[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 John Butzu jbutzu at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 10:48:13 EDT 2009
[] Zhubert’s daily greek read [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 ———- Forwarded message ———-From: John Butzu <jbutzu at gmail.com>Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01 AMSubject: Ephesians 2:1-3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgHello. Could someone please explain to me why in Ephesians 2:1 the greekword ONTAS is translated as being in the past tense when it seems to bepresent as such. Should it not read something like: “And you, being dead intrespasses”… etc.Also, with addition of the second “you” (hUMWN) would that be correctlytranslated as “and *you* being dead in *your* trespasses and in*your*sins”? Sorry if these questions don’t require alot of mentalexertion toanswer… I’m just trying to learn!Lastly, it seems to me that Ephesians 2:1-3 is quite weird in to read in thegreek… kind of a long fragmented or run on sentence. Do you think thatwas why translators added in different tranlations (KJV, etc.) “hath hequickened”?Thank you for your patience.Sincerely,John Butzujbutzu at gmail.com
[] Zhubert’s daily greek read[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 24 12:11:37 EDT 2009
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:48 AM, John Butzu wrote:> ———- Forwarded message ———-> From: John Butzu <jbutzu at gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01 AM> Subject: Ephesians 2:1-3> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> > > Hello. Could someone please explain to me why in Ephesians 2:1 the > greek> word ONTAS is translated as being in the past tense when it seems to > be> present as such. Should it not read something like: “And you, being > dead in> trespasses”… etc.> > Also, with addition of the second “you” (hUMWN) would that be > correctly> translated as “and *you* being dead in *your* trespasses and in> *your*sins”? Sorry if these questions don’t require alot of mental> exertion to> answer… I’m just trying to learn!> > Lastly, it seems to me that Ephesians 2:1-3 is quite weird in to > read in the> greek… kind of a long fragmented or run on sentence. Do you think > that> was why translators added in different tranlations (KJV, etc.) “hath > he> quickened”?> > Thank you for your patience.> > Sincerely,> John Butzu> John,first we need to quote the passageEph. 2:1 Καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, 2 ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας· 3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·EPH. 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN, 2 EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE KATA TON AIWNA TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU, KATA TON ARCONTA THS EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS, TOU PNEUMATOS TOU NUN ENERGOUNTOS EN TOIS hUIOIS THS APEIQEIAS: 3 EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI:Translation is off topic so I will not address it.There is nothing weird here, as “Pauline” verbiage goes this passage is relatively well formed. ONTAS … hAMARTIAIS hUMWN represents an on going state of affairs. The time element is indicated by POTE in EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE … ANESTRAFHMEN POTE.Elizabeth Kline
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 Doug Knighton douglas.knighton at verizon.net
Tue Mar 24 12:55:47 EDT 2009
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 [] Rev 4:3, Syntax Translation may be off topic, but if we ask John’s question a littledifferently, I think we can keep it “on”: Why is hHMAS in 2:1 in theaccusative case? I think we need to go to 2:5 to see how this resolves itself: kai. o;ntajh`ma/j nekrou.j toi/j paraptw,masin sunezwopoi,hsen tw/| Cristw/|( KAI ONTAShHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TO XRISTW. Here Paul returns to his opening gambit (albeit in a shortened format)following the parenthetical wanderings of 2-4. It seems clear here thathHMAS (and therefore ONTAS) is in the accusative case because it is thedirect object of SUNEZWOPOIHSEN. Once we see this connection, then we canuse Ms Kline’s response concerning the time element. Doug Knighton, Ch Col USAF (Ret) —–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of John ButzuSent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:48 AMTo: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 ———- Forwarded message ———-From: John Butzu <jbutzu at gmail.com>Date: Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:01 AMSubject: Ephesians 2:1-3To: at lists.ibiblio.org Hello. Could someone please explain to me why in Ephesians 2:1 the greekword ONTAS is translated as being in the past tense when it seems to bepresent as such. Should it not read something like: “And you, being dead intrespasses”… etc. Also, with addition of the second “you” (hUMWN) would that be correctlytranslated as “and *you* being dead in *your* trespasses and in*your*sins”? Sorry if these questions don’t require alot of mentalexertion toanswer… I’m just trying to learn! Lastly, it seems to me that Ephesians 2:1-3 is quite weird in to read in thegreek… kind of a long fragmented or run on sentence. Do you think thatwas why translators added in different tranlations (KJV, etc.) “hath hequickened”? Thank you for your patience. Sincerely,John Butzu jbutzu at gmail.com— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3[] Rev 4:3, Syntax
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 24 15:36:42 EDT 2009
