Ephesians 2:8

Ephesians 2:8,9 Matthew R. Miller biblicalscribe at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 6 14:29:48 EDT 2001

 

Phil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative? Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat Hello all,th xariti in Ephesians 2:8 is in the dative case (feminine singular). Iunderstand the dative case to have the following main functions in koineGreek: 1) to indicate the indirect object of a verb 2) to indicatelocation in a circumscribed area, not moving into or out of 3)occasionally to indicate possession in place of the genetive. Myquestions are: have I overlooked any function, and what is the function inthis verse? Thanks! Matthew R. Miller

 

Phil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative?Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat

Ephesians 2:8,9 Matthew R. Miller biblicalscribe at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 6 14:29:48 EDT 2001

 

Phil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative? Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat Hello all,th xariti in Ephesians 2:8 is in the dative case (feminine singular). Iunderstand the dative case to have the following main functions in koineGreek: 1) to indicate the indirect object of a verb 2) to indicatelocation in a circumscribed area, not moving into or out of 3)occasionally to indicate possession in place of the genetive. Myquestions are: have I overlooked any function, and what is the function inthis verse? Thanks! Matthew R. Miller

 

Phil 2:2, why TO AUTO accusative?Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat

Ephesians 2:8,9 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Wed Jun 6 22:25:28 EDT 2001

 

Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Matthew R. Miller wrote;>Hello all,>th xariti in Ephesians 2:8 is in the dative case (feminine singular). I>understand the dative case to have the following main functions in koine>Greek: 1) to indicate the indirect object of a verb 2) to indicate>location in a circumscribed area, not moving into or out of 3)>occasionally to indicate possession in place of the genetive. My>questions are: have I overlooked any function, and what is the function in>this verse? Thanks! The full text is:THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWISMENOI DIA PISTEWS KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON: OUK EX ERGWN, hINA MH TIS KAUCHSHTAI.You have left out all the dative functions classed as instrumental. “by grace” would seem to me to functional instrumentally.Carlton L. WinberyLouisiana College

 

Is Mk 14:62 a implied threatAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony

Ephesians 2:8,9 Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Wed Jun 6 22:25:28 EDT 2001

 

Is Mk 14:62 a implied threat Agency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony Matthew R. Miller wrote;>Hello all,>th xariti in Ephesians 2:8 is in the dative case (feminine singular). I>understand the dative case to have the following main functions in koine>Greek: 1) to indicate the indirect object of a verb 2) to indicate>location in a circumscribed area, not moving into or out of 3)>occasionally to indicate possession in place of the genetive. My>questions are: have I overlooked any function, and what is the function in>this verse? Thanks! The full text is:THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWISMENOI DIA PISTEWS KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON: OUK EX ERGWN, hINA MH TIS KAUCHSHTAI.You have left out all the dative functions classed as instrumental. “by grace” would seem to me to functional instrumentally.Carlton L. WinberyLouisiana College

 

Is Mk 14:62 a implied threatAgency&Passive, Mk 14:57-59 False testimony

Ephesians 2:8 Charles Wiese crw2 at calvin.edu
Fri May 10 09:42:25 EDT 2002

 

Beta-testing a New Textbook. Ephesians 2:8 Why is TOUTO in Ephesians 2:8 in the Neuter form. Is it referring toPISTEWS, XARITI, both or neither?Charles Wiese

 

Beta-testing a New Textbook.Ephesians 2:8

Ephesians 2:8 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 10 11:24:40 EDT 2002

 

Ephesians 2:8 Ephesians 2:8 At 9:42 AM -0400 5/10/02, Charles Wiese wrote:>Why is TOUTO in Ephesians 2:8 in the Neuter form. Is it referring to>PISTEWS, XARITI, both or neither?Text: THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS; KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN,QEOU TO DWRON.This question has in fact been discussed many times previously on the list;I think the most common view is that TOUTO picks up the entire clause THiCARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS, so that the sense of the remainder ofthe verse is, “and this (the fact that you stand saved through faith) doesnot (come/derive/originate) from yourselves, (it is) God’s gift.” The verbsin each of these short clauses or in this clause with a double predicate,if you prefer to view it that way, are understood with TOUTO as the subjectand OUK EX hUMWN and QEOU TO DWRON as predicate(s). There have been somewho’ve attempted to refer TOUTO to either CARITI or SESWiSMENOI or DIAPISTEWS, but that’s really pretty awkward, and the usage of TOUTO to referbackwards to an entire clause is not at all uncommon.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ephesians 2:8Ephesians 2:8

Ephesians 2:8 Dennis Hukel hukel at bhiinc.com
Fri May 10 14:38:11 EDT 2002

 

Ephesians 2:8 Verb patterns >>>Why is TOUTO in Ephesians 2:8 in the Neuter form. Is it referring toPISTEWS, XARITI, both or neither?<<<Dear Group,I have recently come to agree with Carl, however, there is one neuter noun in the previous verse which is neutersingular and could be the antecedent of TOUTO in verse 8. That noun is PLOUTOS (wealth, riches). If we understand theriches of God’s grace to include everything we experience (including our faith and salvation), then the resulting senseis semantically similar to taking TOUTO to refer to what has just been written.As I said, I have come to agree with Carl, but it is interesting that the author chose to make PLOUTOS neuter here(since it is usually masculine) and give this passage a potentially deeper meaning.Dennis Hukelhukel at bhiinc.com

 

Ephesians 2:8Verb patterns

Ephesians 2:8 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri May 10 21:50:56 EDT 2002

 

Pronunciation LOGIKOS in Rom. 12:1 and 1.Pet. 2:2 At 11:38 AM -0700 5/10/02, Dennis Hukel wrote:>>>>Why is TOUTO in Ephesians 2:8 in the Neuter form. Is it referring to>PISTEWS, XARITI, both or neither?<<<> >Dear Group,> >I have recently come to agree with Carl, however, there is one neuter noun>in the previous verse which is neuter>singular and could be the antecedent of TOUTO in verse 8. That noun is>PLOUTOS (wealth, riches). If we understand the>riches of God’s grace to include everything we experience (including our>faith and salvation), then the resulting sense>is semantically similar to taking TOUTO to refer to what has just been>written.> >As I said, I have come to agree with Carl, but it is interesting that the>author chose to make PLOUTOS neuter here>(since it is usually masculine) and give this passage a potentially deeper>meaning.Still, PLOUTOS is pretty far removed (in a previous sentence) from TOUTO.PLOUTOS is indeed interesting in terms of form; there doesn’t seem to be anounce of difference in meaning–not even a nuance, unless someone isfetching from afar–between the more common masculine hO PLOUTOS and theless common neuter TO PLOUTOS, but TO PLOUTOS appears only 8x, hO PLOUTOS14x. The neuter noun’s distribution is interesting: 1x in 2 Cor 8:2, 1x inPhil 4:9, and then 4x in Eph (1:7, 2:7, 3:8, 3:16) and 2x in Col (1;27,2:2). The masculine hO PLOUTOS is found in the Pauline corpus in Rom (9:23,11:12; 11:33), Eph 1:18, and 1 Tim 6:17.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months:: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

PronunciationLOGIKOS in Rom. 12:1 and 1.Pet. 2:2

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jan 30 15:10:35 EST 2003

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO [] AKROBUSTIA vs APERITMHTOS At 12:40 PM -0800 1/30/03, Harry W. Jones wrote:>Hello,> >In Eph. 2:8 THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWSMENOI DIA PISTEWS; KAI TOUTO OUK EX>hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON. What would be the antecedent of TOUTO?> >This really has me puzzled. So any help would be appreciated.This has in fact been discussed many times on the list. When the neuterdemonstrative is used like this, it quite commonly refers back to a wholeidea in what precedes; I have always held that the antecedent is not CARITIand not PISTEWS (although arguments have been adduced for that) but eitherthe entire clause THi GAR CARITI … DIA PISTEWS or else the essentialpredicate of that clause, ESTE SESWiSMENOI. Wallace GGBB pp. 334-5discusses four alternatives for understanding the TOUTO.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO[] AKROBUSTIA vs APERITMHTOS

