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

Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Tue May 17 10:32:02 EDT 2011


Dear Carl,
 
I realize this thread is on the verge of becoming tedious, so I will wind it 
down.
 
You wrote:
 
<You seem to want to get into what I might call the "theology
of the grammatical construction" -- I don't know whether that's what you
had in mind, but I'll steer clear altogether of any such notion (it calls to
my mind a now far past discussion of what might be called the "metaphysics
of the genitive case"). >
 
What in the world is the theology of the grammatical construction?  It sounds 
intriguing, not necessarily from a grammatical point of view, but certainly from 
a theological point of view.  I could not find anything in the archives under 
that classification. Without having to spend any time on it, do you happen to 
know, off the top of your head, what topic I should use in the archives to 
search for the past discussion you referenced in regard to this notion?  

 
Also you wrote,
 
<and I have long felt that the author of Ephesians
was not, I think, a very careful writer of Greek (I've made that comment, I
know, ad nauseam!).>
 Carl, do you include the particular construction of this verse in the writer’s 
carelessness? If so is it because, as you said, *ordinarily such a dative 
indicating the agent of a passive verb would be of a noun indicating a person, 
not a thing and certainly not an abstraction.*
Sincerely,
Blue Harris 



________________________________
From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sun, May 15, 2011 8:05:11 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Back to Eph. 2:8


On May 15, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:

> Lenski has this to say on this text. He states: 
>  
> *the past act of rescue plus the resultant condition of safety (periphrastic 
> perfect) is entirely due to God (the agent in the passive) and to the grace he 

> used as his means. The emphasis is again on the dative. Gratiam esse docet 
> proram et puppim – Bengel.*
>  
> The emphasis he talks about is his statement concerning CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI 
>
> in verse 5 which he translates as *by means of grace you have been saved.*
>  
> And Wallace has this to say on the text.
>  
> *This use of the dative is similar to but not the same as the dative of means. 

> (At times, however, it is impossible to distinguish the two.) The dative of 
> means indicates the how; the dative of cause indicates the why; the dative of 
> means indicates the method; the dative of cause indicates the basis. Also, it 
>is 
>
> not always best to translate the dative of cause as “because of.” This is due 
>to 
>
> the fact that in English, “because” may express cause or motive. The two ideas 

> are similar, but not identical. Thus, occasionally it is best to translate the 

> dative of cause with “by “ or “on the basis of.” In Eph 2:8, for example (THi 
> GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS  ), THi CARITI is the cause of our 
> salvation (and DIA PISTEWS  expresses the means). However, it would be better 
>to 
>
> translate it as “by grace” or “on the basis of grace” instead of “because of 
> grace,” since this last phrase might be construed as indicating only God’s 
> motive, but not the basis of our salvation.*
>  
> And Carl Conrad said this:
>  
> <These terms, like so many of our grammatical terms, have been coined more as 
> aids to translators than as significant indications of the way the Greek works. 
>
> I don't think that the mind thinking in Greek gives a second thought to the 
> difference between a "direct object" and an "adverbial accusative.">
>  
> I wonder if what Carl Conrad said is also true of our dative of cause or dative 
>
> of means, at least in this verse. I know that in some contexts only one aspect 

> might work, but in this context it seems both would work, (unless I am missing 

> something).  Would a Greek reader not give a second thought between a dative of 
>
> cause or means in this particular context?  Could Paul have had both nuances 
> concerning grace in his mind and the dative was a perfect way to express this. 

> Like Bengal said,( if I understood him aright), grace is the bow and the 
>stern.  
>
> It seems in this verse it is the beginning and the end. It is both the basis 
>and 
>
> the means of God’s saving activity. The dative, in this case, expresses both 
> aspects of grace.

In the first place I would NEVER use the term "dative of cause" although I might
not be at all averse to understanding a usage of the instrumental dative as 
expressing cause. I will acknowledge that dative usage in Biblical Koine Greek
is "flexible," but I still prefer, insofar as possible, the lump dative usage 
into
the more basic categories of Instrumental-comitative, Locative, and "True" 
Dative,
this last being ordinarily of the person involved in an action or process, less
commonly of a thing toward which an action or process is directed.

I would be inclined to understand CARITI as an instrumental dative and
to leave it at that. You seem to want to get into what I might call the 
"theology
of the grammatical construction" -- I don't know whether that's what you
had in mind, but I'll steer clear altogether of any such notion (it calls to
my mind a now far past discussion of what might be called the "metaphysics
of the genitive case").

You wrote yesterday:

> 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? 

To which I had a mind to reply: Greek is a language in which it is possible for
a writer to be very precise. But that doesn't mean it is used very precisely by
all who speak or write Greek, and I have long felt that the author of Ephesians
was not, I think, a very careful writer of Greek (I've made that comment, I
know, ad nauseam!). As pure speculation -- no more than that -- I suggest
that CARITI here might conceivably be a very loose equivalent of CARITI
TOU QEOU where CARITI is employed as a dative with a passive verb
(common to express agent of a passive verb with a perfect tense) as if it 
were QEWi ESTE SEWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS. Ordinarily such a dative
indicating the agent of a passive verb would be of a noun indicating a 
person, not a thing and certainly not an abstraction. But that's nothing more
than a guess. But, the old classic hymn says, "Amazing grace ... that saved
a wretch like me." Of course it wasn't "grace" that did the saving, although
we tend to talk about "grace" as if it were "Grace" -- metonymously for 
"God in his grace."


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)


More information about the B-Greek mailing list