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 [] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3 On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:> There is nothing weird here, as “Pauline” verbiage goes this passage > is relatively well formed. ONTAS … hAMARTIAIS hUMWN represents > an on going state of affairs. The time element is indicated by POTE > in EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE … ANESTRAFHMEN POTEEph. 2:1 Καὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν, 2 ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, κατὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας· 3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί· 4 ὁ δὲ θεὸς πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει, διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, 5 καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ, – χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι -EPH. 2:1 KAI hUMAS ONTAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN KAI TAIS hAMARTIAIS hUMWN, 2 EN hAIS POTE PERIEPATHSATE KATA TON AIWNA TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU, KATA TON ARCONTA THS EXOUSIAS TOU AEROS, TOU PNEUMATOS TOU NUN ENERGOUNTOS EN TOIS hUIOIS THS APEIQEIAS: 3 EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI: 4 hO DE QEOS PLOUSIOS WN EN ELEEI, DIA THN POLLHN AGAPHN AUTOU hHN HGAPHSEN hHMAS, 5 KAI ONTAS hHMAS NEKROUS TOIS PARAPTWMASIN SUNEZWOPOIHSEN TWi CRISTWi, – CARITI ESTE SESWiSMENOI -> There is nothing weird here …When I read this passage this morning, I had been looking at patterns of ellipsis in Ajax. “Sophocles can be startlingly elliptic.” John Tipton (Ajax 2008, p. 106). “Paul’s” broken construction in Eph 2:1-5 didn’t seem very hard to understand, lots of subordination, but the general drift of his thought wasn’t difficult. Some supply a verb from chapter one, others take SUNEZWOPOIHSEN v5 as the main verb. The thread of thought wanders a little bit in the relative clauses but is picked up again either at hO DE QEOS PLOUSIOS … or at ONTAS hHMAS NEKROUS.Elizabeth Kline
[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3[] Fwd: Ephesians 2:1-3
[] Ephesians 2:3 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Mon Mar 22 14:25:24 EDT 2010
[] Fwd: [Corpora-List] New Testament corpus [] Ephesians 2:3 Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson
[] Fwd: [Corpora-List] New Testament corpus[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 14:56:58 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Roger wrote: <Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> Hi,Roger, We have to do with a Hebrew idiom. ben X can mean not the son of X but something characterized by x.Son of Iniquity means a bad guy. So, I think NIV hit this one out of the park. Another exampleof where a literal rendering is more misleading.Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 12:25 PMEphesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 Nikolaos Adamou nikolaos.adamou at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 22 15:02:22 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 <!– /* Font Definitions */ @font-face{font-family:”Cambria Math”;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:roman;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:swiss;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}@font-face{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:swiss;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:1627400839 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{mso-style-unhide:no;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:””;margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}span.greek{mso-style-name:greek;mso-style-unhide:no;}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;mso-default-props:yes;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoPapDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:115%;}@page Section1{size:8.5in 11.0in;margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;mso-header-margin:.5in;mso-footer-margin:.5in;mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1{page:Section1;}–>καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEN TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…Continues ἤμεθα or not ἦμεν ? Nikolaos Adamou, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Business Management BMCC / CUNY > To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:25:24 -0400> From: rhutchin at aol.com> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3> > > Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:> > …KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”> > The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.> > Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> > Roger Hutchinson> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ _________________________________________________________________Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 15:24:01 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Yes, the Byzantine text has ἦμεν while the better manuscripts have ἤμεθα. I realize that you are Orthodox and therefore us the Byz text, but the NA27 had a member named Karavidopoulos whom I presume to be Orthodox as well. It’s a matter of evaluating the manuscripts. Let’s not, however, continue this question since this is not the forum for text-critical questions and there is another forum for that purpose (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/). I do have one question for you: Why do your posts sometimes come through with the formatting displayed as below? georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Nikolaos Adamou <nikolaos.adamou at hotmail.com>To: rhutchin at aol.com; b-Greek < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 12:02:22 PMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3<!