[B-Greek] Ephesians 2:1
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Jul 31 04:25:09 EDT 2009
For my comments , see below under IL:
----- Original Message -----
From: rhutchin at aol.com
To: iver_larsen at sil.org ; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: 31. juli 2009 03:47
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:1
1. I take Paul to be very specific and particular in his writings. I don't
ordinarily think he would use a sentence fragment and do not easily go in that
direction. It's a nice hypothesis. When I asked whether the newer translation
was a correct translation, I was actually asking if the translation accurately
reflected the Greek text in a grammatical sense. I take your answer to be that
it does not.
----------------------
IL: What you take Paul to be depends on your presuppositions. I am not saying he
ordinarily uses sentence fragments, but this is one of the few places where he
does.
The translation question rightly belongs on the translation list, so I'll keep
my comments to grammar. The KJV is a formal equivalent translation that tries to
reflect as closely as possible the Greek/Hebrew grammatical structure, but at
the same time the translation has to follow the grammar of the receptor language
to some extent. KJV translated the participle in ONTAS NEKROUS in v. 1 by a
relative clause "who were dead" and the same ONTAS in v. 5 with a subordinate
clause "when we were dead". Both are legitimate adaptations of Greek participles
to English. KJV also added in square brackets [hath he quickened] in v. 1 and
this is clearly taken from v. 5. This is to help the reader understand that this
verb is to be understood if we want to complement the fragment with its verb.
-------------------------
2. To me, the issue is what to do with a sentence fragment and this is made
somewhat difficult because so much other stuff is thrown in. However, I don't
like what KJV did because hO DE QEOS in v4 seems to require a contrast with that
which has gone before it. In my mind, KJV has it that God quickened you who
were dead but then God quickened us when we were dead. What kind of argument is
that and what point would Paul be arguing? I agree with you that Paul wants to
establish "your" sinfulness and does so elaborately but I see this allowing him
to transition to our sinfulness or from hUMAS in v1 to hHMAS in v4-5 (so that
the quickening applies to us but not until his argument reaches a conclusion in
v5).
3. I also have difficulty going from hUMAS in v1 to hHMAS in v4-5. Is Paul
saying, You guys were dead in sin but God loved us even with us being dead in
sin so He ... Why not say, WE, in v1? Why the confusion (to me, at last)? If
Paul means to identify the hUMAS in v1 as part of the church in 1:22, then he
can transition to hHMAS in v5 because we are now all one big happy family.
...
Roger Hutchinson
---------------------
IL:
Your points 2 and 3 raise a different question, that of the use of pronouns.
Some languages have two forms of "we", an inclusive "we" and an exclusive "we".
The inclusive means "we and you together", the exclusive means "we, but not
you". Greek and English do not make that distinction, so it is up to the context
to decide whether "we" refers to one or the other. There is no doubt that the
hHMAS in v. 5 is meant to be inclusive: "we and you, too". Likewise, the "you"
in v. 1 is not meant to exclude "us". This means that the reference for both
words is the same, namely "we and you". The difference is a matter of focus. The
first "you" means "you (and us, too, but I want to focus on you now). The second
"we" means "we were like you, so I am not only talking about you here".
The description in v. 2 focuses on how his Gentile readers used to live before
they became Christians. In v. 3, he admits that the Jews, too, lived in a sinful
way before they became Christians, and Paul includes himself in this group. Paul
develops that much more in Romans 1-3.
The "but" in v. 4 contrasts the expected and just punishment of sinners as
"children of wrath" in v. 3 with God's mercy in v. 4 and the consequent giving
of new life in v. 5. This indicates the extent of the love of God that he made
us (and you) alive in spite of you and us being sinners. Paul says the same in
Romans 5:8.
That Paul at times uses sentence fragments in my view makes him stand out as a
real person who is deeply excited about what God has done for us sinners (you
inclusive).
Iver Larsen
-----Original Message-----
From: Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; rhutchin at aol.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 2:44 am
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:1
----- Original Message ----- From: <rhutchin at aol.com>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 29. juli 2009 20:26
Su bject: [B-Greek] Ephesians 2:1
> We have in Ephesians 2:1--
>
> KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN...
>
> This passage appears to be a sentence fragment in search of something to >
> attach itself.? KJV addressed this by going all the way down to v5 to find a >
> subject for the verse (which seems, to me, to make a Greek argument very >
> difficult to follow).? More recent translations have opted to translate it as,
> > "You were dead," thus erasing what, in the Greek, appears to be a fragment.
>
> So, is the passage in v1 a sentence fragment (or are the modern translations >
> correct to have, "You were dead")?
Yes, it is a sentence fragment which needs a finite verb to be complete and that
is why it is repeated with small variations in v. 5:
ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν
ONTAS hHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN
In v. 5 the sentence is completed as planned by:
συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TWi CRISTWi
The accusatives hUMAS and hHMAS must be the objects for SUNEZWOPOIHSEN, so it is
likely that v. 1 was construed with v. 5b i n mind, but then Paul got carried
away and added a lot of descriptions about the sinfulness of people and then the
mercy of God in vs. 2-4.
Before Paul comes to the main verb in 5b, he wants to establish our/your
sinfulness rather elaborately and also establish the merciful love of God for us
in contrast to and in the midst of that sinfulness. With these two facts as
background, God made us alive together with Christ.
What modern translations do is a matter of translation style and it does not
tell us anything about the Greek structure. NET tries to indicate the fragment
by using ... at the end of v. 3. To ask if a translation is "correct" is a
translation question, not a Greek grammar question.
>
> Could 2:1 be the end of the argument expressed at the end of chapter 1 in >
> v22-23 and could it then be read as "which is his body...even you,..."?
No, I don't think that is possible.
> Is there a grammatical resolution to v1 or is this an issue only in my >
> intellectually challenged mind?
Why not allow Paul to use sentence fragments? After all, he must have
spoken/dictated the letter, and sentence fragments are common in spoken
language.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list