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO Harry W. Jones hwjones2 at earthlink.net
Thu Jan 30 15:40:53 EST 2003

 

[] hupotasso [] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO Hello,In Eph. 2:8 THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWSMENOI DIA PISTEWS; KAI TOUTO OUK EXhUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON. What would be the antecedent of TOUTO?This really has me puzzled. So any help would be appreciated.Best,Harry Jones

 

[] hupotasso[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO Harry W. Jones hwjones2 at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 31 12:50:09 EST 2003

 

[] MONON as a special particle [] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO Hello,If the participle SESWSMENOI were neuter and singular I could see that butit is tagged as masculine and also plural by Friberg. So Hukel’s idea of PLOUTOS does seem to me to be a more likely candidate. Interestingly,Wallace doesn’t mention this.Best Regards,Harry Jones> [Original Message]> From: Gie Vleugels <gvleugels at etf.edu>> To: <hwjones2 at earthlink.net>> Date: 1/31/03 5:20:03 AM> Subject: RE: [] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO> > The ‘antecedent’ of this neuter pronoun is the idea, expressed in> the verbal construction ESTE SESWSMENOI, and not one particular word.> Thus it is salvation that is said not to be EX hUMWN.> Yours,> =20> Gie Vleugels> —————————————————————-> Dr. Gie Vleugels> Departement Nieuwe Testament> Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven> E-mail: gvleugels at etf.edu> Internet: www.etf.edu> =20> =20> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–> Van: Harry W. Jones [mailto:hwjones2 at earthlink.net]=20> Verzonden: donderdag 30 januari 2003 21:41> Aan: > Onderwerp: [] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO> =20> =20> Hello,> =20> In Eph. 2:8 THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWSMENOI DIA PISTEWS; KAI TOUTO> OUK EX> hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON. What would be the antecedent of TOUTO?> =20> This really has me puzzled. So any help would be appreciated.> =20> Best,> Harry Jones> =20> =20> =20> =20> =20> =20>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] MONON as a special particle[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO Barry Hofstetter nebarry at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 31 14:42:55 EST 2003

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO [] LXX, Gen 1:11, ptcp gender? —– Original Message —–From: “Harry W. Jones” <hwjones2 at earthlink.net>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:50 PMSubject: RE: [] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO> > Hello,> > If the participle SESWSMENOI were neuter and singular I could see that but> it is tagged as masculine and also plural by Friberg. So Hukel’s idea of> PLOUTOS does seem to me to be a more likely candidate. Interestingly,> Wallace doesn’t mention this.SESWSMENOI is indeed masculine plural. However, the problem with PLOUTOS as theantecedent is the fact that it is so far removed from PLOUTOS (I count 18 wordsand, more importantly, a major change in sense, with the GAR clause), thatmaking PLOUTOS the antecedent is not at all clear.Also, what would it mean? “For by grace you have been saved through faith, andthis [riches/wealth] not of yourselves…” Contextually, it just doesn’t seemto flow. I think assuming that the preceding clause is the antecedent betterexplains the use of the neuter singular here.N.E. Barry HofstetterFecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te… — Augustine, Confessions 1:1http://home.earthlink.net/~nebarry

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO[] LXX, Gen 1:11, ptcp gender?

[] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO Harry W. Jones hwjones2 at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 31 21:20:30 EST 2003

 

[] SEPTUAGINT audio in Greek – also spoken in HEBREW? [] Machen Answer Key Hello,I’ve looked in Robertson’s big grammar and on page 704 he gives severalexamples of OUTOS in the neuter being used to represent an idea or concept.For example, 1Pet. 2:19 where TOUTO without a doubt represents such anidea. That is, hUPOTASSOMEVOI from the previous sentence. I believe thisfinally does clear up my mind on the matter. I appreciate all the help everybody has tried to give me. Thanks.Best Regards,Harry Jones> [Original Message]> From: Barry Hofstetter <nebarry at earthlink.net>> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Date: 1/31/03 11:42:55 AM> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO> > > —– Original Message —–> From: “Harry W. Jones” <hwjones2 at earthlink.net>> To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:50 PM> Subject: RE: [] Ephesians 2:8 TOUTO> > > >> > Hello,> >> > If the participle SESWSMENOI were neuter and singular I could see thatbut> > it is tagged as masculine and also plural by Friberg. So Hukel’s idea of> > PLOUTOS does seem to me to be a more likely candidate. Interestingly,> > Wallace doesn’t mention this.> > SESWSMENOI is indeed masculine plural. However, the problem with PLOUTOSas the> antecedent is the fact that it is so far removed from PLOUTOS (I count 18words> and, more importantly, a major change in sense, with the GAR clause), that> making PLOUTOS the antecedent is not at all clear.> > Also, what would it mean? “For by grace you have been saved throughfaith, and> this [riches/wealth] not of yourselves…” Contextually, it just doesn’tseem> to flow. I think assuming that the preceding clause is the antecedentbetter> explains the use of the neuter singular here.> > N.E. Barry Hofstetter> > Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te…> — Augustine, Confessions 1:1> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nebarry> >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] SEPTUAGINT audio in Greek – also spoken in HEBREW?[] Machen Answer Key

[] Ephesians Jason Fry jmphry at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 21:00:40 EDT 2005

 

[] Diognetus 12:8, conditional sentence? [] Ephesians Hey, my friend is doing a hermeneutics paper on Ephesians,specifically the themes of Ephesians and how 6:17-20 pertains to them. I was wondering what information you could give her that would help. Her paper is due Thursday, so quick response would be appreciated. Even if you’re late in replying, I’m sure she’d like to learn anyways. Responses can be offlist, if that’s appropriate. Thank youJason FryUndergraduate Religion MajorCharleston Southern UniversityBaptistCharleston, SC, USA

 

[] Diognetus 12:8, conditional sentence?[] Ephesians

[] Ephesians 2:8 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Mon Jul 4 21:11:33 EDT 2005

 

[] salt [] Ephesians 2:8 On Jun 17, 2005, at 9:16 PM, Eddie Mishoe wrote:Sorry I am so late getting into the fray on this topic. I somehow got behind by about 400 e-mails. I have been knocking off a few at a time, mainly from the end of the list, but have finally gotten around to reading them all.> I would say that it does NOT include “faith.” In fact,> I would go so far as to say that the neuter TOUTO> avoids reference to “faith” (and grace!). The neuter> pronoun references the conceptual level of the> SUBJECT, not the subordinate elements. TOUTO> references the SUBJECT “salvation.” The concept of> salvation does not originate from man. TOUTO makes no> statement regarding “grace” or “faith.” The> relationship between faith (and/or grace) and> salvation is unaddressed in this passage.Hi Eddie:I think this answer evidences an undue dependence on a rather subjective and overly complicated linguistic assumption. You say that the neuter TOUTO actually **avoids** reference to “faith.” This seems to imply that Paul’s use of the neuter rather than the feminine pronoun is purposely designed to avoid reference to faith. Would you similarly claim that TA TRIA TAUTA in 1 Cor 13.13 **avoids** reference to PISTIS, ELPIS, AGAPH? Here we have the same demonstrative pronoun in the **neuter** plural with three **feminine** antecedents. It seems that abstract concepts like faith, hope, and love can indeed be thought of as “things.” If faith can be thought of as a “thing” in 1 Cor 13.13, why can it not be thought of in the same way in Ep 2.8?I have actually seen this phenomenon several times. What still comes to my mind is Anabasis 1.5.10, not because it is the only example I have seen, but because it was the first I have seen outside the NT:EPI TOUTWN DIEBAINON KAI ELAMBANON TA EPITHDEIA, OINON TE EK THS BALANOU PEPOIHMENON THS APO TOU FOINIKOS KAI SITON MELINHS; TOUTO GAR HN EN THi CWRAi PLEISTON.”on these [rafts] they would cross and get provisions–wine made from the date of the palm tree and bread made of millet, for this was very abundant in the country.”Here the antecedent of TOUTO (neuter) seems clearly to be MELINHS (feminine). The GAR clause offers background information for why the bread was made of millet–millet was abundant in the country. Though the gender is feminine, millet is thought of as a thing and so it is proper to use the neuter demonstrative.Some may argue that the antecedent of TOUTO is SITON and that SITON is in fact neuter singular. One should remember, though, that Xenophon uses the neuter only in the plural (e.g., Anabasis 2.3.27; 7.3.10), not in the singular (e.g., Anabasis 1.5.6; 2.3.14; 2.4.27; 3.4.18; 5.4.27; 6.5.20; 6.6.37; 7.4.5). Other works of Xenophon seem to follow this same convention.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIMAR studentTrinity Evangelical Divinity School