–/* Font Definitions */@font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}@font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:1627400839 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}/* Style Definitions */p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:””; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}span.greek {mso-style-name:greek; mso-style-unhide:no;}.MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;}@page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;}div.Section1 {page:Section1;}–>καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…καὶ ἦμεν τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί·…KAI HMEN TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI…Continues ἤμεθα or not ἦμεν ? Nikolaos Adamou, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Business Management BMCC / CUNY > To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:25:24 -0400> From: rhutchin at aol.com> Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3> > > Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:> > …KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”> > The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.> > Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> > Roger Hutchinson> > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ > mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ _________________________________________________________________Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Mon Mar 22 20:26:49 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson—–Original Message—–From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.org; rhutchin at aol.comSent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 2:56 pmSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Roger wrote: <Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> Hi,Roger, We have to do with a Hebrew idiom. ben X can mean not the son of X but something characterized by x.Son of Iniquity means a bad guy. So, I think NIV hit this one out of the park. Another exampleof where a literal rendering is more misleading.Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 12:25 PMEphesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 walt seevers lws39 at juno.com
Mon Mar 22 21:04:35 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Mark 3:17êáὶ ἸÜêùâïí ôὸí ôïῦ Æåâåäáßïõ êáὶ ἸùÜííçí ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ Ἰáêþâïõ, êáὶ ἐðÝèçêåí áὐôïῖò ὀíüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, ὅ ἐóôéí õἱïὶ âñïíôῆò·KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHSThese two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to as UIOI BRONTHS. In this context the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.Walt Seevers———- Original Message ———-From: rhutchin at aol.comTo: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson____________________________________________________________Home MortgageClick for free home mortgage rates from top companies. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=viyCmmiuM-hw4ZA2yvlLeAAAJz0IYGV749098zAwOilWZmGwAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQcwAAAAA=
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 21:35:10 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 <Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?> No, it’s not. I’m glad you caught that. I should not havesaid that “children of wrath” is misleading. Bothtranslations are good, is what I meant. If you look up TEKNON and hUIOS and a few otherwords in Kittel, you will find whether “son of X=characterizedby X” is found in Greek writings independent of the Hebrew.I think I did that one time and found that it is, but I don’t rememberfor sure. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3To: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 6:26 PMOK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson—–Original Message—–From: Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.org; rhutchin at aol.comSent: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 2:56 pmSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Roger wrote: <Ephesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?> Hi,Roger, We have to do with a Hebrew idiom. ben X can mean not the son of X but something characterized by x.Son of Iniquity means a bad guy. So, I think NIV hit this one out of the park. Another exampleof where a literal rendering is more misleading.Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/22/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:From: rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com>Subject: [] Ephesians 2:3To: at lists.ibiblio.orgDate: Monday, March 22, 2010, 12:25 PMEphesians 2:3 has, in part:…KAI hHMEQA TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…NIV translates this as “…we were by nature objects of wrath…” while KJV has “…and were by nature the children of wrath…”The two translations convey entirely different concepts to me.Are the NIV translators providing an accurate translation of TEKNA as “object”? If yes, what is the rational for the translation?Roger Hutchinson
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 22 21:53:50 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 The one I always think of is Jn 17.12ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: walt seevers <lws39 at juno.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:35 PMSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Mark 3:17êáὶ ἸÜêùâïí ôὸí ôïῦ Æåâåäáßïõ êáὶ ἸùÜííçí ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ Ἰáêþâïõ, êáὶ ἐðÝèçêåí áὐôïῖò ὀíüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, ὅ ἐóôéí õἱïὶ âñïíôῆò·KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHSThese two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to as UIOI BRONTHS. In this context the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.Walt Seevers———- Original Message ———-From: rhutchin at aol.comTo: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?Roger Hutchinson____________________________________________________________Home MortgageClick for free home mortgage rates from top companies. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=viyCmmiuM-hw4ZA2yvlLeAAAJz0IYGV749098zAwOilWZmGwAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQcwAAAAA=— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/hOTE HMHN MET’ AUTWN EGW ETHROUN AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI SOU hWi DEDWKAS MOI, KAI EFULACA, KAI OUDEIS EC AUTWN APWLETO EI MH hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS, hINA hH GRAFH PLHRWQHi
