TOU AEROS, TOU PNEUMATOS TOU NUN ENERGOUNTOS EN TOIS hUIOIS THS APEIQEIAS
3 EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI;
4 hO DE QEOS PLOUSIOS WN EN ELEEI, DIA THN POLLHN AGAPHN AUTOU hHN AGAPHSEN hHMAS,
5 KAI ONTAS hHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TWi XRISTWi, -- XARITI ESTE SESWiMENOI
Your last question first. I changed my mind because I had answered from memory but was thinking of another passage where the contrast is being dead to sin but alive to God (Rom 6.11). When I realized that I had been thinking of the wrong passage, I had to reconsider.
I wouldn't put too much stock in a "menu" of choices for the use of any case. The list seems to be continually increased. The Greek speaker of the 1st cent A.D. would not have stopped to figure out what kind of dative or genitive was involved just as we are not caused to pause and think what the usage of the word "bear" might be when we hear "bear any burden" -- is it an animal, does it mean to incline toward a certain direction ("bear to the left at the fork in the road"). No, we know immediately that it is "to carry an object." The context of this passage simply doesn't support the idea of being dead "with reference to sin" (which seems to mean that we are no longer subject to sin -- at least in principle -- cf. Rom 6.11). Rather it is through the instrumentality of sin that we are viewed as being dead; but it is, on the contrary, through the instrumentality of Christ that we are made alive (v. 5). It is this contrast of ONTOS NEKROUS . . . TAIS hAMARTIAIS and
SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TWi XRISTI which leads me to take it as instrumentality. Just as we are made alive through Christ we are in a state of being dead through sin.
__________
William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote:
The Dative of Cause is not only "on the menu" of choices for translating
EGW DE LIMW hWDE APOLLUMAI
but rather compelling. "dying to hunger" or "dying with reference to hunger"
are not really options.
But "being dead to your trespasses and sins" is actually a very natural
read, given the large part of Paul's teaching it occupies. Why do you avoid
that translation in favor of a more rare, specialized dative?
You originally suggested Dative of Reference (which seems to me to be the
obvious reading) but then found something in the subsequent text that seemed
to invalidate that reading in your mind. What precisely was the compelling
factor in the subsequent text that changed your mind?
Thanks,
William Ross
VGB, Argentina
george
gfsomsel
_________
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list