Eph 4: 22-24 Dale M. Wheeler dalemw at teleport.com
Wed Apr 5 17:49:12 EDT 2000
Previous message: Mk. 12:34b Next message: Thinking Like a Scribe Mk 6:46 Harold R. Holmyard III wrote:Dear Dale, You bring out an >important emphasis in stressing the relevance of Eph 2:15 to Eph 4:22-24. I >recently studied Colossians with Darrell Bock, who brings out the same truth >concerning Col 3:10: Col. 3:10 and have put on the new man, that is being >renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him: This idea >also appears in some commentaries. You seem to consider the “new humanity” >of Ephesians 2:15 solely in terms of Gentile-Jew relations. But it is a new >creation (2 Cor 5:17), with implications for every aspect of life. The >relations between Jew and Gentile are one element of the “new humanity.” >Yours, Harold HolmyardAs a rule of thumb I assume that there are no such things as technical terms in the NT, so “new/old man” used in various places by Paul may OR may not be referring to the same thing. I’d say that it is one of the great fallacies of “Bible Study Methods” books and classes is when they teach that you can automatically go to Romans to find out what James meant, or you can find out what Paul means in one place by going to another place where he uses the same word/phrase, as if SWZW always means “justification by faith.”In the case of Eph, I’m not the one who predefined the term in 2:15, Paul did. And the way I look at it hermeneutically is that if he hasn’t made it clear that he’s using the term in some other way than he used it in 2:15, then I should read it as he’s predefined it. A corollary to my belief that there aren’t any technical terms, is that the Ephesians are reading the letter to the Eph’s, not Romans, 2Cor, or Col, so there would be no way for them to know how Paul uses a term elsewhere…unless of course he tells them, which I’d say it appears to me, he hasn’t. As I tell my exegesis students all the time, in the 1st century there were no “Theological Dictionaries,” Cell Phones, WWW, or even great theology conferences where everyone got together and decided on how everyone was going to use certain terms. My expectation of NT writers (which I’ve found to be true in practice) is that they either predefine a term early in a letter, or they give contextual clues as to what they mean.***********************************************************************Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw at teleport.com***********************************************************************
Previous message: Mk. 12:34bNext message: Thinking Like a Scribe Mk 6:46
Eph 4: 22-24 Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Apr 5 22:45:50 EDT 2000
Previous message: Thinking Like a Scribe Mk 6:46 Next message: te^n arche^n in John 8:25 Dear Dale, I accept all that you write. I still find the context of Ephesianssufficient to indicate that what is new is a totally different kind of lifegiven by the Spirit and partaking of heaven. So the ramifications of thenew man of 2:15 extend in all directions. And use of the term “new man” in4:24 may be inclusive of all the term’s implications. The letter to theEphesians is not all about Jewish-Gentile relations, although it includesthat aspect of life. The greater part of the letter is not aboutJewish-Gentile relations. There are numerous indications that Ephesians and Colossians wereprison epistles written at the same time. A marked degree of overlap insubject matter and terminology exists between the two. While your generalrule of not assuming technical terms is good, I feel quite certain that thenew man of Colossians 3:10 is the same as that of Eph 4:24. After all, thetwo passages are quite parallel.Yours,Harold Holmyard
Previous message: Thinking Like a Scribe Mk 6:46Next message: te^n arche^n in John 8:25
Eph 4: 22-24 Jürg Buchegger j.buchegger at datacomm.ch
Thu Apr 6 09:51:28 EDT 2000
Previous message: Fwd: Re: hOUTWS … hWSTE (To Carl) Next message: Mk. 12:34b Dear Dale and Harold,I am still dealing with Eph 4:22-24 and found your ongoing conversationhelpful. I agree that the terms “old/new man” in Eph 4:22+24 has to beunderstood in the first place in light of the epistle itself that is as areader you have still in mind the “new man” from 2:15. I agree too with Dalethat we don’t have strict technical terms here, but the terms have beencoined ad hoc by Paul, especially when putting together words that have notbeen used in this way before (as is to some extant the case with thiscontrast between old and new man). There in 2:15 I would see both thecorporate and the individual aspect of “new man” and I don’t think that