 

[] salt[] Ephesians 2:8

[] Ephesians 2:8 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Mon Jul 4 21:11:38 EDT 2005

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 [] Ephesians 2:8 On Jun 18, 2005, at 6:41 AM, Charles Rempel wrote:> What does Acts 17:31 add to the arguement, if anything at all?> > … PISTIN PARASXWN PASIN ANASTHSAS AUTON EK NEKRWN> > If faith is a free gift and it is provided to all, then wouldn’t all > be saved? (Sticking only with Greek logic, of course, and not entering > into theology.)Charles, I’m not sure what “Greek logic” is, but I think the above question deserves some comments about the semantics of PISTIS. In this context the ideas of subjective faith and belief simply do not make sense, since all in fact do not believe that God has set a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man he has appointed. But, as is well known, PISTIS has a long history of meaning something like “proof” or “pledge,” i.e., “a token offered as a guarantee of someth. promised” (BDAG 1.c and examples). You’ll find a similar definition along with examples in LSJ (see also the definition in L&N). Taking the participial phrase as indicating means (pretty common), the idea is that by raising Jesus from the dead he has provided proof or a pledge or a guarantee to all that he will judge the world in righteousness by this same man whom he has appointed for this very thing. Thus PISTIS is objective proof or a pledge, not subjective faith or belief.It should also be remembered that PASIN need not mean every man, woman, and child alive or (worse) who has ever lived. I have written so many posts on this issue that I am not going to go into it again. There is much in the archives.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIMAR studentTrinity Evangelical Divinity School

 

[] Ephesians 2:8[] Ephesians 2:8

[] Ephesians 2:8 Steven Lo Vullo themelios at charter.net
Mon Jul 4 22:13:50 EDT 2005

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 [] Searching archives: solution On Jul 4, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> On Jun 18, 2005, at 6:41 AM, Charles Rempel wrote:> >> What does Acts 17:31 add to the arguement, if anything at all?>> >> … PISTIN PARASXWN PASIN ANASTHSAS AUTON EK NEKRWN>> >> If faith is a free gift and it is provided to all, then wouldn’t all>> be saved? (Sticking only with Greek logic, of course, and not entering>> into theology.)> > Charles, I’m not sure what “Greek logic” is, but I think the above> question deserves some comments about the semantics of PISTIS. In this> context the ideas of subjective faith and belief simply do not make> sense, since all in fact do not believe that God has set a day in which> he will judge the world in righteousness by a man he has appointed.> But, as is well known, PISTIS has a long history of meaning something> like “proof” or “pledge,” i.e., “a token offered as a guarantee of> someth. promised” (BDAG 1.c and examples). You’ll find a similar> definition along with examples in LSJ (see also the definition in L&N).> Taking the participial phrase as indicating means (pretty common), the> idea is that by raising Jesus from the dead he has provided proof or a> pledge or a guarantee to all that he will judge the world in> righteousness by this same man whom he has appointed for this very> thing. Thus PISTIS is objective proof or a pledge, not subjective faith> or belief.> > It should also be remembered that PASIN need not mean every man, woman,> and child alive or (worse) who has ever lived. I have written so many> posts on this issue that I am not going to go into it again. There is> much in the archives.After re-reading my post, it seems that I have made a mistake in “English logic” here. Since I do not believe that PASIN in the above text need mean all without exception, my initial argument is invalid. I too easily fell in line with the assumptions of the question. However, I think the participial phrase is decisive. It makes much more sense to understand God’s raising of Jesus from the dead as proof or a guarantee or pledge that this same man will be the one through whom he judges the world in righteousness than that he gave subjective faith to all after raising Jesus from the dead or by raising Jesus from the dead.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIMAR studentTrinity Evangelical Divinity School

 

[] Ephesians 2:8[] Searching archives: solution

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Tue Jul 21 08:38:47 EDT 2009

 

[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”) [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article Ephesians 2:8 THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS…I read that this was the anaphoric use of the article THi.What does anaphoric use of the article mean in this case?How does it affect the reading of the passage?Roger Hutchinson

 

[] Absurdity of Koine Greek accents (was “Allegory aboutlearning Koine Greek”)[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Tue Jul 21 09:24:29 EDT 2009

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article ————————————————–From: <rhutchin at aol.com>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:38 AMTo: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article> Ephesians 2:8> > > > > > THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS…> > > > I read that this was the anaphoric use of the article THi.> > > > What does anaphoric use of the article mean in this case?> > > > How does it affect the reading of the passage?> > > > Roger Hutchinsonhttp://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/anaphora.htmA rhetorical term for the repetition of the same word or phrase at the start of successive clauses. For the grammatical term, see anaphora (grammar). Adjective: anaphoric….[and here is the grammatical definition]A grammatical term for the use of a pronoun or other linguistic unit to refer back to another word or phrase.Look at verse 7, where we have τῆς χάριτος, THS CARITOS, actually in the middle of the previous sentence, and then vs. 8 begins τῆ χάριτι, THi CARITI.It’s always nice to have the source and context of where you derived the comment, to make sure that the commentator is using terminology in the standard sense. In this case, if anything, the repetition of the article simply shows that the the CARIS in both cases has the same referent, and it to be understood substantively. The kindness of his grace and the the grace by which you are saved are the same thing.N.E. Barry HofstetterAdjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclairhttp://www.montclair.edu/Classics Instructor, The American Academyhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net/And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Tue Jul 21 15:41:15 EDT 2009

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article It’s mind boggling to me.  I am amazed that this practice could get started and even more amazed that someone then figured out what was being done.  The source of the comment was Hendricksen’s commentary on Ephesians.  It was a cryptic (at least, to me) footnote on Eph 2:8. You take it back to v 7.  Could it refer back to v 5?  Could it indicate that the writer is now going back to something he had said earlier that he now wants to expand upon? The term seems to be completely ignored in the translation of the verse.  However, it provides critical information that would seem to be necessary for the reader of a translation to understand what is happening.  Is there some translation of the term, THi, that could be used in some manner to show what is happening or is it simply impossible to translate?Also, the examples used to illustrate this situation are nothing like what we find here.  The examples use the exact language repeatedly so that it is clear what is being said.  This verse lacks that characteristic.  I find it confusing. Roger Hutchinson —–Original Message—– From: Barry &lt;nebarry at verizon.net&gt; To: rhutchin at aol.com; at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tue, Jul 21, 2009 9:24 am Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article =20   ————————————————–  From: &lt;rhutchin at aol.com&gt;  Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:38 AM  To: &lt; at lists.ibiblio.org&gt;  Subject: [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article    &gt; Ephesians 2:8  &gt; &gt; THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS…  &gt; &gt; I read that this was the anaphoric use of the article THi.  &gt; &gt; What does anaphoric use of the article mean in this case?  &gt; &gt; How does it affect the reading of the passage? &gt;  &gt; Roger Hutchinson    http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/anaphora.htm    A rhetorical term for the repetition of the same word or phrase at the start of successive clauses. For the grammatical term, see anaphora (grammar). Adjective: anaphoric….    [and here is the grammatical definition]    A grammatical term for the use of a pronoun or other linguistic unit to refer back to another word or phrase.    Look at verse 7, where we have τῆς χάριτος, THS CARITOS, actually in the middle of the previous sentence, and then vs. 8 begins τῆ=20χάριτι, THi CARITI.    It’s always nice to have the source and context of where you derived the comment, to make sure that the commentator is using terminology in the standard sense. In this case, if anything, the repetition of the article simply shows that the the CARIS in both cases has the same referent, and it to be understood substantively. The kindness of his grace and the the grace by which you are saved are the same thing.    N.E. Barry Hofstetter  Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair  http://www.montclair.edu/  Classics Instructor, The American Academy  http://www.theamericanacademy.net/    And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article
[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Tue Jul 21 17:57:07 EDT 2009

