[B-Greek] Ephesians 2:1 What kind of dative in ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS?
Jeffrey T. Requadt
jeffreyrequadt_list at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 13 13:24:14 EDT 2006
This is why it's so important to look at the actual context of what we're talking about. In one case (Romans) Paul is talking about the two sides of his listener's present state: (1) dead "to" sin and (2) alive "to" God. In Ephesians 2, Paul is not contrasting two sides of the same present state, but rather what his listeners were previously to what they are now: (1) Previously, they were dead "in/because/through" sins and transgressions, and by inference, dead to God; (2) Now, they have been made alive with Christ to God, so by extension they are dead "to" sins in the way that William would like. The problem is that the way William would like could only apply in Paul's thinking to the way they are now; however, Paul is not talking about the way they are now, but the way they were then, "ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις" [ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS]. This is made very clear in verse 5, "ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ" [ONTA hHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TWi XRISTWi], "[although] we were dead in [not "to" because that wouldn’t make sense] trespasses, we have been made alive with Christ." Context is what gives words meaning (in a large part, anyway... I'm not a linguist), and you have to look at context to determine what "kind" of a dative something is, not because a dative has to be picked off a menu, but so we can understand in our own language and mental processes what the original author meant in his/hers. In this context, I don't see how the dative in Ephesians 2:1 and 2:5 could be taken as a dative of reference or respect. Cause or instrumentality would be a much better fit.
Jeffrey T. Requadt
Teacher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dietz Elementary School
7575 E. Palma St.
Tucson, AZ 85710
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(520) 731-4000
fax (520) 731-4001
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of George F Somsel
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 8:46 AM
To: William Ross
Cc: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:1 What kind of dative in ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS?
One more time -- and only one more time. After that you have my opinion and you can do with it what you will (so long as you don't misquote me) or do nothing with it and go your own way.
In Rom 6 [not 5] Paul speaks of being dead with respect to sin by being baptized into Christ. In Eph 2 the author speaks not of becoming dead to sin but of ïíôáò íåêñïõò [ONTAS NEKROUS] BEING dead through sin. When he comes to speak of revivification he uses the word óõæùïðïéåù [SUZWPOIEW]. As far as I have been able to determine in a short time this is only used in Eph and Col -- both questionably Pauline. As a near hapax legomenon, I can only go by its etymology which is a very hazardess procedure. The second part of this apparently newly-coined word ðïéåù [POIEW] is "to make.' What we therefore have is a change of state from "being dead" to "made alive with" Christ. In Romans one is simultaneously dead to sin and alive to God.
There, you have it. DAS IST ALLES.
_______________
William Ross <woundedegomusic at gmail.com> wrote:
Paul has no problem pairing "dead to sin" with "alive to the god." His baptismal formula of "alive to sin, dead to sin, alive to the god" shows this:
Romans 5
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
..
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In light of the legitimacy of that paring in Pauline thought, do you still object to the dative of reference?
I see the pairing of the datives that you are referring to, but I wonder if Paul expected his readers to do what you did... read a dative of reference, then, when they got to the reference to being "co-raised" going back and starting the paragraph over? Why not avoid misleading the reader and just say DIA? The dative will naturally lead one to "dead to" and the pairing of the datives is not contrary to Pauline thought - rather it IS Pauline thought!
Nor do I think the stative "being dead" really allows an instrumental reading of "through."
Also you refer to "dead because of sin" - but the text actually says "your trespasses and sins" - not an abstraction of "sin." Are they "being dead" by using their trespasses and sins to make themselves dead?
Also I notice you translated KAI as "but." Does Paul ever fail to use DE for "but?" I take it as "even" - continuing the previous sentence, and identifying who constitutes the assembly.
William Ross
VGB, Argentina
On 8/13/06, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote: 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! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
--
george
gfsomsel
_________
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list