weshould seperate or choose between these two aspects anyway.Concerning the translation of “old/new man” as “new humanity” I have somereservations because I think that the word ANQRWPOS in these termsconsciously alludes to the OT-Paul-concept of Adam (LXX ANQRWPOS).Especially in Paul I guess he has always this line of thought in his mindwhen he uses ANQRWPOS in a theological way. Put another way: Wouldn’t therehave been other greek words than ANQRWPOS, if he really wanted to say”humanity” (or “life”, “nature” etc. as different translations have)??ANQRWPOS was chosen deliberately because of theological implications.As strong as I agree with Dales warning against “technical terms” in the NT,I would on the other side stress two important restrictions. Both have to dowith some degree of constitency at least in the mind of the writer of a text(e.g. Paul):1. As Harold mentioned there is the possibility of temporally very closetexts (like Eph and Col). I think in cases like these and especially if atthe same time the topic and content is very similar, one is allowed to takesuch a parallel like Col 3:10 into account in interpreting Eph 4:24. Butstill there is a priority of the immediate context and the whole text (here:epistle) as the first place to find an appropriate interpretation beforedrawing on other texts.2. If a writer is coining a new word or term to describe a reality he cannot describe otherwise I think we come close to a technical term. And thisis the case, I think, when Paul is talking of ANANEOW in 4:23. Not thatANANEOW is a pauline neologism, but he uses this word instead of hisneologism ANAKAINOW, primarely because of stilistic reasons. I can not gointo details here about ANAKAINOW and ANAKAINWSIS but my point here is: whenPaul is using THIS (or another neologism) word he has a very specificreality in mind which he is describing with THIS word and this comes closeto a technical term.Jurg Buchegger, Drs.Bern, Switzerland
Previous message: Fwd: Re: hOUTWS … hWSTE (To Carl)Next message: Mk. 12:34b
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Thu May 8 16:20:51 EDT 2008
[] Point of Antithesis in Language Teaching Methodologies [] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Dear Carl,Almost every English translation in Eph 4:22 takes TON FQEIROMENON as something like “which is being corrupted.” However, my understanding is that the temporal force of a participle is governed by the time of the main verb. Here is an online statement of that principle from a website teaching NT Greek:http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson31.htmTo the extent that the tense of a participle indicates time, it will indicate time only relative to the main verb. Present tense participles usually indicate action coincident with the time of the main verb.The main verb of the clause in which TON FQEIROMENON occurs is understood by most to be EDIDACQHTE in v. 21. This aorist verb refers back to the time the Ephesians learned Christ (v. 20), that is, to the time they were saved. So it refers to a past event. Is there any reason why it would not be possible to translate the participle as “which was being corrupted”? I will transcribe the passage from verse 20 through 23:hUMEIS DE OUC hOUTWS EMAQETE TON CRISTON, EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN AUTWi EDIDACQHTE, KAQWS ESTIN ALHQEIA EN TWi INSOU, APOQESQAI hUMAS KATA THN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON KATA TAS EPIQUMIAS THS APATHS, ANANEOUSQAI DE TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWNBut you did not thus learn Christ, if indeed you heard about him and in him were taught, just as truth is in Jesus, that you should put off, according to the former conduct, the old man which was being corrupted according to the lusts of deceit, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind.If it is possible, is there any grammatical reason why the present would be preferable, or even justified?The infinitive APOQESQAI (to put off) is an aorist imperative (in contrast with a subsequent present infinitive ANANEOUSQAI [to be renewed]). Most interpreters take this contrast to suggest a once-and-for-all commitment to put off the old man that is undertaken when one is saved.If putting off the old man was a once-for-all commitment with ongoing implications made in the past, couldn’t it be appropriate to think of the old man’s corruption as something that was happening back then?Yours,Harold Holmyard
[] Point of Antithesis in Language Teaching Methodologies[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu May 8 19:45:23 EDT 2008
