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

Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue May 17 10:46:30 EDT 2011


I shall respond to this message OFFLIST directly, as I think it
touches on matters that lie outside the proper scope of B-Greek
discussion.

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

On May 17, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Blue Meeksbay wrote:

> 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."






More information about the B-Greek mailing list