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Tue Mar 23 05:05:47 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:53 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> The one I always think of is Jn 17.12> ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. > hOTE HMHN MET’ AUTWN EGW ETHROUN AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI SOU hWi DEDWKAS MOI, KAI EFULACA, KAI OUDEIS EC AUTWN APWLETO EI MH hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS, hINA hH GRAFH PLHRWQHiThis is really a translation question, one that perhaps should go over to B-Translation, which I why I cc Wayne Leman: Is a phrase like “Son of Perdition” or “Sons of Thunder” really natural English or doesn’t it always have an exotic alien flavor to it? I think of such phrases from our not-so-distant cultural history like “Mother of all battles” — which mothered a slew of freshly-coined clichés, or “Son of Sam.” The old “son of a gun” is probably altogether different. But somehow these expressions all do seem to me unnatural English.> ________________________________> From: walt seevers <lws39 at juno.com>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:35 PM> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > Mark 3:17> êáὶ ἸÜêùâïí ôὸí ôïῦ Æåâåäáßïõ êáὶ ἸùÜííçí ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ Ἰáêþâïõ, êáὶ ἐðÝèçêåí áὐôïῖò ὀíüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, ὅ ἐóôéí õἱïὶ âñïíôῆò·> KAI IAKWBON TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHS> These two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to as UIOI BRONTHS. In this context the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.> Walt Seevers> > ———- Original Message ———-> From: rhutchin at aol.com> > To: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400> > OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.> > Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…> > But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?> > Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?That, for better or for worse, is a good question: there might indeed be significantly different interpretations of what this phrasing implies in terms of one’s theological and hermeneutical preferences. That, of course, is something we don’t want to get into. But, it strikes me that we do use in English expressions that seem very comparable to TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS, e.g. “a natural-born hell-raiser”, i.e. a person who’s natural inclination seems to be to cause trouble on a major scale. Classical Greek uses GENNAIOS/A/ON that way and the Platonic term GENNAION YEUDOS, often translated “noble life” seems rather to mean “a lie to end all lies” or “a falsehood that could never be called anything but a falsehood.” Perhaps FUSEI in the expression HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS could be conveyed by an English expressin such as “we really were hopeless losers.” I note that Eugene Peterson’s Message conveys the sense of Eph 2:3 along those lines and uses natural English: “We all did it, all of us doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it, all of us in the same boat. It’s a wonder God didn’t lose his temper and do away with the whole lot of us.”We can always translate TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS literally, but Roger Hutchinson’s question is a good one, I think. When we do translate the phrase literally, are we conveying what it really intends?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 Eric Inman eric-inman at comcast.net
Tue Mar 23 08:10:54 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Mark 2:9-10 EUKOPOTERON Does anyone see a connection between this discussion and the one on being born again? “Son of x” seems to refer to someone’s inherent nature from birth from their parents. How is that nature changed or replaced? By being born again (or from above), thus obtaining a new (higher) nature from a new (higher) source. There seems to be a semantic theme here involving several words and idioms.When “mother of all battles” struck our ears in an odd way my guess was that in its original language it was probably no more notable than the use of “mother” in motherboard (of a computer) or mother lode, “mother of x” meaning “chief or main x”. In Indonesian it’s used that way. For example a capital city is referred to as ibukota (mother city).—–Original Message—–From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Carl ConradSent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:06 AMTo: George Somsel; rhutchin at aol.comCc: at lists.ibiblio.orgSubject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3On Mar 22, 2010, at 9:53 PM, George F Somsel wrote:> The one I always think of is Jn 17.12> ὅτε ἤμην μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, καὶ ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. > hOTE HMHN MET’ AUTWN EGW ETHROUN AUTOUS EN TWi ONOMATI SOU hWi DEDWKAS > MOI, KAI EFULACA, KAI OUDEIS EC AUTWN APWLETO EI MH hO hUIOS THS > APWLEIAS, hINA hH GRAFH PLHRWQHiThis is really a translation question, one that perhaps should go over to B-Translation, which I why I cc Wayne Leman: Is a phrase like “Son of Perdition” or “Sons of Thunder” really natural English or doesn’t it always have an exotic alien flavor to it? I think of such phrases from our not-so-distant cultural history like “Mother of all battles” — which mothered a slew of freshly-coined clichés, or “Son of Sam.” The old “son of a gun” is probably altogether different. But somehow these expressions all do seem to me unnatural English.