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article ————————————————–From: <rhutchin at aol.com>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:41 PMTo: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article> > It’s mind boggling to me. I am amazed that this practice could get > started and even more amazed that someone then figured out what was being > done. The source of the comment was Hendricksen’s commentary on > Ephesians. It was a cryptic (at least, to me) footnote on Eph 2:8.> I am not sure what you mean by “this practice” and so forth, but ok. Hendrickson is one commentary I don’t have on Ephesians, out of the dozen or so that I do have.> > You take it back to v 7. Could it refer back to v 5? Could it indicate > that the writer is now going back to something he had said earlier that he > now wants to expand upon?> I just checked Hoehner on this passage. He also calls it anaphoric, and sees it going back to verse 5. Hoehner is awesome, but here I disagree. I think the two articular uses in vss. 7-8 emphasize the concrete fact of God’s grace, whereas the anarthrous use in vs. 5 emphasizes the instrumental function of the grace. Technically, to be anaphoric, it must be repeated, so we have to take it from vs. 7.> > The term seems to be completely ignored in the translation of the verse. > However, it provides critical information that would seem to be necessary > for the reader of a translation to understand what is happening. Is there > some translation of the term, THi, that could be used in some manner to > show what is happening or is it simply impossible to translate?<Well, it’s the definite article with an abstract noun, which is optional in Greek, and often missing when the noun is used instrumentally, as in vs. 5. In English, supplying the article with an abstract noun is not idiomatic, so we normally leave it out in English translation. It’s the sort of thing that we have to pick up by context in the English translation.> > Also, the examples used to illustrate this situation are nothing like what > we find here. The examples use the exact language repeatedly so that it > is clear what is being said. This verse lacks that characteristic. I > find it confusing.<<It doesn’t have to be exactly the same form to be an anaphora, since this is an inflected language. According to the strict literary definition, it’s not, and until you brought it up, I hadn’t really thought of it in that way. I sometimes get suspicious of imputing too much value to rhetorical devices, especially when, as here, they don’t quite fit the standard. In other words, for a rhetorical device to be really effective, it has to be used on purpose, and I am not convinced that Paul said “Aha! Let’s use an anaphora here… ” :)N.E. Barry HofstetterAdjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclairhttp://www.montclair.edu/Classics Instructor, The American Academyhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net/And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Fri Jul 24 08:15:50 EDT 2009

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article Is it possible that the introduction of the article in 2:8 (THi…CHARITI) could be read/translated as, “For the grace by which you are saved, (it is) through faith…not works…”?It seems to be that the claim of anything anaphora in theis verse adds nothing to our understanding of the verse and only confuses matters.? Hendricksen’s reference to this is the footnote should have been accompanied by a discussion about what it adds to our understanding of the verse and why anyone should even care about it. Roger Hutchinson —–Original Message—–From: Barry <nebarry at verizon.net>To: rhutchin at aol.com; at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, Jul 21, 2009 5:57 pmSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article>?> It’s mind boggling to me. I am amazed that this practice could get > started and even more amazed that someone then figured out what was being > done. The source of the comment was Hendricksen’s commentary on > Ephesians. It was a cryptic (at least, to me) footnote on Eph 2:8.?>??I am not sure what you mean by “this practice” and so forth, but ok. Hendrickson is one commentary I don’t have on Ephesians, out of the dozen or so that I do have.??>?> You take it back to v 7. Could it refer back to v 5? Could it indicate > that the writer is now going back to something he had said earlier that he > now wants to expand upon??>??I just checked Hoehner on this passage. He also calls it anaphoric, and sees it going back to verse 5. Hoehner is awesome, but here I disagree. I think the two articular uses in vss. 7-8 emphasize the concrete fact of God’s grace, whereas the anarthrous use in vs. 5 emphasizes the instrumental function of the grace. Technically, to be anaphoric, it must be repeated, so we have to take it from vs. 7.??>?> The term seems to be completely ignored in the translation of the verse. > However, it provides critical information that would seem to be necessary > for the reader of a translation to understand what is happening. Is there > some translation of the term, THi, that could be used in some manner to > show what is happening or is it simply impossible to translate?<??Well, it’s the definite article with an abstract noun, which is optional in Greek, and often missing when the noun is used instrumentally, as in vs. 5. In English, supplying the article with an abstract noun is not idiomatic, so we normally leave it out in English translation. It’s the sort of thing that we have to pick up by context in the English translation.??>?> Also, the examples used to illustrate this situation are nothing like what > we find here. The examples use the exact language repeatedly so that it > is clear what is being said. This verse lacks that characteristic. I > find it confusing.<<??It doesn’t have to be exactly the same form to be an anaphora, since this is an inflected language. According to the strict literary definition, it’s not, and until you brought it up, I hadn’t really thought of it in that way. I sometimes get suspicious of imputing too much value to rhetorical devices, especially when, as here, they don’t quite fit the standard. In other words, for a rhetorical device to be really effective, it has to be used on purpose, and I am not convinced that Paul said “Aha! Let’s use an anaphora here… ” :)??N.E. Barry Hofstetter?Adjunct Faculty, Classics @ Montclair?http://www.montclair.edu/?Classics Instructor, The American Academy?http://www.theamericanacademy.net/??And me: http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog?? ?

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Jul 24 08:47:18 EDT 2009

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article [] accent descrepencies On Jul 24, 2009, at 8:15 AM, rhutchin at aol.com wrote:> > Is it possible that the introduction of the article in 2:8 > (THi…CHARITI) could be read/translated as, “For the grace by which > you are saved, (it is) through faith…not works…”?> > It seems to be that the claim of anything anaphora in theis verse > adds nothing to our understanding of the verse and only confuses > matters.? Hendricksen’s reference to this is the footnote should > have been accompanied by a discussion about what it adds to our > understanding of the verse and why anyone should even care about it.For my part, I don’t think that the article in 2:8 is itself anaphoric. I DO think, however, that THi CARITI in 2:8 clearly refers back to CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI in 2:5 and to TO hUPERBALLON PLOUTOS THS CARITOS AUTOU in 2:7; I don’t see how we can doubt that there is a recurrent emphatic reference to CARIS in this passage that is recapitulated in verse 8.5 καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ, _ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι _ 6 καὶ συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 7 ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις τὸ ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτος τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηστότητι ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 8 Τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον· 9 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται.5 KAI ONTAS hHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TWi CRISTWi, _ CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI _ 6 KAI SUNHGEIREN KAI SUNEKAQISEN EN TOIS EPOURANIOIS EN CRISTWi IHSOU, 7 hINA ENDEIXHTAI EN TOIS AIWSIN TOIS EPERCOMENOIS TO hUPERBALLON PLOUTOS THS CARITOS AUTOU EN CRHSTOTHTI EF᾿ hHMAS EN CRISTWi IHSOU. 8 THi GAR CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI DIA PISTEWS· KAI TOUTO OUK EX hUMWN, QEOU TO DWRON· 9 OUK EX ERGWN, hINA MH TIS KAUCHSHTAI.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – Anaphoric Use of the Article[] accent descrepencies

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Tue Mar 23 15:52:56 EDT 2010

 

[] Mark 2:9-10 EUKOPOTERON [] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI Ephesians 2:8 has the phrase, “…ESTE SESWSMENOI…” which KJV basically translates as “…ye are saved…” while many newer translations have “…you have been saved…”ESTE appears to be a pretty straightforward present indicative verb that should mean “you are.” I am not sure what SESWSMENOI is except that Robertson calls it the “perfect passive periphrastic indicative of sôzô” which means nothing to me.The NET Bible translationnotes apparently say, “The perfect tense in Greek connotes both completed action (‘youhave been saved’) and continuing results (‘you are saved’)” which, to me, doesn’t seem to explain what the purpose of ESTE is.Given all this, it appears to me that Paul is saying something like, “you were saved in the past and you are still saved right now.”So, can someone tell me what ESTE SESWSMENOI means all by itself as if you read it somewhere other than the Bible?Roger Hutchinson

