Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » November 6th, 2012, 6:24 am

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:OK. Consulting BDAG ἀγαπάω 2, it seems that this verb with the cognate accusative ἀγάπαν is an idiom that means "to show love." (Another example is John 17:26). In our case, the phrase διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς has two accusatives for ἠγάπησεν, so something idiomatic is going on. For a sense like "show," the situation here is more activity-like than state-like and so it fits with an aorist.

You mean "the cognate accusative αγαπην" right?


Yes. I went ahead and fixed the typo in my post.

David Lim wrote:But I still don't see what the problem with the aorist is. The aorist "ηγαπησεν" is used many times where it doesn't seem to mean "show love" in the sense of "do something to demonstrate one's love". (Mark 10:21, John 13:1) In fact, John 17:26 seems to convey exactly what I was trying to say, that "the love which God loved us with" is simply "the love which God had for us", which Jesus wants to "be in us also", not referring directly to any action of showing love but just the attitude of having the kind of love that God had for us.


An aorist with a state usually means either that the state is temporary and complete or that it signals entrance into the state (e.g., ingressive). I don't think either understanding works in Eph 2:4, and the immediate answer from you and Jason is that the verb refers to an activity instead of a state (if I understood you right).

In my dialect of English, "to love a love" isn't really English, certainly not idiomatic English. It has to be interpretated rather than calqued. If you're proposing "to have love for" rather than "to show love for" then you should explain why BDAG got it wrong. Also, in terms of Aktionart, your proposal is a state rather than an activity.

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:Additionally, what exactly is the καὶ connecting here? Is it connecting ὤν to ὄντας??


Couldn't it be adverbial, "even when we were dead ...."?


Hmm does that "και" really have such import? Or could it be just conjunctive as I read it?


"Even" is a decent rendering for an ascensive καί, so it's a question of context. If the καί is conjuctive to connect ὤν to ὄντας, then how does the διά-clause fit into the structure of the sentence?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby David Lim » November 6th, 2012, 10:52 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:In my dialect of English, "to love a love" isn't really English, certainly not idiomatic English. It has to be interpretated rather than calqued. If you're proposing "to have love for" rather than "to show love for" then you should explain why BDAG got it wrong. Also, in terms of Aktionart, your proposal is a state rather than an activity.

I consider the repeated cognate to be simply a "redundancy" that emphasizes the meaning rather than having a specialized idiomatic meaning. However as you said, the English word "love" cannot take "love" as an object, which is why I rendered the phrase as "loved us with much love". I don't know whether an attitude really fits under a "state" or "activity". One can continue or stop loving someone he loved. And I think "αγαπαν" denotes primarily an attitude rather than an action. If BDAG really meant that the verb with the noun cognate must denote outward action, then I do think it was wrong. (See 2 Sam 13:15.)

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Hmm does that "και" really have such import? Or could it be just conjunctive as I read it?


"Even" is a decent rendering for an ascensive καί, so it's a question of context. If the καί is conjuctive to connect ὤν to ὄντας, then how does the διά-clause fit into the structure of the sentence?


Yes I agree that "even" would be good if "και" was not conjunctive. However, I took "δια ..." to be somewhat of an insert, modifying the first adverbial "πλουσιος ων εν ελεει", which is the reason I considered the main focus of the sentence to be the two circumstances of "God being rich in mercy" and "we being dead in [our] transgressions" in conjunction. And the reason God showed mercy towards us is that "he loved us much"; the love which God loved us with is not the mercy that he showed to us, but his mercy was because of his love.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » November 7th, 2012, 4:40 am

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:In my dialect of English, "to love a love" isn't really English, certainly not idiomatic English. It has to be interpretated rather than calqued. If you're proposing "to have love for" rather than "to show love for" then you should explain why BDAG got it wrong. Also, in terms of Aktionart, your proposal is a state rather than an activity.