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” [] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” On May 8, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> Dear Carl,I don’t really know why this should be addressed to me in particular; I should think others might have alternative views on the question well worth attending to.> Almost every English translation in Eph 4:22 takes TON FQEIROMENON as> something like “which is being corrupted.” However, my understanding > is> that the temporal force of a participle is governed by the time of the> main verb. Here is an online statement of that principle from a > website> teaching NT Greek:> http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson31.htm> > To the extent that the tense of a participle indicates time, it will> indicate time only relative to the main verb. Present tense > participles> usually indicate action coincident with the time of the main verb.I think that works well enough, as a general principle.> The main verb of the clause in which TON FQEIROMENON occurs is> understood by most to be EDIDACQHTE in v. 21. This aorist verb refers> back to the time the Ephesians learned Christ (v. 20), that is, to the> time they were saved. So it refers to a past event. Is there any > reason> why it would not be possible to translate the participle as “which was> being corrupted”? I will transcribe the passage from verse 20 > through 23:> > hUMEIS DE OUC hOUTWS EMAQETE TON CRISTON, EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN> AUTWi EDIDACQHTE, KAQWS ESTIN ALHQEIA EN TWi INSOU, APOQESQAI hUMAS > KATA> THN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON KATA TAS> EPIQUMIAS THS APATHS, ANANEOUSQAI DE TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN> > But you did not thus learn Christ, if indeed you heard about him and > in> him were taught, just as truth is in Jesus, that you should put off,> according to the former conduct, the old man which was being corrupted> according to the lusts of deceit, and be renewed in the spirit of > your mind.I don’t think I would understand FQEIROMENON as dependent upon EDIDACQHTE but rather upon APOQESQAI. That is, in effect, “you were given instructions to put away the humanity of your older existence — the humanity that is grounded in your previous life-style, grounded in illusory desires — and to set about the process of renewal of your insight through the spirit.” I would understand APOQESQAI and ANAQNEOUSQAI as the equivalents of imperatives constituting the instruction(s) given to the Ephesian congregation when they were becoming believers. “The instructions that were given you were: (1) put away (= APOQESQE) and (2) set about the process of renewal (=ANANEOUSQE).Now if that’s the case, then the exhortation to the believer is APOQESQAI TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON (and also ANANEOUSQAI TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN).Is that exhortation one that is incumbent upon a believer only at the outset of his/her existence as a believer? Has a believer already completed this task of renunciation of what he/she used to be and transformation into a new spirit-driven existence? Or is this something that a believer is to continue doing? You may very well say that APOQESQAI must be a once-for-all-time achievement; I might readily believe that the resolution to do so involves a will to have done with the old self forever, but are we to suppose that the salvation was something completed back at the beginning of one’s existence as a believer? The believer passes through the waters of baptism, dies to the old self and is born again into a new self? My own sense is that the gospel proclamation envisions this salvation in terms of an “already” and a “not yet.” But I’m afraid that takes us into the sticky and off-limits area of doctrinal assumptions. At any rate, my own take is that the participle FQEIROMENON finds its reference point in APOQESQAI rather than in EDIDACQHTE; the infiinitive APOQESQAI doesn’t have a temporal status here but rather only an aspectual status; there’s no impediment that I can see to it coordinating with TON PALAION ANQRWPON FQEIROMENON.Finally, I think I would prefer to understand FQEIROMENON not so much as “being corrupted” (passive) as “perishing” (middle). I think that FQEIROMENON means “heading, sooner or later, toward annihilation” The two phrases KATA TEN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN and KATA TAS EPIQUMIAS THS APATHS characterize the humanity of one’s older existence as (a) a lifestyle that one has renounced and (b) wanting things that have no real worth.Ultimately, I think that the reason why FQEIROMENON is translated as a present participle in so many versions is that the translators simply don’t envision the renunciation of the old self and spiritual renewal as a process immediately efficacious and permanently achieved.