Eph 2:1

Him

Member
Ephesians 2:1 is translated in the KJV “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins”

In the Greek οντας is in the present tense. And the clause “ τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις” is presented in the dative case.

So should it read “And you being dead to the offenses and to the sins” rather than, “who were dead in trespasses and sins”?

Ephesians 2:1 (Elzevir): 1 και υμας οντας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Ephesians 2:1 is translated in the KJV “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins”

In the Greek οντας is in the present tense. And the clause “ τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις” is presented in the dative case.

So should it read “And you being dead to the offenses and to the sins” rather than, “who were dead in trespasses and sins”?

Ephesians 2:1 (Elzevir): 1 και υμας οντας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν και ταις αμαρτιαις
You are correct to note that οντας is a present form, but it is a participle. Participles only have aspect, not "tense." The action described by the participle needs to be understood relative to its role in the sentence. The writer began an idea in Ephesians 2:1 but didn't finish it immediately. He gave additional information and background before seemingly resuming and completing the thought in 2:5 with "καὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ" (Leaving out the intervening information you get something like "you being dead in your trespasses and sins...and us being dead in [our] trespasses, he made alive with Christ"). The action of the participle is set in the past due to the governance of the verb συνεζωοποίησεν. The participle is telling us the state that the Ephesians and those included in ἡμᾶς ("us") were in at the time they were made alive. The KJV translators brought this out in an acceptable manner. I hope this answers your question. If you need any additional clarification, I'm happy to give it if I can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Him

cjab

Well-known member
So should it read “And you being dead to the offenses and to the sins” rather than, “who were dead in trespasses and sins”?
No. Your translation would have entailed εἰς (prep - to) + accusative case. Here there is only an indirect relation to tresspasses and sins, so the dative is used with no preposition.

The participle + adj translates to "being dead" yet contextualized in the past by what immediately follows: ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε (in which you once walked).

Poor verse division here.

The Dative Case : Winer

In Greek the dative is a more comprehensive case than in
Latin, representing, as it does, the Latin ablative as well as
the Latin dative. In general, however, its connexion with the
sentence is not so close and necessary as that of the accusative
or even of the genitive! its office is merely to complete and'
extend, "by indicating the object (in most cases the 'personal
object) at which an action is aimed, which an action concerns,
but which is not directly affected by the action. Hence we often
find this case in conjunction with the accusative of the object,
as in 2 C. ix. 2, προθυμία ήν καυχώμαι Μακεδόσιν Α. xxii.
25, προετειναν αυτόν τοις ιμάσιν (see Kiihnol),1 xxiv. 5, Jo.
vi. 13. In a loose application the dative is used (of things)
to denote whatever accompanies the action, as motive, power,
circumstance (of time or place), etc.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
No. Your translation would have entailed εἰς (prep - to) + accusative case. Here there is only an indirect relation to tresspasses and sins, so the dative is used with no preposition.

The participle + adj translates to "being dead" yet contextualized in the past by what immediately follows: ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε (in which you once walked).

Poor verse division here.

The Dative Case : Winer

In Greek the dative is a more comprehensive case than in
Latin, representing, as it does, the Latin ablative as well as
the Latin dative. In general, however, its connexion with the
sentence is not so close and necessary as that of the accusative
or even of the genitive! its office is merely to complete and'
extend, "by indicating the object (in most cases the 'personal
object) at which an action is aimed, which an action concerns,
but which is not directly affected by the action. Hence we often
find this case in conjunction with the accusative of the object,
as in 2 C. ix. 2, προθυμία ήν καυχώμαι Μακεδόσιν Α. xxii.
25, προετειναν αυτόν τοις ιμάσιν (see Kiihnol),1 xxiv. 5, Jo.
vi. 13. In a loose application the dative is used (of things)
to denote whatever accompanies the action, as motive, power,
circumstance (of time or place), etc.
A word of warning here, Him. Cjab doesn't know Greek. I don't know why he is pretending he does. There is nothing wrong with the translation you offered other than what I explained. εἰς isn't required. So you know who to believe, here is Romans 6:11 from the NA 28 and the ESV:
Rom. 6:11 οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς [εἶναι] νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Rom. 6:11 (ESV) So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Cjab, if you want to start a thread pretending you know Greek, have at it. But don't mislead people when they ask questions. You don't know what you are talking about.
 

cjab

Well-known member
A word of warning here, Him. Cjab doesn't know Greek. I don't know why he is pretending he does. There is nothing wrong with the translation you offered other than what I explained. εἰς isn't required. So you know who to believe, here is Romans 6:11 from the NA 28 and the ESV:
Rom. 6:11 οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς [εἶναι] νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
Rom. 6:11 (ESV) So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Cjab, if you want to start a thread pretending you know Greek, have at it. But don't mislead people when they ask questions. You don't know what you are talking about.
A word of warning: John Milton likes to think he knows more than everyone else, but he doesn't.