I consider the repeated cognate to be simply a "redundancy" that emphasizes the meaning rather than having a specialized idiomatic meaning. However as you said, the English word "love" cannot take "love" as an object, which is why I rendered the phrase as "loved us with much love". I don't know whether an attitude really fits under a "state" or "activity". One can continue or stop loving someone he loved. And I think "αγαπαν" denotes primarily an attitude rather than an action. If BDAG really meant that the verb with the noun cognate must denote outward action, then I do think it was wrong. (See 2 Sam 13:15.)


Well, I don't think the cognate accusative is a pure redundancy in Eph 2:4 because the accusative is a relative pronoun and its antecedent has a function within in the clause beyond merely intensifying the meaning of the verb.

I would classify having an attitude as a state. As for BDAG, I can't recall the word "must" in any of its definitions, and in fact that's not the way lexicons work, so your comment strikes me as a knocking down a strawman instead of BDAG. In fact, BDAG even cites 2 Km 13:15 as a passage for its "show love" sense with the cognate accusative. Maybe BDAG is wrong, but I find argument more persuasive than assertion.

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Hmm does that "και" really have such import? Or could it be just conjunctive as I read it?


"Even" is a decent rendering for an ascensive καί, so it's a question of context. If the καί is conjuctive to connect ὤν to ὄντας, then how does the διά-clause fit into the structure of the sentence?


Yes I agree that "even" would be good if "και" was not conjunctive. However, I took "δια ..." to be somewhat of an insert, modifying the first adverbial "πλουσιος ων εν ελεει", which is the reason I considered the main focus of the sentence to be the two circumstances of "God being rich in mercy" and "we being dead in [our] transgressions" in conjunction. And the reason God showed mercy towards us is that "he loved us much"; the love which God loved us with is not the mercy that he showed to us, but his mercy was because of his love.


If the διά-phrase were to modify the participial phrase πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει, then it would mean that God was rich in mercy because of his love etc. That participle phrase does not mean "God showed mercy." Rather the διά-phrase modifies the main verb συνεζωοποίησεν, giving the reason why God made us alive. At any rate, relegating the διά-phrase to be "somewhat of an insert" appears to be an unnecessary saving hypothesis that runs afoul of Occam's razor.

Also, the properly accented Greek was already quoted in the thread. Why did you strip out the accents?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby David Lim » November 7th, 2012, 8:20 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I consider the repeated cognate to be simply a "redundancy" that emphasizes the meaning rather than having a specialized idiomatic meaning. However as you said, the English word "love" cannot take "love" as an object, which is why I rendered the phrase as "loved us with much love". I don't know whether an attitude really fits under a "state" or "activity". One can continue or stop loving someone he loved. And I think "αγαπαν" denotes primarily an attitude rather than an action. If BDAG really meant that the verb with the noun cognate must denote outward action, then I do think it was wrong. (See 2 Sam 13:15.)


Well, I don't think the cognate accusative is a pure redundancy in Eph 2:4 because the accusative is a relative pronoun and its antecedent has a function within in the clause beyond merely intensifying the meaning of the verb.

I would classify having an attitude as a state. As for BDAG, I can't recall the word "must" in any of its definitions, and in fact that's not the way lexicons work, so your comment strikes me as a knocking down a strawman instead of BDAG. In fact, BDAG even cites 2 Km 13:15 as a passage for its "show love" sense with the cognate accusative. Maybe BDAG is wrong, but I find argument more persuasive than assertion.