 

[] Mark 2:9-10 EUKOPOTERON[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI Timothy Lawson tslawson1 at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 23 16:12:17 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI Roger,     The term “periphrastic” describes the use of ESTE (the be verb) as a helper (auxillary) verb to the participle SESWSMENOI. So rather than just construction SOZO in straight forward way that could give a similar sense on its own two verbs are used.Scotty________________________________From: “rhutchin at aol.com” <rhutchin at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, March 23, 2010 12:52:56 PMSubject: [] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOIEphesians 2:8 has the phrase, “…ESTE SESWSMENOI…”  which KJV basically translates as “…ye are saved…” while many newer translations have “…you have been saved…”ESTE appears to be a pretty straightforward present indicative verb that should mean “you are.”  I am not sure what SESWSMENOI is except that Robertson calls it the “perfect passive  periphrastic indicative of sôzô” which means nothing to me.The NET Bible translationnotes apparently say, “The perfect tense in Greek connotes both completed action (‘youhave been saved’) and continuing results (‘you are saved’)” which, to me, doesn’t seem to explain what the purpose of ESTE is.Given all this, it appears to me that Paul is saying something like, “you were saved in the past and you are still saved right now.”So, can someone tell me what ESTE SESWSMENOI means all by itself as if you read it somewhere other than the Bible?Roger Hutchinson— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI Timothy Lawson tslawson1 at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 23 16:37:48 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI Roger,  I believe SESWSQE would be the indicative perfect passive 2nd person plural that could be used to convey a similar sense with out the need of a helping verb, but Paul did not choose to express it that way.   Let me also correct some wording from my previous response:     The term “periphrastic” describes the use of ESTE (the be verb) as a helper (auxillary) verb to the participle SESWSMENOI. So rather than just using a construction of SWZW in a straight forward way that could give a similar sense on its own two verbs are used.Scotty________________________________From: “rhutchin at aol.com” <rhutchin at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, March 23, 2010 12:52:56 PMSubject: [] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOIEphesians 2:8 has the phrase, “…ESTE SESWSMENOI…”  which KJV basically translates as “…ye are saved…” while many newer translations have “…you have been saved…”ESTE appears to be a pretty straightforward present indicative verb that should mean “you are.”  I am not sure what SESWSMENOI is except that Robertson calls it the “perfect passive  periphrastic indicative of sôzô” which means nothing to me.The NET Bible translationnotes apparently say, “The perfect tense in Greek connotes both completed action (‘youhave been saved’) and continuing results (‘you are saved’)” which, to me, doesn’t seem to explain what the purpose of ESTE is.Given all this, it appears to me that Paul is saying something like, “you were saved in the past and you are still saved right now.”So, can someone tell me what ESTE SESWSMENOI means all by itself as if you read it somewhere other than the Bible?Roger Hutchinson— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 23 17:20:26 EDT 2010

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Replacing the periphrastic use of ESTE SESWMENOI in Eph.2:8 Others have noted that this is a periphrastic construction.  Perhaps I can illustrate by use of Latin.  Latin verbs are generally given in their principal parts:  ago, agere, egi, actus — I go, to go, I went, gone.  There are some other parts which might also be given but which generally are not.  The gerundive form is combined with a form of “to be” to form an expression.  One of the most famous of these is “Cartago delenda est” or “Carthage must be destroyed.”  Delenda is a future passive participle.  If this were given in a disgustingly literal form it would be something like “Carthage is in a state of being about to be destroyed.”  Latin and Greek have many similarities.   georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: “rhutchin at aol.com” <rhutchin at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Tue, March 23, 2010 12:52:56 PMSubject: [] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOIEphesians 2:8 has the phrase, “…ESTE SESWSMENOI…”  which KJV basically translates as “…ye are saved…” while many newer translations have “…you have been saved…”ESTE appears to be a pretty straightforward present indicative verb that should mean “you are.”  I am not sure what SESWSMENOI is except that Robertson calls it the “perfect passive  periphrastic indicative of sôzô” which means nothing to me.The NET Bible translationnotes apparently say, “The perfect tense in Greek connotes both completed action (‘youhave been saved’) and continuing results (‘you are saved’)” which, to me, doesn’t seem to explain what the purpose of ESTE is.Given all this, it appears to me that Paul is saying something like, “you were saved in the past and you are still saved right now.”So, can someone tell me what ESTE SESWSMENOI means all by itself as if you read it somewhere other than the Bible?Roger Hutchinson— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 – ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Replacing the periphrastic use of ESTE SESWMENOI in Eph.2:8

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Alexander Jech awjjech at gmail.com
Mon Mar 21 10:00:30 EDT 2011

 

[] Fwd: other relevant languages besides Greek? [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians 2:8of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What Iremember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the onlydifference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand aperfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, ofbeing safe, you are right now saved.But I recently read in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that usingthe periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so themeaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in theprocess of being saved*. I don’t have my copy here, so I can’t quote thepassage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that thebook includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by PaulJohnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute.Reading this completely surprised me!So, I did some searching of the archives, to see if I could find ananswer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives wassomewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some supportfor my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication ofdisagreement about it, too, and I wasn’t sure what to conclude. So I decidedto write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreementamongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Doesthis reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialectsand the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget whatmy teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in anexceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyonecan provide on these points.– Alexander JechUniversity of VirginiaProgram in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law

 