> If it is possible, is there any grammatical reason why the present > would> be preferable, or even justified?> > The infinitive APOQESQAI (to put off) is an aorist imperative (in> contrast with a subsequent present infinitive ANANEOUSQAI [to be> renewed]). Most interpreters take this contrast to suggest a> once-and-for-all commitment to put off the old man that is undertaken> when one is saved.> > If putting off the old man was a once-for-all commitment with ongoing> implications made in the past, couldn’t it be appropriate to think of> the old man’s corruption as something that was happening back then?> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Thu May 8 20:20:10 EDT 2008
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” [] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Carl,> > > I don’t really know why this should be addressed to me in particular; > I should think others might have alternative views on the question > well worth attending to.HH: Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful answer. I did not mean to exclude others giving a response. I apologize if it seemed that way. I’m glad you got the ball rolling, if it is to roll. Yes, the force of the infinitive was a topic of recent discussion, for some commentators and translations assume that “you were taught that you have put off the old man.” I don’t think that’s good because, as you say, there is an ongoing aspect to the words in Eph 4:22-24, which seem to have an imperative element, even if they are somewhat factual in reporting what was taught. I think the intention to put on the new man created according to God can be a full-blown intention, but it is the work of a lifetime, isn’t it? So perhaps you’re right about the participle referring to more than just the time when the people originally resolved by faith to put off the old man.Yours,Harold Holmyard> >> Almost every English translation in Eph 4:22 takes TON FQEIROMENON as>> something like “which is being corrupted.” However, my understanding is>> that the temporal force of a participle is governed by the time of the>> main verb. Here is an online statement of that principle from a website>> teaching NT Greek:>> http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson31.htm>> >> To the extent that the tense of a participle indicates time, it will>> indicate time only relative to the main verb. Present tense participles>> usually indicate action coincident with the time of the main verb.> > I think that works well enough, as a general principle.> >> The main verb of the clause in which TON FQEIROMENON occurs is>> understood by most to be EDIDACQHTE in v. 21. This aorist verb refers>> back to the time the Ephesians learned Christ (v. 20), that is, to the>> time they were saved. So it refers to a past event. Is there any reason>> why it would not be possible to translate the participle as “which was>> being corrupted”? I will transcribe the passage from verse 20 through >> 23:>> >> hUMEIS DE OUC hOUTWS EMAQETE TON CRISTON, EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN>> AUTWi EDIDACQHTE, KAQWS ESTIN ALHQEIA EN TWi INSOU, APOQESQAI hUMAS KATA>> THN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON KATA TAS>> EPIQUMIAS THS APATHS, ANANEOUSQAI DE TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN>> >> But you did not thus learn Christ, if indeed you heard about him and in>> him were taught, just as truth is in Jesus, that you should put off,>> according to the former conduct, the old man which was being corrupted>> according to the lusts of deceit, and be renewed in the spirit of >> your mind.> > I don’t think I would understand FQEIROMENON as dependent upon > EDIDACQHTE but rather upon APOQESQAI. That is, in effect, “you were > given instructions to put away the humanity of your older existence — > the humanity that is grounded in your previous life-style, grounded in > illusory desires — and to set about the process of renewal of your > insight through the spirit.” I would understand APOQESQAI and > ANAQNEOUSQAI as the equivalents of imperatives constituting the > instruction(s) given to the Ephesian congregation when they were > becoming believers. “The instructions that were given you were: (1) > put away (= APOQESQE) and (2) set about the process of renewal > (=ANANEOUSQE).> > Now if that’s the case, then the exhortation to the believer is > APOQESQAI TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON (and also ANANEOUSQAI > TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN).