This blog is where you can follow Cap'n Salty and his intrepid crew, aka Dave Spotts and his loyal family, on their journey. We are seeking out the treasure of historic, confessional Christianity in this world of shifting sand.
1Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, Let's remember declensions - 2nd declension at the beginning, then θελήματος 3rd. Case following διὰ. Review the present participle for the being verb for οὖσιν. Remember that will give you the endings found in most active participles.
HCSB translates 1:1 this way:Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will: To the faithful saints in Christ Jesus at Ephesus.Why might the second line be challenged as a good translation? Specifically, "to the faithful saints"
@exegete - I really don't like the way HCSB pulled πιστοῖς out of the syntactical location where Paul put it. It looks much more like he's using some sort of apposition rather than using it as any kind of attributive adjective. It isn't in the attributive position. It is separated from ἁγίοις by three to five words. I'd also challenge the fact that the participle οὖσιν is not dealt with at all. Finally, it's an odd decision to change the idiomatic "in Ephesus" which works fine in English to say "at Ephesus" since there's the preposition.
2χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This is a great verse for review of the first and second person pronouns in the plural.Why is κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in the genitive case? Which of the multiple possible words or concepts earlier in the verse does it modify? Why?
Can you identify the mood of the verbs in verses 3-14? For the time being let's assume that a mood can be not only indicative, imperative, and subjunctive, but include the infinitive, optative, and a participle as moods. While you're at it, check the tenses, remembering that the linear ones are present and imperfect, the point of action one is aorist, and that the future can be linear or punctiliar.
I've been wrestling with the mood of 3-14 for the last 2 days. It makes a difference.For instance, v4 states:εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους κατενώπιον αὐτοῦhere are three different approaches:that we would be holy and blameless before him (ESV)that we should be holy and blameless before him (RSV2CE)to be holy and blameless in his sight (NIV)I must confess that my initial translation of the infinitive εἶναι was identical to the ESV. The subjunctive in the RSV2CE gives me the heebie jeebies. But, I REALLY like how the NIV handles it better than the ESV.Any thoughts?
@Chris, this is a great line of inquiry. Usually we talk about a natural result or an actual result here. The subject of the infinitive is "us," the people "he chose." Using ἵνα with the subjunctive would indicate an intended result (Machen & McCartney 2004, 269-270, see also Smythe ss 1984-2003). The problem is that the actual result would normally have a ὤστε but Paul doesn't do that. I usually don't like the NIV because they make too many interpretive decisions but here it looks like the ESV and RSV2CE have made the interpretation of intention while NIV left it a lot closer to Paul.
Actually, the more I look at Chris' comment, the more I think it does show an actual result, but the result is a result of numerous different elements. In verses 4 and 5 we have the actions of God right at the beginning of the verses. The actual result is in verse 7 where we have forgiveness, and then the implications are spelled out further in verses 8ff.
I agree that there is a result. The question is what is the best way to convey that result?Subjunctive opens the door to Rome's doctrine of justification, and does NOT, in my opinion properly capture the thrust of the infinitive.NIV translates it straight across while the ESV captures the result without yielding the impact of the infinitive.
Post a Comment