[] Fwd: other relevant languages besides Greek?[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Mar 21 11:09:48 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI There are many periphrastic phrases in the NT, but none of them appear to support what you report Mounce as saying. Did he give reasons?The perfect participle does indeed indicate a stative aspect. When it is combined with a form of EIMI, it is this form that will contain the time reference, but it does not change the aspect. I assume Mounce was thinking of those with a present tense of EIMI, but even those do not support his statement. Let me just give you a few places to look at (they are most common in John):Mat 18:20: οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομαOU GAR EISIN DUO H TREIS SUNHGMENOI EIS TO EMON ONOMAfor not two or three are in a position of having gathered into my name (not a process of gathering, but a state of having gathered)Luk 12:6: καὶ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦKAI hEN EX AUTOU OUK ESTIN EPILELYSMENON ENWPION TOU QEOUAnd not one of them is in the position of being overlooked before God (not a process of being not overlooked, but a state of not being overlooked.)2 Cor 4:3: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένονEI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS APOLLUMENOIS ESTIN KEKALUMMENONEven though our gospel is in the state of being hidden, it is (only) to those who are in the process of perishing that it is hidden.Heb 4:2: καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοιKAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOIFor we are indeed in the position of having heard the good needs as well as those (not a process)Luk 23:15: καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷKAI IDOU OUDEN AXION QANATOU ESTIN PEPRAGMENON AUTWiAnd listen: He is not in the position of having done anything punishable by death (not a process of doing, but a state of having done.)Iver Larsen—– Original Message —– From: “Alexander Jech” <awjjech at gmail.com>To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 21. marts 2011 17:00Subject: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI>I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians 2:8> of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What I> remember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the only> difference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand a> perfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, of> being safe, you are right now saved.> > But I recently read in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that using> the periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so the> meaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in the> process of being saved*. I don’t have my copy here, so I can’t quote the> passage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that the> book includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by Paul> Johnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute.> Reading this completely surprised me!> > So, I did some searching of the archives, to see if I could find an> answer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives was> somewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some support> for my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication of> disagreement about it, too, and I wasn’t sure what to conclude. So I decided> to write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreement> amongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Does> this reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialects> and the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget what> my teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in an> exceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyone> can provide on these points.> >> Alexander Jech> University of Virginia> Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Alexander Jech awjjech at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 11:12:42 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Thanks. I have since looked this point up in Wallace’s _Greek Grammar Beyondthe Basics_ and found that he at least agreed with my teachers that ifperiphrasis does anything, it emphasizes the force of aspect, and it doesn’talways do even that. Paul Johnson — it wasn’t Mounce who actually saidthis, but another writer who was invited to write a little blurb about thetheological significance of perfect participles or excerpted for the samepurpose — did not really make an argument for this view that theperiphrastic makes the aspect of all participles continuous. He presented itas if it were a point of Greek grammar completely without controversy.Alexander JechALEXANDROS hUAKINQOSOn Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> There are many periphrastic phrases in the NT, but none of them appear to> support what you report Mounce as saying. Did he give reasons?> > The perfect participle does indeed indicate a stative aspect. When it is> combined with a form of EIMI, it is this form that will contain the time> reference, but it does not change the aspect. I assume Mounce was thinking> of those with a present tense of EIMI, but even those do not support his> statement. Let me just give you a few places to look at (they are most> common in John):> > Mat 18:20: οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα> OU GAR EISIN DUO H TREIS SUNHGMENOI EIS TO EMON ONOMA> for not two or three are in a position of having gathered into my name (not> a process of gathering, but a state of having gathered)> > Luk 12:6: καὶ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ> KAI hEN EX AUTOU OUK ESTIN EPILELYSMENON ENWPION TOU QEOU> And not one of them is in the position of being overlooked before God (not> a process of being not overlooked, but a state of not being overlooked.)> > 2 Cor 4:3: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς> ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένον> EI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS APOLLUMENOIS> ESTIN KEKALUMMENON> Even though our gospel is in the state of being hidden, it is (only) to> those who are in the process of perishing that it is hidden.> > Heb 4:2: καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι> KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI> For we are indeed in the position of having heard the good needs as well as> those (not a process)> > Luk 23:15: καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ> KAI IDOU OUDEN AXION QANATOU ESTIN PEPRAGMENON AUTWi> And listen: He is not in the position of having done anything punishable by> death (not a process of doing, but a state of having done.)> > Iver Larsen> > —– Original Message —– From: “Alexander Jech” <awjjech at gmail.com>> To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 21. marts 2011 17:00> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> > > > I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians>> 2:8>> of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What>> I>> remember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the only>> difference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand>> a>> perfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, of>> being safe, you are right now saved.>> >> But I recently read in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that>> using>> the periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so the>> meaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in the>> process of being saved*. I don’t have my copy here, so I can’t quote the>> passage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that the>> book includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by Paul>> Johnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute.>> Reading this completely surprised me!>> >> So, I did some searching of the archives, to see if I could find>> an>> answer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives was>> somewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some support>> for my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication of>> disagreement about it, too, and I wasn’t sure what to conclude. So I>> decided>> to write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreement>> amongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Does>> this reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialects>> and the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget>> what>> my teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in an>> exceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyone>> can provide on these points.>> >>>> Alexander Jech>> University of Virginia>> Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law>> > > — Alexander JechUniversity of VirginiaProgram in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 23 23:08:41 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Alexander,One of the main problems I’ve seen with Perfect Tense translations is that the interpreter will generally say something to the effect that the Perfect tense indicates that an action took place in the past, that action is now complete, and the state that results from that action continues on indefinitely. All the Perfect tense indicates is that the state obtained — by virtue of some past, complete action — remains in that state up to and including the moment of writing (technically, up to the deictic center, which is very often the time of writing, but it need not me). After that point, the Perfect tense makes no assertion. That is, the Perfect tense makes no temporal assertion about the Future.It sure preaches well when the preacher says that “this Greek Perfect tense [which you have as ESTE SESWSMENOI, but your spelling is incorrect] tells us that we are saved, and that state of salvation continues forever.” I happen to believe, on a theological level, that one’s eternal destiny is forever settled at the historic moment of faith in God/Allah, but one would be foolish to argue that based on the use of the Perfect Tense in Eph 2.8.I certainly welcome any comments, criticism, or whatever.Eddie Mishoe— On Wed, 3/23/11, Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com> wrote:From: Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOITo: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 11:12 AMThanks. I have since looked this point up in Wallace’s _Greek Grammar Beyondthe Basics_ and found that he at least agreed with my teachers that ifperiphrasis does anything, it emphasizes the force of aspect, and it doesn’talways do even that. Paul Johnson — it wasn’t Mounce who actually saidthis, but another writer who was invited to write a little blurb about thetheological significance of perfect participles or excerpted for the samepurpose — did not really make an argument for this view that theperiphrastic makes the aspect of all participles continuous. He presented itas if it were a point of Greek grammar completely without controversy.Alexander JechALEXANDROS hUAKINQOSOn Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> There are many periphrastic phrases in the NT, but none of them appear to> support what you report Mounce as saying. Did he give reasons?> > The perfect participle does indeed indicate a stative aspect. When it is> combined with a form of EIMI, it is this form that will contain the time> reference, but it does not change the aspect. I assume Mounce was thinking> of those with a present tense of EIMI, but even those do not support his> statement. Let me just give you a few places to look at (they are most> common in John):> > Mat 18:20: οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα> OU GAR EISIN DUO H TREIS SUNHGMENOI EIS TO EMON ONOMA> for not two or three are in a position of having gathered into my name (not> a process of gathering, but a state of having gathered)> > Luk 12:6: καὶ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ> KAI hEN EX AUTOU OUK ESTIN EPILELYSMENON ENWPION TOU QEOU> And not one of them is in the position of being overlooked before God (not> a process of being not overlooked, but a state of not being overlooked.)> > 2 Cor 4:3: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς> ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένον> EI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS APOLLUMENOIS> ESTIN KEKALUMMENON> Even though our gospel is in the state of being hidden, it is (only) to> those who are in the process of perishing that it is hidden.> > Heb 4:2: καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι> KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI> For we are indeed in the position of having heard the good needs as well as> those (not a process)> > Luk 23:15: καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ> KAI IDOU OUDEN AXION QANATOU ESTIN PEPRAGMENON AUTWi> And listen: He is not in the position of having done anything punishable by> death (not a process of doing, but a state of having done.)> > Iver Larsen> > —– Original Message —– From: “Alexander Jech” <awjjech at gmail.com>> To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 21. marts 2011 17:00> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> > > >  I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians>> 2:8>> of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What>> I>> remember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the only>> difference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand>> a>> perfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, of>> being safe, you are right now saved.>> >> But I recently read in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that>> using>> the periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so the>> meaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in the>> process of being saved*. I don’t have my copy here, so I can’t quote the>> passage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that the>> book includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by Paul>> Johnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute.>> Reading this completely surprised me!>> >> So, I did some searching of the archives, to see if I could find>> an>> answer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives was>> somewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some support>> for my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication of>> disagreement about it, too, and I wasn’t sure what to conclude. So I>> decided>> to write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreement>> amongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Does>> this reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialects>> and the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget>> what>> my teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in an>> exceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyone>> can provide on these points.>> >>>> Alexander Jech>> University of Virginia>> Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law>> > > — Alexander JechUniversity of VirginiaProgram in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Barry H. nebarry at verizon.net
Wed Mar 23 23:37:05 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI —– Original Message —– From: “Eddie Mishoe” <edmishoe at yahoo.com>To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>; “Alexander Jech” <awjjech at gmail.com>Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:08 PMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> Alexander,> > One of the main problems I’ve seen with Perfect Tense translations is that > the interpreter will generally say something to the effect that the > Perfect tense indicates that an action took place in the past, that action > is now complete, and the state that results from that action continues on > indefinitely. All the Perfect tense indicates is that the state > obtained — by virtue of some past, complete action — remains in that > state up to and including the moment of writing (technically, up to the > deictic center, which is very often the time of writing, but it need not > me). After that point, the Perfect tense makes no assertion. That is, the > Perfect tense makes no temporal assertion about the Future.> > It sure preaches well when the preacher says that “this Greek Perfect > tense [which you have as ESTE SESWSMENOI, but your spelling is incorrect] > tells us that we are saved, and that state of salvation continues > forever.” I happen to believe, on a theological level, that one’s eternal > destiny is forever settled at the historic moment of faith in God/Allah, > but one would be foolish to argue that based on the use of the Perfect > Tense in Eph 2.8.> > I certainly welcome any comments, criticism, or whatever.ἐστὲ σεσῳσμένοι transliterates as ESTE SESWSMENOI in the b-Greek protocol. How is his spelling incorrect? With regard to your last point, I would say that you are essentially correct, but with the caveat that the writer here chose this periphrastic perfect passive because it best fit his meaning. It is one datum, so to speak, which contributes to the overall theological understanding to which you allude above. In other words, what we conclude at the theological level must be demonstrated to be consistent with the grammatical and syntactical levels…N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat…Classics and Bible Instructor, TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net(2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARSbhofstetter at tnars.nethttp://www.tnars.nethttp://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/bloghttp://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Mar 24 06:26:41 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI On Mar 23, 2011, at 11:37 PM, Barry H. wrote:> > —– Original Message —– From: “Eddie Mishoe” <edmishoe at yahoo.com>> To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>; “Alexander Jech” <awjjech at gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:08 PM> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> > >> Alexander,>> >> One of the main problems I’ve seen with Perfect Tense translations is that the interpreter will generally say something to the effect that the Perfect tense indicates that an action took place in the past, that action is now complete, and the state that results from that action continues on indefinitely. All the Perfect tense indicates is that the state obtained — by virtue of some past, complete action — remains in that state up to and including the moment of writing (technically, up to the deictic center, which is very often the time of writing, but it need not me). After that point, the Perfect tense makes no assertion. That is, the Perfect tense makes no temporal assertion about the Future.>> >> It sure preaches well when the preacher says that “this Greek Perfect tense [which you have as ESTE SESWSMENOI, but your spelling is incorrect] tells us that we are saved, and that state of salvation continues forever.” I happen to believe, on a theological level, that one’s eternal destiny is forever settled at the historic moment of faith in God/Allah, but one would be foolish to argue that based on the use of the Perfect Tense in Eph 2.8.>> >> I certainly welcome any comments, criticism, or whatever.> > ἐστὲ σεσῳσμένοι transliterates as ESTE SESWSMENOI in the b-Greek protocol. How is his spelling incorrect? With regard to your last point, I would say that you are essentially correct, but with the caveat that the writer here chose this periphrastic perfect passive because it best fit his meaning. It is one datum, so to speak, which contributes to the overall theological understanding to which you allude above. In other words, what we conclude at the theological level must be demonstrated to be consistent with the grammatical and syntactical levels…(a) Actually ἐστὲ σεσῳσμένο transliterates properly in BG Transliteration as ESTE SESWiSMENOI — the Iota subscript get just hat much respect in our system.(b) Could we please keep discussion of theological and hermeneutical stances out of list discussion.Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI nebarry nebarry at verizon.net
Thu Mar 24 08:09:12 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI —– Original Message —– From: “Carl Conrad” <cwconrad2 at mac.com>To: “” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Cc: “Barry H.” <nebarry at verizon.net>Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 6:26 AMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> (a) Actually ἐστὲ σεσῳσμένο transliterates properly in BG Transliteration > as ESTE SESWiSMENOI — the Iota subscript get just hat much respect in our > system.You are right, Carl, as you often are (as a student once said to me). I had completely forgotten about the iota subscript thingy… I’ve often heard the comment about it, though “It don’t get no respect….” (Sorry, “classical” allusion).> (b) Could we please keep discussion of theological and hermeneutical > stances out of list discussion.I apologize, these were more comments of a hermeneutical nature than grammatical.N.E. Barry HofstetterClassics and Bible @ TAAhttp://www.theamericanacademy.net