> > Is that exhortation one that is incumbent upon a believer only at the > outset of his/her existence as a believer? Has a believer already > completed this task of renunciation of what he/she used to be and > transformation into a new spirit-driven existence? Or is this > something that a believer is to continue doing? You may very well say > that APOQESQAI must be a once-for-all-time achievement; I might > readily believe that the resolution to do so involves a will to have > done with the old self forever, but are we to suppose that the > salvation was something completed back at the beginning of one’s > existence as a believer? The believer passes through the waters of > baptism, dies to the old self and is born again into a new self? My > own sense is that the gospel proclamation envisions this salvation in > terms of an “already” and a “not yet.” But I’m afraid that takes us > into the sticky and off-limits area of doctrinal assumptions. At any > rate, my own take is that the participle FQEIROMENON finds its > reference point in APOQESQAI rather than in EDIDACQHTE; the > infiinitive APOQESQAI doesn’t have a temporal status here but rather > only an aspectual status; there’s no impediment that I can see to it > coordinating with TON PALAION ANQRWPON FQEIROMENON.> > Finally, I think I would prefer to understand FQEIROMENON not so much > as “being corrupted” (passive) as “perishing” (middle). I think that > FQEIROMENON means “heading, sooner or later, toward annihilation” The > two phrases KATA TEN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN and KATA TAS EPIQUMIAS THS > APATHS characterize the humanity of one’s older existence as (a) a > lifestyle that one has renounced and (b) wanting things that have no > real worth.> > Ultimately, I think that the reason why FQEIROMENON is translated as a > present participle in so many versions is that the translators simply > don’t envision the renunciation of the old self and spiritual renewal > as a process immediately efficacious and permanently achieved.> > >> If it is possible, is there any grammatical reason why the present would>> be preferable, or even justified?>> >> The infinitive APOQESQAI (to put off) is an aorist imperative (in>> contrast with a subsequent present infinitive ANANEOUSQAI [to be>> renewed]). Most interpreters take this contrast to suggest a>> once-and-for-all commitment to put off the old man that is undertaken>> when one is saved.>> >> If putting off the old man was a once-for-all commitment with ongoing>> implications made in the past, couldn’t it be appropriate to think of>> the old man’s corruption as something that was happening back then?>> >> Yours,>> Harold Holmyard>> >> >> —>> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > Carl W. Conrad> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)> > > >
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri May 9 04:42:53 EDT 2008
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” [] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” —– Original Message —– From: “Harold Holmyard” <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>To: “‘greek ‘” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 8. maj 2008 23:20Subject: [] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”> > Almost every English translation in Eph 4:22 takes TON FQEIROMENON as> something like “which is being corrupted.” However, my understanding is> that the temporal force of a participle is governed by the time of the> main verb. Here is an online statement of that principle from a website> teaching NT Greek:> http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson31.htm> > To the extent that the tense of a participle indicates time, it will> indicate time only relative to the main verb. Present tense participles> usually indicate action coincident with the time of the main verb.If I understand it correctly, this applies to the case where a participle is the head of asubordinated clause which is then modifying the verb in the main clause. In Eph 4:22 we have adifferent grammatical construction where the participle modifies and is part of a noun phrase in thesame was as an adjective or rankshifted relative clause modifies the head noun. Therefore, Iwouldn’t look for a main verb to attach it to.