> ________________________________> From: walt seevers <lws39 at juno.com>> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Sent: Mon, March 22, 2010 6:04:35 PM> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > Mark 3:17> êáὶ ἸÜêùâïí ôὸí ôïῦ Æåâåäáßïõ êáὶ ἸùÜííçí ôὸí ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ Ἰáêþâïõ, êáὶ > ἐðÝèçêåí áὐôïῖò ὀíüìáôá ÂïáíçñãÝò, ὅ ἐóôéí õἱïὶ âñïíôῆò· KAI IAKWBON > TON TOU ZEBEDAIOU KAI IWANNHN TON ADELFON TOU IAKWBOU KAI EPEQHKEN AUTOIS ONOMATA BOANHRYES O ESTIN UIOI BRONTHS These two had wanted to call fire down on some people. So they are referred to as UIOI BRONTHS. In this context the construction would indicate a quality that they possessed. This is the only example I can think of offhand. There are a great deal more, I’m sure.> Walt Seevers> > ———- Original Message ———-> From: rhutchin at aol.com> > To: lightmanmark at yahoo.com, at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:26:49 -0400> > OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.> > Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were the objects of His wrath…> > But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in this case?> > Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s exegetical position against another’s?That, for better or for worse, is a good question: there might indeed be significantly different interpretations of what this phrasing implies in terms of one’s theological and hermeneutical preferences. That, of course, is something we don’t want to get into. But, it strikes me that we do use in English expressions that seem very comparable to TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS, e.g. “a natural-born hell-raiser”, i.e. a person who’s natural inclination seems to be to cause trouble on a major scale. Classical Greek uses GENNAIOS/A/ON that way and the Platonic term GENNAION YEUDOS, often translated “noble life” seems rather to mean “a lie to end all lies” or “a falsehood that could never be called anything but a falsehood.” Perhaps FUSEI in the expression HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS could be conveyed by an English expressin such as “we really were hopeless losers.” I note that Eugene Peterson’s Message conveys the sense of Eph 2:3 along those lines and uses natural English: “We all did it, all of us doing what we felt like doing, when we felt like doing it, all of us in the same boat. It’s a wonder God didn’t lose his temper and do away with the whole lot of us.”We can always translate TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS literally, but Roger Hutchinson’s question is a good one, I think. When we do translate the phrase literally, are we conveying what it really intends?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Mark 2:9-10 EUKOPOTERON
[] Ephesians 2:3 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Mar 24 12:41:38 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 —– Original Message —– From: <rhutchin at aol.com>To: <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: 23. marts 2010 03:26Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.> > Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the > objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were > the objects of His wrath…> > But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It > appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the > lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is > that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v > 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person > ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath > (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in > this case?> > Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s > exegetical position against another’s?> > Roger HutchinsonAn analysis of the semantic range of the word ORGH in relation to QUMOS might help. Richard Trench suggests that in secular Greek QUMOS is “more of the turbulent commotion, the boiling agitation of feelings (of anger)” while ORGH is “more of an abiding and settled habit of mind with the purpose of revenge.”Another complementary avenue is to look at how Paul uses the word ORGH. It is common in Romans (12 times), and it always in that book refers to God’s righteous anger and consequent punishment. I would therefore suggest that the wrath mentioned here is also most likely the wrath/punishment from God that is awaiting the “sons of disobedience.” (v. 2).A further avenue is to consider the clear contrast to the mercy of God in the next verse directed to the “sons of obedience”. This suggests that the ORGH here is indeed the wrath of God.A literal rendering is the easy way out in that the translators push the necessary research to the reader, and the majority of readers are unable or unwilling to do that research and therefore in reality will be misled or at least greatly puzzled.Iver Larsen
