[B-Greek] Back to Eph. 2:8

Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Sat May 14 20:46:39 EDT 2011


Hi Mark,
 
I guess if CARITI is understood as a dative of means, then I suppose the writer 
would be saying the underlying basis of salvation is the love of God shown forth 
in verse 4 and grace would be understood to be the means of God’s saving act. On 
the other hand, if CARITI is understood as a dative of cause then I suppose the 
writer would understand that grace is, (logically, at least), the underlying 
foundation of God’s activity.  It is interesting that Robertson lists Eph. 2:8 
under dative of means and not under dative of cause,  (although he does not 
address the verse directly).
 Maybe it is just a matter of emphasis. Suppose I had just purchased a new 
garden hose. If I was to say, *I watered my garden by a hose,* the emphasis 
would be on the hose. On the other hand, if I said, *I watered my garden through 
a hose,* it seems the emphasis is more on the watering.  Perhaps, that is the 
difference in this verse between the dative of cause and the dative of means. 
With the dative of cause the emphasis is on the grace and with a dative of means 
the emphasis is on the salvation.
 
On the other hand, you wrote:
 
<Yes, thanks, Mike, I knew that.  I also know, or I think, that there were more
ways to say something in Ancient Greek than there needed to be, which is
why I think that choice sometimes implies meaning, but as often as not implies
euphony or stylistic variation.>
 
I have heard many times that Greek is a very precise language, but is that true, 
or is that just something we have put upon the language? Is it not possible that 
Greek should be seen as more fluid and that a Greek writer purposely intends a 
thought to be taken in more than one way, so that, as is seen in this case, the 
writer wants the reader to understand CARITI with different levels of 
understanding. Perhaps, he desires that grace should be understood not only as 
the basis of God’s activity but also as the means of God’s activity.  Why does 
it always have to be one aspect or the other? 

 
Blue Harris
 



________________________________
From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org; Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 4:39:03 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Back to Eph. 2:8


Hi, Blue,

Sometimes I think that we have never left Eph. 2:8.  :)

<I was reading this morning a book by Fr. Theodore Bobosh about salvation and in 

referencing Eph. 2:8 he said we are saved* through* grace *by* faith.  I stopped 

and said to myself, *That is interesting. He switched *through* and *by.* >

This must be a typo.  I don't see how the dative can be a more remote
agent than DIA with the genitive.  But more to the point, this does not make any
theological sense, does it?

On the other hand, and one thing you learn on B-Greek is that there is always
an other hand, the ABS Modern Greek has

Διότι διὰ τῆς χάριτος εἶσθε σωσμένοι διὰ τῆς πίστεως...

So maybe the guy was half right.

Mark L
Φωσφορος

FWSFOROS MARKOS

--- On Sat, 5/14/11, Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com> wrote:


>From: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [B-Greek] Back to Eph. 2:8
>To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 11:22 AM
>
>
>THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS  KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN QEOU TO 
>DWRON   Eph. 2:8
> 
>I was reading this morning a book by Fr. Theodore Bobosh about salvation and in 

>referencing Eph. 2:8 he said we are saved* through* grace *by* faith.  I stopped 
>
>and said to myself, *That is interesting. He switched *through* and *by.* 
> Through, gives a nuance of medium, while by, gives a nuance of basis.  This 
>leads me to my question.  How should we understand the dative CARITI in 
>relationship with the preposition DIA in Eph. 2:8?   Of course, DIA with the 
>accusative carries the nuance of basis while DIA with the genitive carries the 
>nuance of medium (at least in my mind) and in this verse we have the genitive. 
>Does that help us decide if CARITI should be understood as a dative of means 
>rather than a dative of cause? Is there anything in the structure that could 
>help us decide? 
>
> 
>I suppose if we understood it as the dative of means, then grace would become 
>the medium of God, and faith would become the medium of man in salvation. Does 
>the fact that CARITI  is articular give us any indication which sense of the 
>dative the writer is trying to communicate? It seems if it was anarthrous one 
>would understand it to be more a dative of cause, whereas with the articular it 

>would be more likely to be understood as the dative of means. 
>
>       
>On the other hand, the use of ENDEIXHTAI in verse 7 seems to indicate it should 

>be understood as a dative of cause.
> 
>Is there anything in the construction and/or context that should direct the mind 
>
>to one or the other?  
>
>
>Blue Harris
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/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