> hUMEIS DE OUC hOUTWS EMAQETE TON CRISTON, EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN> AUTWi EDIDACQHTE, KAQWS ESTIN ALHQEIA EN TWi INSOU, APOQESQAI hUMAS KATA> THN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON KATA TAS> EPIQUMIAS THS APATHS, ANANEOUSQAI DE TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN> > But you did not thus learn Christ, if indeed you heard about him and in> him were taught, just as truth is in Jesus, that you should put off,> according to the former conduct, the old man which was being corrupted> according to the lusts of deceit, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind.Paul is describing “the old person” in various ways. One aspect is that it is following the formerway of life. Another aspect is that it is decaying or on the way to destruction. A third aspect isthat it follows the “deceptive lusts/selfish desires”.Present participles are often used to describe a general characteristic without any aspect of timeor at least without focus on it.So, translation is more of matter of context and theology. I see the teaching as past, the puttingaside as present, but the description of their former life as past.In our Danish version we said:”Derfor skal I aflægge den gamle livsstil, som I havde før i tiden, da I blev bedraget af jeresbegær og var på vej mod fortabelsen.”(That is why you should put aside the old way of life, which you used to have/lead, when you weredeceived by your selfish desires and on the way to lostness.)Iver Larsen
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Fri May 9 06:57:24 EDT 2008
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” [] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Hi, Iver,>> >> Almost every English translation in Eph 4:22 takes TON FQEIROMENON as>> something like “which is being corrupted.” However, my understanding is>> that the temporal force of a participle is governed by the time of the>> main verb. Here is an online statement of that principle from a website>> teaching NT Greek:>> http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson31.htm>> >> To the extent that the tense of a participle indicates time, it will>> indicate time only relative to the main verb. Present tense participles>> usually indicate action coincident with the time of the main verb.> > If I understand it correctly, this applies to the case where a > participle is the head of a> subordinated clause which is then modifying the verb in the main > clause. In Eph 4:22 we have a different grammatical construction where > the participle modifies and is part of a noun phrase in the same was > as an adjective or rankshifted relative clause modifies the head noun. > Therefore, I wouldn’t look for a main verb to attach it to.HH: I was aware of the distinction you are making, but since the rule is expressed so generally, I assumed that it must encompass even the time of attributive participles. I admit that I felt uncertain in this regard precisely because of this distinction you note. But a participle seems to need to get its time signal from somewhere.>> hUMEIS DE OUC hOUTWS EMAQETE TON CRISTON, EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI EN>> AUTWi EDIDACQHTE, KAQWS ESTIN ALHQEIA EN TWi INSOU, APOQESQAI hUMAS KATA>> THN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON KATA TAS>> EPIQUMIAS THS APATHS, ANANEOUSQAI DE TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN>> >> But you did not thus learn Christ, if indeed you heard about him and in>> him were taught, just as truth is in Jesus, that you should put off,>> according to the former conduct, the old man which was being corrupted>> according to the lusts of deceit, and be renewed in the spirit of >> your mind.> > Paul is describing “the old person” in various ways. One aspect is > that it is following the former way of life. Another aspect is that it > is decaying or on the way to destruction. A third aspect is that it > follows the “deceptive lusts/selfish desires”.HH: I am having a problem saying that the old man “is” doing this or that because Paul says that the old man was crucified with Christ:Rom. 6:6 For we know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin —> > Present participles are often used to describe a general > characteristic without any aspect of time or at least without focus on > it.> > So, translation is more of matter of context and theology. I see the > teaching as past, the putting aside as present, but the description of > their former life as past. In our Danish version we said:> “Derfor skal I aflægge den gamle livsstil, som I havde før i tiden, da > I blev bedraget af jeres> begær og var på vej mod fortabelsen.”> (That is why you should put aside the old way of life, which you used > to have/lead, when you were> deceived by your selfish desires and on the way to lostness.)HH: The problem I have with this is that Colossians says that we have put off the old man with his practices:Col. 3:9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old man with its practicesCol 3:9 MH YEUDESQE EIS ALLHLOUS, APEKDUSAMENOI TON PALAION ANQRWPON SUN TAIS PRAXESINIver, I have a few related thoughts that I will address to Carl’s post.Yours,Harold>