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 24 20:45:56 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Eddie egrapsed< All the Perfect tense indicates is that the state obtained — by virtue of some past, complete action — remains in that state up to and including the moment of writing (technically, up to the deictic center, which is very often the time of writing, but it need not me). After that point, the Perfect tense makes no assertion. That is, the Perfect tense makes no temporal assertion about the Future.>Hi, Eddie,It would be interesting to find a Greek passage where the perfect is used to describe an action the results of which the writer knew did not continue into the future beyond the deictic center. For example, where Xenophon would write something likeοἱ στρατιώται ἦσαν σεσῳσμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ φρονίμου στρατηγοῦ. (hOI STRATIWTAI HSAN SESWiSMENOI hUPO TOU FRONIMOU STRATHGOU)and then a few paragraphs later, these same soldiers get killed by a Persian ambush.Maybe someone has already found something like this. Mark LΦωσφοροςFWSFOROS MARKOS________________________________From: Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe at yahoo.com>To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>; Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com>Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 9:08:41 PMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOIAlexander,One of the main problems I’ve seen with Perfect Tense translations is that the interpreter will generally say something to the effect that the Perfect tense indicates that an action took place in the past, that action is now complete, and the state that results from that action continues on indefinitely. All the Perfect tense indicates is that the state obtained — by virtue of some past, complete action — remains in that state up to and including the moment of writing (technically, up to the deictic center, which is very often the time of writing, but it need not me). After that point, the Perfect tense makes no assertion. That is, the Perfect tense makes no temporal assertion about the Future.It sure preaches well when the preacher says that “this Greek Perfect tense [which you have as ESTE SESWSMENOI, but your spelling is incorrect] tells us that we are saved, and that state of salvation continues forever.” I happen to believe, on a theological level, that one’s eternal destiny is forever settled at the historic moment of faith in God/Allah, but one would be foolish to argue that based on the use of the Perfect Tense in Eph 2.8.I certainly welcome any comments, criticism, or whatever.Eddie Mishoe— On Wed, 3/23/11, Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com> wrote:From: Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOITo: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 11:12 AMThanks. I have since looked this point up in Wallace’s _Greek Grammar Beyondthe Basics_ and found that he at least agreed with my teachers that ifperiphrasis does anything, it emphasizes the force of aspect, and it doesn’talways do even that. Paul Johnson — it wasn’t Mounce who actually saidthis, but another writer who was invited to write a little blurb about thetheological significance of perfect participles or excerpted for the samepurpose — did not really make an argument for this view that theperiphrastic makes the aspect of all participles continuous. He presented itas if it were a point of Greek grammar completely without controversy.Alexander JechALEXANDROS hUAKINQOSOn Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> There are many periphrastic phrases in the NT, but none of them appear to> support what you report Mounce as saying. Did he give reasons?> > The perfect participle does indeed indicate a stative aspect. When it is> combined with a form of EIMI, it is this form that will contain the time> reference, but it does not change the aspect. I assume Mounce was thinking> of those with a present tense of EIMI, but even those do not support his> statement. Let me just give you a few places to look at (they are most> common in John):> > Mat 18:20: οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα> OU GAR EISIN DUO H TREIS SUNHGMENOI EIS TO EMON ONOMA> for not two or three are in a position of having gathered into my name (not> a process of gathering, but a state of having gathered)> > Luk 12:6: καὶ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ> KAI hEN EX AUTOU OUK ESTIN EPILELYSMENON ENWPION TOU QEOU> And not one of them is in the position of being overlooked before God (not> a process of being not overlooked, but a state of not being overlooked.)> > 2 Cor 4:3: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς> ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένον> EI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS APOLLUMENOIS> ESTIN KEKALUMMENON> Even though our gospel is in the state of being hidden, it is (only) to> those who are in the process of perishing that it is hidden.> > Heb 4:2: καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι> KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI> For we are indeed in the position of having heard the good needs as well as> those (not a process)> > Luk 23:15: καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ> KAI IDOU OUDEN AXION QANATOU ESTIN PEPRAGMENON AUTWi> And listen: He is not in the position of having done anything punishable by> death (not a process of doing, but a state of having done.)> > Iver Larsen> > —– Original Message —– From: “Alexander Jech” <awjjech at gmail.com>> To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 21. marts 2011 17:00> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> > > > I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians>> 2:8>> of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What>> I>> remember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the only>> difference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand>> a>> perfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, of>> being safe, you are right now saved.>> >> But I recently read in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that>> using>> the periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so the>> meaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in the>> process of being saved*. I don’t have my copy here, so I can’t quote the>> passage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that the>> book includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by Paul>> Johnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute.>> Reading this completely surprised me!>> >> So, I did some searching of the archives, to see if I could find>> an>> answer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives was>> somewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some support>> for my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication of>> disagreement about it, too, and I wasn’t sure what to conclude. So I>> decided>> to write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreement>> amongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Does>> this reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialects>> and the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget>> what>> my teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in an>> exceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyone>> can provide on these points.>> >>>> Alexander Jech>> University of Virginia>> Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law>> > > — Alexander JechUniversity of VirginiaProgram in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Mar 24 21:20:02 EDT 2011