Firstly it is you who misunderstood my statement, because I wasn't creating anything you call a straw-man. I was in fact suggesting that you were taking BDAG too literally if it says "show love" as a sense, even as you have now confirmed it by telling me that it cites 2 Sam 13:15. As I said already, I doubt "αγαπαν" with "αγαπην" necessitates outward action, whether or not BDAG uses the English phrase "show love". If as you implied BDAG does not mean that it must mean "show love outwardly", then you also should not quote BDAG to support taking "ηγαπησεν" in Eph 2:4 that way. The fact that you quoted BDAG implied to me that you thought BDAG was taking it that way. I do think 2 Sam 13:15 is sufficient evidence for what I say, since it can't be trying to convey that Amnon showed both love and hatred outwardly, rather it seems obvious that it is simply being emphatic about his contradictory feelings. I won't try explaining further because I honestly can't. (And you should know by now that I don't set up silly arguments for the sake of arguing. I am here to learn and discuss like you.)

And the fact that the accusative cognate is in a relative clause is simply because the sentence is referring to God's love, and adds the recipients of that love, so naturally it results in using a relative pronoun. The same thing happens so often with so many other verbs like in "by the judgement you judge you will be judged" and "the testimony that God testified about his son" and "Abraham’s life which he lived" and "Yahweh spoke all these words, saying," and "teaching teachings" that I don't see why it can't be considered as a "redundancy". I never said it could be removed from the sentence as it is just like that, but I meant that there was nothing special or idiomatic about it.

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Yes I agree that "even" would be good if "και" was not conjunctive. However, I took "δια ..." to be somewhat of an insert, modifying the first adverbial "πλουσιος ων εν ελεει", which is the reason I considered the main focus of the sentence to be the two circumstances of "God being rich in mercy" and "we being dead in [our] transgressions" in conjunction. And the reason God showed mercy towards us is that "he loved us much"; the love which God loved us with is not the mercy that he showed to us, but his mercy was because of his love.


If the διά-phrase were to modify the participial phrase πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει, then it would mean that God was rich in mercy because of his love etc. That participle phrase does not mean "God showed mercy." Rather the διά-phrase modifies the main verb συνεζωοποίησεν, giving the reason why God made us alive. At any rate, relegating the διά-phrase to be "somewhat of an insert" appears to be an unnecessary saving hypothesis that runs afoul of Occam's razor.

I know that the participle doesn't literally mean that God showed mercy. I am rephrasing the whole sentence to show what I think it means. I don't think Occam's razor can be meaningfully and consistently applied anywhere in such issues. I simply take it the way it reads itself to me. There is no point for the writer to say that God is rich in mercy if he didn't want to imply that God showed mercy, and likewise it seems obvious to me that "ὁ θεὸς πλούσιος ὢν ἐν ἐλέει" and "ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπώμασιν" are phrased that way to indicate a contrasting relation, so "και" is natural.

Stephen Carlson wrote:Also, the properly accented Greek was already quoted in the thread. Why did you strip out the accents?

I almost always type short phrases, and not using a polytonic Greek keyboard, rather than copy, so I didn't strip out any accents.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » November 7th, 2012, 10:00 am

David Lim wrote:Firstly it is you who misunderstood my statement, because I wasn't creating anything you call a straw-man. I was in fact suggesting that you were taking BDAG too literally if it says "show love" as a sense, even as you have now confirmed it by telling me that it cites 2 Sam 13:15.


I have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, I'm not even sure you consulted the entry in BDAG. Did you? Because it sure sounds like you didn't, despite your confidence that I must have misunderstood it.

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Also, the properly accented Greek was already quoted in the thread. Why did you strip out the accents?

I almost always type short phrases, and not using a polytonic Greek keyboard, rather than copy, so I didn't strip out any accents.


Well, the end result is the same. :-(
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby Jason Hare » November 7th, 2012, 11:27 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:Additionally, what exactly is the καὶ connecting here? Is it connecting ὤν to ὄντας??


Couldn't it be adverbial, "even when we were dead ...."?