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Wed Mar 24 12:55:57 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 [] Ephesians 2:3 Iver, I can’t help but tweak you a bit on this one. Seems like another of several tell-tale semitisms in Ephesians.Yancy Smith, PhDyancywsmith at sbcglobal.netY.W.Smith at tcu.eduyancy at wbtc.com5636 Wedgworth RoadFort Worth, TX 76133817-361-7565On Mar 24, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:> —– Original Message —– > From: <rhutchin at aol.com>> To: <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: 23. marts 2010 03:26> Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3> > >> >> OK, I see the basic rationale. Son of iniquity means a bad guy.>> >> Thus, children of wrath can mean the objects of God’s wrath. The lost are the >> objects of God’s wrath. I can see that. So, v 4, But God…even when we were >> the objects of His wrath…>> >> But, would we say that being the object of God’s wrath is, “By nature.” It >> appears to me that FUSEI could just as easily extend the description of the >> lost that we read earlier in this verse perhaps meaning that their nature is >> that of wrath (or hate) as opposed to love (per the nature of God). Then, v >> 4, But God…even when we hated Him… As son of iniquity refers to a person >> ruled by sin, could not children of wrath refer to people ruled by wrath >> (wrath is their nature)? Is a literal rendering necessarily misleading in >> this case?>> >> Can a grammatical analysis sort this out or does it end up being one person’s >> exegetical position against another’s?>> >> Roger Hutchinson> > An analysis of the semantic range of the word ORGH in relation to QUMOS might > help. Richard Trench suggests that in secular Greek QUMOS is “more of the > turbulent commotion, the boiling agitation of feelings (of anger)” while ORGH is > “more of an abiding and settled habit of mind with the purpose of revenge.”> > Another complementary avenue is to look at how Paul uses the word ORGH. It is > common in Romans (12 times), and it always in that book refers to God’s > righteous anger and consequent punishment. I would therefore suggest that the > wrath mentioned here is also most likely the wrath/punishment from God that is > awaiting the “sons of disobedience.” (v. 2).> > A further avenue is to consider the clear contrast to the mercy of God in the > next verse directed to the “sons of obedience”. This suggests that the ORGH here > is indeed the wrath of God.> > A literal rendering is the easy way out in that the translators push the > necessary research to the reader, and the majority of readers are unable or > unwilling to do that research and therefore in reality will be misled or at > least greatly puzzled.> > Iver Larsen > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] Ephesians 2:3[] Ephesians 2:3
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Sun Mar 28 16:33:22 EDT 2010
[] The literary NT style [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS For the following phrases:…TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS……FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS……TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Does the ordering of the words change how one might understand what the writer means to say or how a person might translate the phrase?Roger Hutchinson
[] The literary NT style[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 28 18:04:42 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS — On Sun, 3/28/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:<For the following phrases:…TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS……FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS……TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Does the ordering of the words change how one might understand what the writer means to say or how a person might translate the phrase?>No, Not only is Greek word order flexible enoughto cover all three arrangements with little or no differencein meaning, it is MORE than flexible enough to do this.It’s flexible enough, I mean, to do even MORE than this. Mark LFWSFOROS MARKOS
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS Carl Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Mar 29 14:13:16 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS On Mar 28, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:> > — On Sun, 3/28/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:> > <For the following phrases:> > …TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > …FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS…> > …TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Quibble: the word is ORGHS: there’s no rough breathing on this noun.> Does the ordering of the words change how one> might understand what the writer means to say > or how a person might translate the phrase?>> > No, Not only is Greek word order flexible enough> to cover all three arrangements with little or no difference> in meaning, it is MORE than flexible enough to do this.> It’s flexible enough, I mean, to do even MORE than this.I’m not so sure about this one.Text: Eph. 2:3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί· [EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI·]The earlier discussion on this verse focused altogether upon the phase TEKNA ORGHS. I don’t think anything was said about FUSEI here, and as I think about it, its position in the text between TEKNA and ORGHS seems less than transparent to me. I would have supposed that FUSEI construes with HMEQA or else with the whole clause HMEQA TEKNA ORGHS. The positioning of FUSEI in our text between TEKNA and ORGHS strikes me as strange, as I don’t really see how the dative noun can construe with either the nominative or the genitive noun, as if it were adjectival (“natural children of wrath”). I really think the sense in the larger context must be: “we really were, in our inmost essence, condemned.”Mark may be right, claiming that any of Roger’s suggested word-orders is as good as any other. But I’m not convinced. Does anyone think that FUSEI is intended by the author to be construed with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS rather than with the verb of the clause?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 30 08:16:40 EDT 2010