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI [] MONOU QEOU in John 5:44 On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:> Eddie egrapsed> > < All the Perfect tense indicates is that the state obtained — by virtue of > some past, complete action — remains in that state up to and including the > moment of writing (technically, up to the deictic center, which is very often > the time of writing, but it need not me). After that point, the Perfect tense > makes no assertion. That is, the Perfect tense makes no temporal assertion > about the Future.>> > Hi, Eddie,> > It would be interesting to find a Greek passage where the perfect is used to > describe an action the results of which the writer knew did not continue into > the future beyond the deictic center. For example, where Xenophon would write > something like> > οἱ στρατιώται ἦσαν σεσῳσμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ φρονίμου στρατηγοῦ. (hOI STRATIWTAI HSAN > SESWiSMENOI hUPO TOU FRONIMOU STRATHGOU)> > and then a few paragraphs later, these same soldiers get killed by a Persian > ambush.> > Maybe someone has already found something like this.I can’t say that I have. But I would note that the form ἦσαν σεσῳσμένοι(HSAN SESWiSMENOI) is, properly speaking, periphrastic pluperfect.Use of that form would seem to imply some recognition that the rescueor escape into safety was only temporary — as you suggest.Carl W. Conad> ________________________________> From: Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe at yahoo.com>> To: B Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>; Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com>> Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 9:08:41 PM> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> > Alexander,> > One of the main problems I’ve seen with Perfect Tense translations is that the > interpreter will generally say something to the effect that the Perfect tense > indicates that an action took place in the past, that action is now complete, > and the state that results from that action continues on indefinitely. All the > Perfect tense indicates is that the state obtained — by virtue of some past, > complete action — remains in that state up to and including the moment of > writing (technically, up to the deictic center, which is very often the time of > writing, but it need not me). After that point, the Perfect tense makes no > assertion. That is, the Perfect tense makes no temporal assertion about the > Future.> > It sure preaches well when the preacher says that “this Greek Perfect tense > [which you have as ESTE SESWSMENOI, but your spelling is incorrect] tells us > that we are saved, and that state of salvation continues forever.” I happen to > believe, on a theological level, that one’s eternal destiny is forever settled > at the historic moment of faith in God/Allah, but one would be foolish to argue > that based on the use of the Perfect Tense in Eph 2.8.> > I certainly welcome any comments, criticism, or whatever.> > Eddie Mishoe> > — On Wed, 3/23/11, Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com> wrote:> > From: Alexander Jech <awjjech at gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI> To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 11:12 AM> > Thanks. I have since looked this point up in Wallace’s _Greek Grammar Beyond> the Basics_ and found that he at least agreed with my teachers that if> periphrasis does anything, it emphasizes the force of aspect, and it doesn’t> always do even that. Paul Johnson — it wasn’t Mounce who actually said> this, but another writer who was invited to write a little blurb about the> theological significance of perfect participles or excerpted for the same> purpose — did not really make an argument for this view that the> periphrastic makes the aspect of all participles continuous. He presented it> as if it were a point of Greek grammar completely without controversy.> > Alexander Jech> ALEXANDROS hUAKINQOS> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Iver Larsen <iver_larsen at sil.org> wrote:> >> There are many periphrastic phrases in the NT, but none of them appear to>> support what you report Mounce as saying. Did he give reasons?>> >> The perfect participle does indeed indicate a stative aspect. When it is>> combined with a form of EIMI, it is this form that will contain the time>> reference, but it does not change the aspect. I assume Mounce was thinking>> of those with a present tense of EIMI, but even those do not support his>> statement. Let me just give you a few places to look at (they are most>> common in John):>> >> Mat 18:20: οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα>> OU GAR EISIN DUO H TREIS SUNHGMENOI EIS TO EMON ONOMA>> for not two or three are in a position of having gathered into my name (not>> a process of gathering, but a state of having gathered)>> >> Luk 12:6: καὶ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμένον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ>> KAI hEN EX AUTOU OUK ESTIN EPILELYSMENON ENWPION TOU QEOU>> And not one of them is in the position of being overlooked before God (not>> a process of being not overlooked, but a state of not being overlooked.)>> >> 2 Cor 4:3: εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν κεκαλυμμένον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, ἐν τοῖς>> ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶν κεκαλυμμένον>> EI DE KAI ESTIN KEKALUMMENON TO EUAGGELION hHMWN, EN TOIS APOLLUMENOIS>> ESTIN KEKALUMMENON>> Even though our gospel is in the state of being hidden, it is (only) to>> those who are in the process of perishing that it is hidden.>> >> Heb 4:2: καὶ γάρ ἐσμεν εὐηγγελισμένοι καθάπερ κἀκεῖνοι>> KAI GAR ESMEN EUHGGELISMENOI KAQAPER KAKEINOI>> For we are indeed in the position of having heard the good needs as well as>> those (not a process)>> >> Luk 23:15: καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶν πεπραγμένον αὐτῷ>> KAI IDOU OUDEN AXION QANATOU ESTIN PEPRAGMENON AUTWi>> And listen: He is not in the position of having done anything punishable by>> death (not a process of doing, but a state of having done.)>> >> Iver Larsen>> >> —– Original Message —– From: “Alexander Jech” <awjjech at gmail.com>>> To: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>>> Sent: 21. marts 2011 17:00>> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI>> >> >> >> I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians>>> 2:8>>> of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What>>> I>>> remember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the only>>> difference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand>>> a>>> perfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, of>>> being safe, you are right now saved.>>> >>> But I recently read in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that>>> using>>> the periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so the>>> meaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in the>>> process of being saved*. I don’t have my copy here, so I can’t quote the>>> passage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that the>>> book includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by Paul>>> Johnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute.>>> Reading this completely surprised me!>>> >>> So, I did some searching of the archives, to see if I could find>>> an>>> answer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives was>>> somewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some support>>> for my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication of>>> disagreement about it, too, and I wasn’t sure what to conclude. So I>>> decided>>> to write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreement>>> amongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Does>>> this reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialects>>> and the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget>>> what>>> my teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in an>>> exceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyone>>> can provide on these points.>>> >>>>>> Alexander Jech>>> University of Virginia>>> Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law>>> >> >> > > >> Alexander Jech> University of Virginia> Program in Political Philosophy, Policy & Law>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > >> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

 

[] Ephesians 2:8 ESTE SESWSMENOI[] MONOU QEOU in John 5:44

Is there any reason to think that TOUTO in Ephesians 2:8 must, of necessity, refer to PISTEWS as opposed to CARITI? Is there reason to favor one over the other?
I have a question about how to understand the significance in Ephesians 2:8 of using the periphrastic phrase ESTE SESWSMENOI rather than SESWSQE. What I remember from my teachers was that these were roughly equivalent; the only difference might be in emphasis. In both statements, we are to understand a perfect (or stative) aspect: you are in a state of having been saved, of being safe, you are right now saved.

But I recently read in Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar that using the periphrastic form alters the aspect from perfect to continuous, so the meaning of the statement is not *you have been saved*, but *you are in the process of being saved*. I don’t have my copy here, so I can’t quote the passage exactly; it was in one of the theological introductions that the book includes for each chapter, in this case the introduction by Paul Johnson to the chapter on Perfect Participles and the Genitive Absolute. Reading this completely surprised me!

So, I did some searching of the archives, to see if I could find an answer there. Although I will admit that my searching of the archives was somewhat incompetent, I turned up nothing definitive. I found some support for my understanding of perfect periphrasis and some indication of disagreement about it, too, and I wasn’t sure what to conclude. So I decided to write to the list to ask my questions directly. Is this a disagreement amongst Greek scholars about how to interpret periphrastic phrases? Does this reflect an evolution in Greek between Attic and other older dialects and the Koine dialect, or over some other time span? Did I just forget what my teachers taught me? (I recall covering perfect participles in an exceedingly short amount of time!) I would appreciate any help that anyone can provide on these points.

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]