Oh, yes, of course. I read it adverbially, but the question has more to do with why it connects the nominative to the accusative. Why is it that we have ὄντας instead of ὄντες. I understand that it's functioning in the accusative because of the verb συνεζωοποίησεν, but the καί still seems odd functioning this way... unless it's just somewhat "continuative" without necessarily joining specific parts of the sentence. Does it not seem odd to you when just read straight through? Would you read the accusative perhaps as an accusative absolute?
Jason A. Hare
Rehovot, Israel
Jason Hare
 
Posts: 379
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Rehovot, Israel

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby Stephen Carlson » November 7th, 2012, 1:03 pm

Jason Hare wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:Additionally, what exactly is the καὶ connecting here? Is it connecting ὤν to ὄντας??


Couldn't it be adverbial, "even when we were dead ...."?


Oh, yes, of course. I read it adverbially, but the question has more to do with why it connects the nominative to the accusative. Why is it that we have ὄντας instead of ὄντες. I understand that it's functioning in the accusative because of the verb συνεζωοποίησεν, but the καί still seems odd functioning this way... unless it's just somewhat "continuative" without necessarily joining specific parts of the sentence. Does it not seem odd to you when just read straight through? Would you read the accusative perhaps as an accusative absolute?


An adverbial καί performs the discourse function of "thematic addition," as Steve Runge calls it. It can be used when there is not syntactic parallelism, as is the case here. I'll grant that when the καί is first encountered at the beginning of v.5, it is potentially ambiguous between its conjunctive and adverbial senses (both performing the function of addition), but the lack of even an implied paralleled structure favors the adverbial sense over the conjunctive. So, yes, the need to disambiguate it, in favor of its less common sense, does make the reading a bit odd, sure.

I wouldn't read the accusative participial clause as an accusative absolute (that term is best reserved for certain constructions with impersonal verbs). It is a circumstantial participle, perhaps temporal or even concessive in agreement with the direct object ἡμᾶς. What makes it more interesting than the typical case is the raising of ἡμᾶς from the main clause to the participial clause, a sort of prolepsis if you will.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke, New Testament)
Stephen Carlson
 
Posts: 1877
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby David Lim » November 7th, 2012, 8:24 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Firstly it is you who misunderstood my statement, because I wasn't creating anything you call a straw-man. I was in fact suggesting that you were taking BDAG too literally if it says "show love" as a sense, even as you have now confirmed it by telling me that it cites 2 Sam 13:15.


I have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, I'm not even sure you consulted the entry in BDAG. Did you? Because it sure sounds like you didn't, despite your confidence that I must have misunderstood it.

Of course I didn't because I don't have it. But since you don't get what I was saying with regard to BDAG, why don't you just explain why you think 1 Sam 13:15 indicates that "τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἠγάπησεν αὐτήν" means "the love which [he] showed outwardly to her", and how the parallel "τὸ μῖσος ὃ ἐμίσησεν αὐτήν" can mean "the hate which he showed outwardly to her", as I already explained why it is obvious to me that they don't.

Furthermore, did you think that the other examples of repeated cognates that I brought up are all idiomatic also? If not, what makes "αγαπαν" so special? Notice that some of them are indeed used with relative clauses, with essentially no change in meaning but simply a little redundancy.
δαυιδ λιμ
David Lim
 
Posts: 885
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby MAubrey » November 7th, 2012, 10:16 pm

David Lim wrote:Of course I didn't because I don't have it. But since you don't get what I was saying with regard to BDAG, why don't you just explain why you think 1 Sam 13:15 indicates that "τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἠγάπησεν αὐτήν" means "the love which [he] showed outwardly to her", and how the parallel "τὸ μῖσος ὃ ἐμίσησεν αὐτήν" can mean "the hate which he showed outwardly to her", as I already explained why it is obvious to me that they don't.

I'm trying to understand why you would suggest that Stephen didn't understand BDAG, when you don't have access to it...kind of odd...

1 Sam 13:15 is no evidence at all of what you claim. Your claim isn't falsifiable. And, in fact, it is irrelevant because as far as I can see in this thread nobody said the construction means "show love outwardly." That was your own creation.