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri May 9 08:09:41 EDT 2008
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted” [] Acts 27:43 What does PRWTOUS go with? On May 9, 2008, at 6:57 AM, Harold Holmyard wrote:> Hi, Iver,>>> >>> Almost every English translation in Eph 4:22 takes TON FQEIROMENON >>> as>>> something like “which is being corrupted.” However, my >>> understanding is>>> that the temporal force of a participle is governed by the time of >>> the>>> main verb. Here is an online statement of that principle from a >>> website>>> teaching NT Greek:>>> http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson31.htm>>> >>> To the extent that the tense of a participle indicates time, it will>>> indicate time only relative to the main verb. Present tense >>> participles>>> usually indicate action coincident with the time of the main verb.>> >> If I understand it correctly, this applies to the case where a>> participle is the head of a>> subordinated clause which is then modifying the verb in the main>> clause. In Eph 4:22 we have a different grammatical construction >> where>> the participle modifies and is part of a noun phrase in the same was>> as an adjective or rankshifted relative clause modifies the head >> noun.>> Therefore, I wouldn’t look for a main verb to attach it to.> > > HH: I was aware of the distinction you are making, but since the > rule is> expressed so generally, I assumed that it must encompass even the time> of attributive participles. I admit that I felt uncertain in this > regard> precisely because of this distinction you note. But a participle seems> to need to get its time signal from somewhere.> > >>> hUMEIS DE OUC hOUTWS EMAQETE TON CRISTON, EI GE AUTON HKOUSATE KAI >>> EN>>> AUTWi EDIDACQHTE, KAQWS ESTIN ALHQEIA EN TWi INSOU, APOQESQAI >>> hUMAS KATA>>> THN PROTERAN ANASTROFHN TON PALAION ANQRWPON TON FQEIROMENON KATA >>> TAS>>> EPIQUMIAS THS APATHS, ANANEOUSQAI DE TWi PNEUMATI TOU NOOS hUMWN>>> >>> But you did not thus learn Christ, if indeed you heard about him >>> and in>>> him were taught, just as truth is in Jesus, that you should put off,>>> according to the former conduct, the old man which was being >>> corrupted>>> according to the lusts of deceit, and be renewed in the spirit of>>> your mind.>> >> Paul is describing “the old person” in various ways. One aspect is>> that it is following the former way of life. Another aspect is that >> it>> is decaying or on the way to destruction. A third aspect is that it>> follows the “deceptive lusts/selfish desires”.> > > HH: I am having a problem saying that the old man “is” doing this or> that because Paul says that the old man was crucified with Christ:> > Rom. 6:6 For we know that our old man was crucified with him so that > the> body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be > slaves> to sin —> >> >> Present participles are often used to describe a general>> characteristic without any aspect of time or at least without focus >> on>> it.>> >> So, translation is more of matter of context and theology. I see the>> teaching as past, the putting aside as present, but the description >> of>> their former life as past. In our Danish version we said:>> “Derfor skal I aflægge den gamle livsstil, som I havde før i tiden, >> da>> I blev bedraget af jeres>> begær og var på vej mod fortabelsen.”>> (That is why you should put aside the old way of life, which you used>> to have/lead, when you were>> deceived by your selfish desires and on the way to lostness.)> > HH: The problem I have with this is that Colossians says that we have> put off the old man with his practices:> > Col. 3:9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old > man> with its practices> > Col 3:9 MH YEUDESQE EIS ALLHLOUS, APEKDUSAMENOI TON PALAION ANQRWPON > SUN> TAIS PRAXESINBut if we think through what’s being said here, isn’t there an implicit hint that the claim to have stripped away hO PALAIOS ANQRWPOS is a bit(?) premature; doesn’t this seem to say:”Don’t play false with each other, as if you haven’t successfully sloughed your old selfhood.” (because, if you really had, then I wouldn’t have to exhort you like this.)> Iver, I have a few related thoughts that I will address to Carl’s > post.I shall wait upon them.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Eph 4:22: time of “being corrupted”[] Acts 27:43 What does PRWTOUS go with?