I Like the NIV at Eph. 5:3, but I can't...

[Deacon]

The word "hint" came as a derivative from the word "named", along the same lines as the NRSV which used "mentioned".

Rob

 

[TCGreek]

The word "hint" came as a derivative from the word "named", along the same lines as the NRSV which used "mentioned".

Rob

1. This is from a previous post of yours: "The phrase, “not a hint” is translated from the compound disjunctive, “me-de” translated, “must not even” or “but not” in many versions."

2. Which is it?

 

[Salamander]

I get your point, but that interpretation cannot be correct. Jesus did things that APPEARED evil all the time. He repeatedly deliberately tweaked the noses of the Pharisees by breaking their man-made rules. He was called a glutton and wine-bibber. If the verse meant "avoid any possibility of appearing evil", Jesus would be guilty of breaking scripture.

Not really, although perspective might have something to do with what appears as evil and what is truly evil.

 

[Deacon]

1. This is from a previous post of yours: "The phrase, “not a hint” is translated from the compound disjunctive, “me-de” translated, “must not even” or “but not” in many versions."

2. Which is it?

The full quote was, “The phrase, “not a hint” is translated from the compound disjunctive, “me-de” translated, “must not even” or “but not” in many versions.
And “onomazo" a verb meaning "let be named" or “give a name to”

Rob

 

[TCGreek]

The full quote was, “The phrase, “not a hint” is translated from the compound disjunctive, “me-de” translated, “must not even” or “but not” in many versions.
And “onomazo" a verb meaning "let be named" or “give a name to”

Rob

You still haven't made things clear.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't think it's just an NIV thing. Keep in mind that the KJV creates the same problem with its translation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. "Abstain from all appearance of evil."...

Correct - its not just an NIV or KJV thing. Its an interpretation thing!

This is a short verse at the end of the chapter (and the close of the book); that is to say, there is little in the way of context surrounding it that would help with its' explanation. The question is not what this brief sentence says (the words are clear enough, despite Greek wrangling), but rather, what does he actually mean?

This the key: Who is to do the evaluation? Isn't the "appearance" (or "form") of evil in the eye of the beholder? There are at least four candidates: the writer himself (Paul), his audience (the Thessalonian congregation then, and us now), outsiders looking on (perhaps not even believers), and the Lord God. Your perspective on who the 'Evaluator' is will determine your interpretation (and your interpretation will influence your choice of translation). Henry's interpretation (his italics, my underline) --

This is a good means to prevent our being deceived with false doctrines, or unsettled in our faith; for our Saviour has told us (Jn. 7:17), If a man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. Corrupt affections indulged in the heart, and evil practices allowed of in the life, will greatly tend to promote fatal errors in the mind; whereas purity of heart, and integrity of life, will dispose men to receive the truth in the love of it. We should therefore abstain from evil, and all appearances of evil, from sin, and that which looks like sin, leads to it, and borders upon it. He who is not shy of the appearances of sin, who shuns not the occasions of sin, and who avoids not the temptations and approaches to sin, will not long abstain from the actual commission of sin.​

 

[TCGreek]

Correct - its not just an NIV or KJV thing. Its an interpretation thing!

This is a short verse at the end of the chapter (and the close of the book); that is to say, there is little in the way of context surrounding it that would help with its' explanation. The question is not what this brief sentence says (the words are clear enough, despite Greek wrangling), but rather, what does he actually mean?

This the key: Who is to do the evaluation? Isn't the "appearance" (or "form") of evil in the eye of the beholder? There are at least four candidates: the writer himself (Paul), his audience (the Thessalonian congregation then, and us now), outsiders looking on (perhaps not even believers), and the Lord God. Your perspective on who the 'Evaluator' is will determine your interpretation (and your interpretation will influence your choice of translation). Henry's interpretation (his italics, my underline) --

This is a good means to prevent our being deceived with false doctrines, or unsettled in our faith; for our Saviour has told us (Jn. 7:17), If a man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God. Corrupt affections indulged in the heart, and evil practices allowed of in the life, will greatly tend to promote fatal errors in the mind; whereas purity of heart, and integrity of life, will dispose men to receive the truth in the love of it. We should therefore abstain from evil, and all appearances of evil, from sin, and that which looks like sin, leads to it, and borders upon it. He who is not shy of the appearances of sin, who shuns not the occasions of sin, and who avoids not the temptations and approaches to sin, will not long abstain from the actual commission of sin.​

Here's my question: What is behind the Greek eidos, "form"?

 

[Deacon]

1. While Paul's choice of the more emphatic μηδε is understood, the NIV's translation is a bit misleading.

2. BDAG understands μηδε as not even at this point.

3. The NIV has not even but also adds a hint. There's a degree of difference between not even and a hint with oνομάζω being involved.

You still haven't made things clear.

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
My thoughts tend to jump a bit faster than my fingers type.
I’ll spell things out a bit here.

The phrase, “not a hint” is derived from two Greek words, 1. “me-de” [μηδε], sometimes translated as “must not even” or “but not” AND 2. “onomazo" [oνομαζεσθω], a verb meaning "let be named" or “give a name to”.

The word, "hint" was derived from the word Greek word “onomazo” ["named"]; the NRSV used the word "mentioned" using a similar approach to the translation of the word.

In biblical times and even to this day, when someone is named, it reveals a part of their character; so to name immorality within an individual or group would reveal the impure character of that person or group.

To me, the phrase “not a hint” means “not the littlest bit” and carries the idea of a word that is spoken.
This last idea is important when translating the phrase because Paul continues to develop this theme in verses 4, (“Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking”) and verse 12, (“For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.”). [NIV]

For this reason, I dislike the NET’s rendition of the verse because it entirely leaves out any mention of a spoken word by ignoring the Greek word “onomazo”.

But among you there must not be either sexual immorality, impurity of any kind, or greed, as these are not fitting for the saints. Ephesians 5:3 NET

Of course in the context of Ephesians, Paul is talking about a Christian’s walk.
“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live [walk] as children of light “ [NIV]
Who is doing the evaluating is not important!
Whether it be the individual, the Christian community, or even outsiders, “fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, … neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, “is not to happen.
It would be out of character for the Christian who is striving to be an “imitator of God” [vs 1].

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Jesus did things that APPEARED evil all the time. He repeatedly deliberately tweaked the noses of the Pharisees by breaking their man-made rules...

Jesus NEVER did anything that appeared evil (to Himself, or His Father). The appearance was the judgement of some outside observers.

He was called a glutton and wine-bibber...

After Jesus was publically called these things, was there then "a hint" attached to His character?