[B-Greek] EIDOS in 1 Thessalonians 5:22
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri May 2 01:17:55 EDT 2003
> I was just reading a book that made a big point of abstaining from all
> "appearance of evil" as the KVJ translates 1 Thess. 5:22.
>
> 1 Thess. 5:21-22
> PANTA DE DOKIMAZETE, TO KALON KATECETE, APO PANTOS EIDOUS PONHROU
> APECESQE.
>
> Looking at BDAG I see they have three categories for EIDOS: 1)
> the shape and
> structure of someth. as it appears to someone, 2) a variety of someth., 3)
> the act of looking/seeing.
>
> BDAG lists several passages to support the sense "variety of something,"
> including Josephus, Ant. 10:37, which speaks of PAN EIDOS PONHRIAS.
This must be the latest edition of BAG. My BAGD has 1) form, outward
appearance, 2) kind, 3) active seeing/sight.
The gloss "a variety of something" is inaccurate and misleading, IMO. The
variety aspect seems to come from PAS in PANTOS EIDOUS or from aspects of
the English word "kind" that are not included in EIDOS. If so, it came about
when Danker was redefining the English word "kind" using more words without
distinguishing carefully the various senses of "kind" in English.
>
> My Bibleworks copy of Louw and Nida lists two senses of EIDOS: 1)
> form 58.14 and 2) sight 24.1.
Yes, but their "form" in 58.14 include "appearance". I would translate
"every form of evil" which as you say is a common translation. In the
context of "all, every" I don't see any difference between "every kind of"
and "every form of", but that does not mean that "kind" and "form" in
general are synonymous, and "form" is a better gloss for EIDOS than "kind".
So, what I am saying is that 2) is dubious for the NT, but I think it is
primarily a question of English glosses and English semantics.
>
> My questions: Is the second sense in BDAG legitimate, and if so
> why isn't it included in Louw and Nida?
I would say, no, it is not legitimate, or at least misleading.
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the KJV's translation "appearance of
evil"?
I suppose we are dealing with a change in the English language as so often
happens when you compare the old English of the KJV with modern English. My
Webster's give 9 senses of "appearance" of which only a few would be
appropriate glosses for EIDOS today, but more may have been appropriate 400
years ago. When you say "appearance of evil", my guess is that many people
would think of sense 2b: "semblance", and this sense is not part of EIDOS,
and therefore the KJ rendering does not accurately communicate the Greek
text in modern English.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list