So what JM has construed is that "being dead ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις - in sins" in Eph 2:1 could be grammatically translated in the same way as "ογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκροὺ - consider yourselves to be dead - μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίαις - indeed to sin(ning)" in Rom. 6:11 to give "being dead to sins" in Eph 2:1 also. But this is nonsensical, as it conveys the opposite theological meaning to that intended in Eph 2:1, which is that a person is dead by reason of multiple sins.

There is a lacuna in quite a lot of would-be NT grammarians: they limit grammar dimensionally, and fail to adequately relate it to the underlying theological semantics. It occurs in those far more qualified than JM also.

ἁμαρτία, means forfeiture because missing the mark, emphasizing self-originated (self-empowered) nature, i.e. not originated or empowered by God. It has three primary senses (a) sin as a concept, i.e. sinning, esp. in dative sing. (b) sin as a particular offence, esp. with accusative sing., (c) multiple offences (plural).

As to the colloquialism "being to dead to sins" in English we wouldn't normally use this version of it; but rather "being dead to sinning" or "being dead to sin." For if we did use that version, it could also mean "insensate to sins" i.e. professional atheism that doesn't even recognize the concept of sin, akin to one that has descended into a state like an animal like Nebuchadnezzar who lived as a beast. Paul says that (sane) people know that they do wrong Rom 1:32; so this sense is not likely to arise in the NT.

I didn't consider orginally (a) the full ambit of "dead to sins", nor (b) the whole range of Greek particles. Yet in the "insensate to sins" case, which I did consider, Εις + acc would be an option. There may be others. In the "removed from sins" scenario, ἀπό would be the appropriate particle: cf 1 Pet 2:24 - consider the compound particle-participle ἀπογενόμενοι. However if, as JM points out, if we intended "dead to sinning (as a concept)," we could employ ἁμαρτία in dat. sing. Yet this concept doesn't arise in Eph 2:1.

If we have regard to Winer's definition of the dative, we might substitute the particles in/to inserted by our English translations, which particles are not synonymous and don't appear in the Greek, for the more anodyne "re", as conveying a more technical sense of the Greek. Rom. 6:11 becomes "reckon yourself dead re sinning." Eph 2:1 becomes "being dead re multiple sins." The different senses are being conveyed by the different contexts and numbers of the nouns. This doesn't give a licence to introduce English particles into the translation indiscriminately.

So in no sense can Eph 2:1 be translated as "being dead to (multiple) sins" or even "being dead to sinning" as JM maintains, as the English particle "to" is non-contextual.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
A word of warning: John Milton likes to think he knows more than everyone else, but he doesn't.

So what JM has construed is that "being dead ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις - in sins" in Eph 2:1 could be grammatically translated in the same way as "ογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκροὺ - consider yourselves to be dead - μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίαις - indeed to sin(ning)" in Rom. 6:11 to give "being dead to sins" in Eph 2:1 also. But this is nonsensical, as it conveys the opposite theological meaning to that intended in Eph 2:1, which is that a person is dead by reason of multiple sins.

There is a lacuna in quite a lot of would-be NT grammarians: they limit grammar dimensionally, and fail to adequately relate it to the underlying theological semantics. It occurs in those far more qualified than JM also.

ἁμαρτία, means forfeiture because missing the mark, emphasizing self-originated (self-empowered) nature, i.e. not originated or empowered by God. It has three primary senses (a) sin as a concept, i.e. sinning, esp. in dative sing. (b) sin as a particular offence, esp. with accusative sing., (c) multiple offences (plural).

As to the colloquialism "being to dead to sins" in English we wouldn't normally use this version of it; but rather "being dead to sinning" or "being dead to sin." For if we did use that version, it could also mean "insensate to sins" i.e. professional atheism that doesn't even recognize the concept of sin, akin to one that has descended into a state like an animal like Nebuchadnezzar who lived as a beast. Paul says that (sane) people know that they do wrong Rom 1:32; so this sense is not likely to arise in the NT.

I didn't consider orginally (a) the full ambit of "dead to sins", nor (b) the whole range of Greek particles. Yet in the "insensate to sins" case, which I did consider, Εις + acc would be an option. There may be others. In the "removed from sins" scenario, ἀπό would be the appropriate particle: cf 1 Pet 2:24 - consider the compound particle-participle ἀπογενόμενοι. However if, as JM points out, if we intended "dead to sinning (as a concept)," we could employ ἁμαρτία in dat. sing. Yet this concept doesn't arise in Eph 2:1.

If we have regard to Winer's definition of the dative, we might substitute the particles in/to inserted by our English translations, which particles are not synonymous and don't appear in the Greek, for the more anodyne "re", as conveying a more technical sense of the Greek. Rom. 6:11 becomes "reckon yourself dead re sinning." Eph 2:1 becomes "being dead re multiple sins." The different senses are being conveyed by the different contexts and numbers of the nouns. This doesn't give a licence to introduce English particles into the translation indiscriminately.