What people have said, is that perhaps the phrase in question τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣν ἠγάπησεν X is not stative. And they're right. It's not stative in Eph 2:4. It's not stative in 1 Sam 13:15.
David Lim wrote:Furthermore, did you think that the other examples of repeated cognates that I brought up are all idiomatic also? If not, what makes "αγαπαν" so special? Notice that some of them are indeed used with relative clauses, with essentially no change in meaning but simply a little redundancy.

You seem to have developed this strange idea that if you cannot translate the meaning, then it must not exist...

Beyond that, τὴν ἀγάπην isn't "special." Even the most cursory examination of grammars, Classical or Koine, demonstrate that τὴν ἀγάπην isn't special.

Stephen:
Cross-linguistically, this sort of phenomenon with objects actually makes perfect senses, where the addition of an object affects the actionality of the proposition. In English we have a similar situation that limits itself to verbs that are either actionally ambiguous or default to activity predicate interpretations. In such cases, the addition of an article (definite or indefinite) introduces a change of state and thus make the predicate telic, rather than atelic. I apologize for the formalism...but its not overly complex and its not theory specific either. And well, you're all smart people.

Consider:
(do' = activity; INGR = Ingressive = achievement)

1. a. John ate pizza. Activity
b. John ate the pizza. Active achievement
Activity: do' (John, [eat' (John, pizza)])
Active achievement: do' (John) & INGR consume' (pizza)

2. a. Mary reads poetry. Activity
b. Mary read a book of poetry. Active achievement
Activity: do' (Mary, [read' (Mary, poetry)])
Active achievement: do' (Mary) & INGR read' (poetry)

3. a.Mary writes poetry. Activity
b. Mary wrote a poem. Active achievement
Activity: do' (Mary, [write' (Mary, poetry)])
Active achievement: do' (Mary) & INGR write' (poetry)

Even you can read the formalism, the point is that all of the "a" examples are activities that are atelic and all of the "b" examples are active achievements and involve a change of state. And all of this involves nothing more than a change in the definiteness and referentiality of the object NP.

To the extent that the examples you've been discussing involve the addition of a definite object rather than an indefinite and non-referential entity, I would suggest that the addition of the definite NP object does roughly the same thing. It necessitates a change of state interpretation and thus Eph 2:4 must mean something like: the love which he showed/express/demonstrated to us. If the cognate accusative was indefinite and clearly non-referential (like pizza, poetry, and poem in the "a." examples above), then emphasis would be a perfectly adequate explanation. The addition of the definite article precludes such a limited interpretation.
Mike Aubrey
Canada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School
MAubrey
 
Posts: 634
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Location: British Columbia

Re: Eph 2:4 ἠγάπησεν

Postby Shirley Rollinson » November 7th, 2012, 11:05 pm

David Lim wrote:I almost always type short phrases, and not using a polytonic Greek keyboard, rather than copy, so I didn't strip out any accents.

I've found out how to type polytonic Greek without a polytonic Greek keyboard, just by using a polytonic Unicode font with MSWord and the "insert character" shortcut keys.. Using "insert character" one can assign short-cuts for all the common Greek characters - I use "Alt + corresponding key", then save the shortcuts. It works better than any of the virtual keyboards I've tried, and my Beginning Greek students are now typing polytonic Greek with very few problems after just a couple of months, starting from scratch with the language.
To use it with BGreek messages, I type the Greek in a seperate Word .doc, and just copy and paste it into the BGreek message box.
There are a couple of doc and pdf files at http://www.drshirley.org/gr201/word-proc.html
which explain the process - and there are also some links for polytonic Unicode fonts.
I must confess, though, that I don't usually bother with the accents, unless it's to differentiate between liquid verb present and future, etc. - After all, the accents are a later development.
Hope this helps.
Shirley Rollinson
Shirley Rollinson
 
Posts: 144
Joined: June 4th, 2011, 6:19 pm
Location: New Mexico

PreviousNext

Return to New Testament

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests