# Syntax of Ephesians 1



## Justified (May 8, 2016)

Do you prefer the English rendering of Ephesians 1 of the AV or ESV? I understand that the whole chapter is almost one sentence. I was wondering what motivated the modern shifts in punctuation and syntax. Is there any consensus in modern scholarship concerning this? Or is this still up for debate?


----------



## MW (May 9, 2016)

David Alan Black, It's Still Greek To Me:



> It is possible to build a sentence with an unlimited number of dependent clauses. Only the inability of the hearer or reader to comprehend the meaning of the sentence limits the complexity with which a person may construct a sentence. For example, Ephesians 1:3–14 is one sentence in Greek. *The sentence structure makes perfectly good sense, complex though it may be*. In English translations,
> however, sentences are getting shorter (the NIV uses eight sentences to translate Eph. 1:3–14).



It makes "perfectly good sense" as it stands. So it comes back to translation philosophy. What are you trying to deliver to the reader?


----------



## Justified (May 9, 2016)

Do you think "in love" belongs to the end of verse four or to the beginning of verse five? Or does Paul intentionally place it in the middle of those dependent clauses to give it a double meaning, i.e., we are "holy and without blame before him in love" and "in love having been predestined..."?


----------



## MW (May 9, 2016)

Justified said:


> Do you think "in love" belongs to the end of verse four or to the beginning of verse five? Or does Paul intentionally place it in the middle of those dependent clauses to give it a double meaning, i.e., we are "holy and without blame before him in love" and "in love having been predestined..."?



Given the ethical use of the phrase later in the epistle, 4:2, 16; 5:2; and especially the syntax and function of the clause in 4:2, 16, I favour taking it as ethically qualifying those who are chosen to be holy and without blame before Him.


----------



## Edward (May 9, 2016)

MW said:


> It makes "perfectly good sense" as it stands.



It makes "perfectly good sense" to those of us able to parse complex sentences. At some point, however, given the poor state of basic education in America, leaving the passage in its most complex state risks it not being "translated in to the vulgar language of every nation".


----------



## MW (May 9, 2016)

Edward said:


> [It makes "perfectly good sense" to those of us able to parse complex sentences. At some point, however, given the poor state of basic education in America, leaving the passage in its most complex state risks it not being "translated in to the vulgar language of every nation".



You include yourself in those who can parse complex sentences. In what language do you do this? Is it not the common language? You have stated the deficiency is in the learner of the common language, not the common language itself; so I can only think that by "vulgar" you mean something other than "common." If education is needed, then educate. But there is no point changing the language to accommodate people will not learn it; they will simply apply their disinterest in learning to the "new" language, whatever that is.


----------



## Edward (May 9, 2016)

MW said:


> You include yourself in those who can parse complex sentences. In what language do you do this? Is it not the common language?



That's an interesting question. Is something written using English vocabulary, but which likely cannot be understood by 99% or more of literate users of English in the vulgar tongue (or common language) or not? The US tax code, bankruptcy code and FDI Act would likely meet those criteria. The individual words themselves are simple, but the way in which they are assembled can create something impenetrable. Does vulgar language not suggest something that can be understood by the masses, and not just the educated elite? Should the English Bible be restricted to a narrow elite, or should it be made available to the common man?


----------



## MW (May 10, 2016)

Edward said:


> Is something written using English vocabulary, but which likely cannot be understood by 99% or more of literate users of English in the vulgar tongue (or common language) or not?



The original premise was, "It makes 'perfectly good sense.'" Somehow you have jumped from there to saying it does not make perfectly good sense to 99% or more of literate users of English.


----------



## bookslover (May 10, 2016)

What fascinates me about Ephesians 1.3-14 is that this is the one place where the Bible gives us an explanation of the economic work of the Trinity all in one passage, so to speak.


----------



## Edward (May 10, 2016)

MW said:


> The original premise was, "It makes 'perfectly good sense.'"



YOUR original premise was that it made 'perfectly good sense'. I agreed that it made 'perfectly good sense to a subset of people. You argue that since it makes perfectly good sense to a subset of people, it was in the common language (changing the terminology from that found in the Confessional Standards) and it is the fault of the reader for being uneducated in not being able to understand it, not the fault of the translator for being unable to communicate. At which point I suggest that if something can't be understood by the vast majority of readers, the question should be whether it is, as the Reformers would say, in the vulgar tongue, or as you might say, the common language. Now you are nit-picking as to the percentage that I used. 

At what percentage of understanding would you agree that it is not written in the 'common language'? 

And what do you see as the difference between a bible written in the vulgar tongue and one written in the common language?


----------



## MW (May 10, 2016)

Edward said:


> You argue that since it makes perfectly good sense to a subset of people, it was in the common language (changing the terminology from that found in the Confessional Standards) and it is the fault of the reader for being uneducated in not being able to understand it, not the fault of the translator for being unable to communicate.



I didn't argue anything about a subset of people. You are making this up. English is English. History has made it what it is. The people speaking it may or may not understand it. Therefore teach them. If they can quickly pick up all the lingo associated with a sport they like, they should be able to learn the common language in which the Bible is written. And "vulgar" as used in the confessional standards is referring to that which is "common" or "general." I didn't change the terminology but simply explained it so that it wasn't misused. The Confession does not use that term to mean that the Bible should be translated into a language subset. It means the Bible should be translated into the common or general language of the nation.


----------