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS Carl wrote: <Does anyone think that FUSEI is intended by the author to be construed with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS rather than with the verb of the clause?> Hi, Carl, I do. As you suggested in an earlier post “naturally born sinners.””Children by nature” is not redundant because Paul is drawing a contrastwith the way we are born and what we become–adopted children of God throughChrist. (Gal 3:26) Eric wrote: <Does anyone see a connection between this discussion and the one on being born again? “Son of x” seems to refer to someone’s inherent nature from birth from their parents. How is that nature changed or replaced? By being born again (or from above), thus obtaining a new (higher) nature from a new (higher) source. There seems to be a semantic theme here involving several words and idioms.> I think Eric is on to something. These “son” of and FUSEI and GENmetaphors are used to play off the fixed-nature feudalism of Greekculture. In reading Homer, you get the idea that ifyou were born KALOS, you stayed that way. How many Homeric heroes does it take to change a light bulb? None, Homericheroes don’t change, they merely express their fundamental nature. But Paul says Christians can change, and he uses the “son/children of”metaphor often to make this point. John the Baptist had alreadydone so: “God is able to raise children (TEKNA) of Abrahamfrom these stones.” (Mt. 3:9) God can take a GENAIOS stone andmake it into a GENAIOS receiver of the Kingdom.And yes, I think Eric is correct in observing that Jesus useda similar metaphor in John 3. Nicodemus represents the skepticismof feudalism “Can a man really be δευτερον…γεννηθηναι?” (v. 4)(DEUTERON GENNHQHNAI?) Is the γενναιος (GENAIOS,) the nobleby birth, the genuine-by-being-born-that-way, really open to change?A new creation? The Greek NT tradition says NAI. But the question was about word order. Even if you take FUSEI with”we were,” can word order really do this? The FUSEI is still closer toTEKNA, but even if it were not, even if there is a “normal” word orderand even if Paul were to depart from that, can anything be read intothe meaning? That was Roger’s question. I still say no. I think this is an instance where we have to apply the “KlineFormula of Semantic Morpho-Syntax,” which states that Meaningprecedes Form. Whatever this passage means (and I don’t thinkCarl and I disagree, really, about what it means) it is NOTdetermined by form (in this case word order,) not only becauseof the Kline Formula but also because of the Lightman Rule ofLogo-Taxis, which states that, in general, Greek word order hasno semantic, but only stylistic, force. The Lightman Rule of Logo-Taxis may be overstating the case.It is a recent formulation that I came up with after looking carefullyat where ESTIN falls in a clause. The “normal” word order, I thinkwould be at the end. AFRONIMOS MARKOS ESTIN. But I’ve beenre-reading Chariton, the Symposium, and the Gospel of John, andI am telling you right now, the position of ESTIN jumps around andaround with no discernible difference in meaning. Try it out foryourself. Greek has to be one of the languages were word order has theLEAST semantic force, and English has to be one whereword order has the MOST semantic force. Which makes thingsfun.Mark LΦωσφοροςFWSFOROS MARKOS— On Mon, 3/29/10, Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com> wrote:From: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>Subject: Re: [] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHSTo: “Mark Lightman” <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>Cc: at lists.ibiblio.org, rhutchin at aol.comDate: Monday, March 29, 2010, 12:13 PMOn Mar 28, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Mark Lightman wrote:> > — On Sun, 3/28/10, rhutchin at aol.com <rhutchin at aol.com> wrote:> > <For the following phrases:> > …TEKNA FUSEI hORGHS…> > …FUSEI TEKNA hORGHS…> > …TEKNA hORGHS FUSEI…Quibble: the word is ORGHS: there’s no rough breathing on this noun.> Does the ordering of the words change how one> might understand what the writer means to say > or how a person might translate the phrase?>> > No, Not only is Greek word order flexible enough> to cover all three arrangements with little or no difference> in meaning, it is MORE than flexible enough to do this.> It’s flexible enough, I mean, to do even MORE than this.I’m not so sure about this one.Text: Eph. 2:3 ἐν οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἀνεστράφημέν ποτε ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ποιοῦντες τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, καὶ ἤμεθα τέκνα φύσει ὀργῆς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί· [EN hOIS KAI hHMEIS PANTES ANESTRAFHMEN POTE EN TAIS EPIQUMIAIS THS SARKOS hHMWN POIOUNTES TA QELHMATA THS SARKOS KAI TWN DIANOIWN, KAI HMEQA TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS hWS KAI hOI LOIPOI·]The earlier discussion on this verse focused altogether upon the phase TEKNA ORGHS. I don’t think anything was said about FUSEI here, and as I think about it, its position in the text between TEKNA and ORGHS seems less than transparent to me. I would have supposed that FUSEI construes with HMEQA or else with the whole clause HMEQA TEKNA ORGHS. The positioning of FUSEI in our text between TEKNA and ORGHS strikes me as strange, as I don’t really see how the dative noun can construe with either the nominative or the genitive noun, as if it were adjectival (“natural children of wrath”). I really think the sense in the larger context must be: “we really were, in our inmost essence, condemned.”Mark may be right, claiming that any of Roger’s suggested word-orders is as good as any other. But I’m not convinced. Does anyone think that FUSEI is intended by the author to be construed with the noun phrase TEKNA ORGHS rather than with the verb of the clause?Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS[] Ephesians 2:3 – TEKNA FUSEI ORGHS