So in no sense can Eph 2:1 be translated as "being dead to (multiple) sins" or even "being dead to sinning" as JM maintains, as the English particle "to" is non-contextual.
What part of what I've said is untrue, cjab? You are the one lying to the OP by pretending that you know Greek.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
You are lying through your teeth about everything from post #4 onwards.
I guess you forgot about this thread. Have you achieved mastery in five months?
To know Greek or not to know it, is hardly conclusive of anything, for
"δε αἱ έταῖραι μένα έφρόνουν έφ, αὐταῖς, παιδείας άντεχόμεναι καὶ τοῖς μαθήμασι χρόνον άπομερίζουσαι"
See if you can read and give a comprehensible translation of the following:

σὺ Ἑλληνιστὶ ἀκριβῶς ἀναγνῶναι δύνασαι; ὑμῖν εἴπε...

Don't google it or look anything up unless you use a traditional lexicon. Alternatively, you could respond in Greek.

On a word by word basis, without googling the sentence I get something like
You are able to read the hellenists exactly, he said to you all.

I'm truly not being mean here cjab, but that is really bad. "Are you able to read Greek accurately? Tell us*"
*I have translated this last part as though the original were ἡμῖν εἰπέ, which I suspect is what was intended.
 

Him

Member
What of Colossians 2:13 and the use of the word εν? Why would Paul not use it in Eph. 2:1? Seems like a rather important consideration does it not?

Colossians 2:13 (Elzevir): και υμας νεκρους οντας εν τοις παραπτωμασιν και τη ακροβυστια της σαρκος
 

Him

Member
And what of this anacoluthon where the particle ποτε is supplied for emphasis? Whereas no particle or participle as in Colossians 2:13 is supplied for Ephesians 2:1?
Are there any other examples other than Col1:21-22 and Eph2:1?


Colossians 1:21–22 (Elzevir): 21 και υμας ποτε οντας απηλλοτριωμενους και εχθρους τη διανοια εν τοις εργοις τοις πονηροις νυνι δε αποκατηλλαξεν
22 εν τω σωματι της σαρκος αυτου δια του θανατου παραστησαι υμας αγιους και αμωμους και ανεγκλητους κατενωπιον αυτου
 

John Milton

Well-known member
What of Colossians 2:13 and the use of the word εν? Why would Paul not use it in Eph. 2:1? Seems like a rather important consideration does it not?

Colossians 2:13 (Elzevir): και υμας νεκρους οντας εν τοις παραπτωμασιν και τη ακροβυστια της σαρκος
The dative case alone can be used to clarify remarks. In this instance, it is used to specify the way in which the people were considered dead. Some of the manuscripts containing Col. 2:13 have "ἐν" and some do not, but there is nothing exceptional about the use or disuse of the preposition. Either way is good Greek that conveys the same meaning, but the New Testament does appear to me to make more frequent use of prepositions than earlier Greek.
 

Him

Member
I've got better things to do than be scolded for trying to help you.
I am truly sorry I wasn’t scolding. I just want it to stop. I think it always better to prove the other does not know what they are speaking about rather than say it. It reaches a point where it is obvious really; doesn’t it?
 

cjab

Well-known member
As I already suggested, it's all about context, and what is required to be unambiguous. A primary feature that I noted was whether ἁμαρτία wa S or P - plural denoting real sins and so inferring "in (real) sins" whereas singular denoting the concept of sinning, and treated more abstractly unless a particular sin is in view.

Another aspect of context is the use of νεκροὺς: ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς (we being dead Eph 2:5) is unambiguous re the following τοῖς παραπτώμασιν, versus λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκροὺς (consider yourselves to be dead) in Rom, 6:11 being unambiguous as to being alive.

Where you have the concept of death through sinning (ἁμαρτία - sing.), a particle would be used (Rom 5:12).

I am truly sorry I wasn’t scolding. I just want it to stop. I think it always better to prove the other does not know what they are speaking about rather than say it. It reaches a point where it is obvious really; doesn’t it?
JM really deserved a stiff rebuke. It's quite out of order to come in and accuse someone of lying as your first port of call, and without even faintly attempting to prove it. And moreover, why "lying?" Why not "mistaken?" Even had I been wrong, "lying" would conote an element of deliberate intent which JM also failed to prove and had no ability to do.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The dative case alone can be used to clarify remarks. In this instance, it is used to specify the way in which the people were considered dead. Some of the manuscripts containing Col. 2:13 have "ἐν" and some do not, but there is nothing exceptional about the use or disuse of the preposition. Either way is good Greek that conveys the same meaning, but the New Testament does appear to me to make more frequent use of prepositions than earlier Greek.
You seem to have made that up (bold above). It does seem to make more frequent use of prepositions than Attic.
 

Him

Member
As I already suggested, it's all about context, and what is required to be unambiguous. A primary feature that I noted was whether ἁμαρτία wa S or P - plural denoting real sins and so inferring "in (real) sins" whereas singular denoting the concept of sinning, and treated more abstractly unless a particular sin is in view.

Another aspect of context is the use of νεκροὺς: ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς (we being dead Eph 2:5) is unambiguous re the following τοῖς
the context isn’t what you think
 
Top