[B-Greek] EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Rom. 1:17

yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Fri Aug 21 09:53:44 EDT 2009


Thanks folks,
	I deeply appreciate the responses. I am intrigued by Iver's response  
about the 2 Cor texts. Do you mean both texts including 2:16 (which  
seems the same to me) or 3:18, which seems similar (but also  
different, with ἀπό instead of έκ). I would like to know how 2  
Cor 2:16 is different from the LXX and Hellenistic phrase, since I got  
a similar (but different) response from different fellow Bible  
translator from SIL! He seemed to indicate that ἐκ θανάτου  
εἰς θάνατον … ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν EK  
QANATOU EIS QANATON ... EK ZWHS EIS ZWHN means "of only death ... of  
only life." But I was wondering if perhaps he wasn't letting an  
already debatable rendering (NIV, NLT) from Rom 1:17 settle the issue  
in 2 Cor 2:16? If this involves the image of progression during a  
VICTORY, the image would be of the apostles eliciting different  
reactions as they proceed through the metaphorical crowd. My other  
Bible translation friend suggested that the image of the VICTORY march  
is dropped in v.16. But I am not so sure about that.

Iver said,
	
> This is actually my most fundamental exegetical principle, which is  
> often overlooked by commentators. I remember a discussion with Don  
> Carson when he came to speak at an SIL seminar in Kenya, and we  
> disagreed on the exegesis of a particular passage precisely because  
> I insisted on this principle and he only accepted it in principle  
> without applying it.
>
> So, I prefer to exegete the phrase in v. 17 primarily from within  
> the context of. v 16-17. V. 17a talks about DIKAIOSUNH EK PISTEWS  
> and 17b also has focus on DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS.

I like your immediate context notion. Definitely we need to attend to  
that. Since you suggest, following Louw and Nida, that "the instances  
in 1:5,8 and 12 in a different semantic category than 17." Would you  
suggest that, given the immediate context notion (which you imply  
somehow changes the meaning of PISTIS faith (?) the change in context  
also changes the meaning of EUAGGELION in 1:16 (cp. 1:1, 9) or is it  
the same gospel as described in 1:1 (cf. 16:25-6)? This is an  
intriguing notion and I want to get my head around it, but perhaps it  
is an off-list topic.

The idea of progression for EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN that Jewett suggests  
seems to involve an increasing value through a variety of instances.  
That seems to be based on the normal meaning of this series of  
prepositions with verbs denoting movement through space.
E.g. ἐπανήρχετο ἐκ Λακεδαίμονος εἰς  
Ἀθήνας·Diogenes Laertius _Vitae philosophorum_ 6.59.8
EPANHRCETO EK LAKEDAIMONOS EIS AQHNAS
They arrived back from Sparta to Athens
OR
ἐκ γῆς εἰς θάλασσαν ἔπτατο Euripides Trag.,  
Fragmenta Fragment 636, line 4
EK GHS EIS QALASSAN EPTATO
She darted from earth to sea

I am searching for similar configurations. I am sure I will turn up  
some more interesting ones like the Suetonius passage. For now,

Γαῖα μεγίστη καὶ Διὸς Αἰθήρ [...]
μήτηρ πάντων νενόμισται.
χωρεῖ δ' ὀπίσω
τὰ μὲν ἐκ γαίας φύντ' εἰς γαῖαν,
τὰ δ' ἀπ' αἰθερίου βλαστόντα γονῆς
εἰς οὐράνιον πάλιν ἦλθε πόλον·
Euripides Trag., Fragmenta Fragment 839, line 9

GAIA MEGISTH KAI DIOS AIQHR ...
MHTHR PANTWN NENOMISTAI.
CWREI D' OPISW
TA MEN EK GAIAS FUNT' EIS GAIAN,
TA D'AP AIQERIOU BLASTONTA GONHS
EIS OURANANION PALIN HLQE POLON

The great Gaia and Zeus Ethereal ...
she is the coinsidered mother of all
but later moves things that spring up from earth into earth
but the things springing from ether come once again
to the heavenly gate.

I take that to mean "from earth to earth" progressing through a  
different state (of life?). So far I haven't found an occurrence that  
means "x and only x." In commentaries I see a lot of speculation based  
on this or that theologian (e.g. Moo's Romans) but little grammatical  
analysis that turns up evidence for this or that reason. We proceed  
"from speculation to speculation." I would be nice to break the cycle  
so that it is not speculation and only speculation. Thankfully "sola  
fide" doesn't rest on this text alone, or it would be a house of  
cards, no?

Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565






On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yancy Smith" <yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net 
> >
> To: "'B-Greek B-Greek'" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: 20. august 2009 22:43
> Subject: [B-Greek] EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN Rom. 1:17
>
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>>      Any opinions on this idiomatic phrase? I checked earlier B- 
>> Greek discussions, but didn’t see any thing on similar phrases  
>> outside the NT. That may be because I didn’t know how to search. I  
>> am working through Romans for a translation project and got hung up  
>> on EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN, of course. Like a fly to sticky paper.
>>
>> I noticed that commentaries often neglect similar LXX and  
>> Hellenistic idioms. The delightful exception is Robert Jewett’s  
>> _Romans_ in Hermeneia. He notes that “the parallels to this  
>> sequence of prepositions make clear that a progression,  
>> transformation, or movement is intended … and the classical  
>> parallels contain the same progressive element.” He lists as  
>> parallels,
>>
>>
>>
>> Psalm 83:8           ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν
>>
>> EK DUNAMEWS EIS DUNAMIN.
>>
>> Jeremiah 9:2       ἐκ κακῶν εἰς κακά
>>
>>                          EK KAKWN EIS KAKA
>>
>> 2 Cor 2:16           ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον  
>> … ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν
>>
>> EK QANATOU EIS QANTATON
>>
>> 2 Cor 3:18           ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν
>>
>>                          APO DOXHS EIS DOXAN (similar)
>>
>>
>>
>> Jewett offers Suetonius _Galba_ 14.1 as a non-Biblical,  
>> Hellenistic parallel: “in abandoning one imperial choice after the  
>> next after the death of Nero, ‘some demon’ drove the soldiers  
>> “from treachery to treachery (ἐκ προδοσίας εἰς  
>> προδοσίαν) EK PRODOSIAS EIS PRODOSIAN.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Jewett’s interpretation is interesting and innovative, “In view  
>> of Paul’s use of “faith” in 1:5, 8, 12, and 16  
>> as appropriation of the gospel …, it is most likely that the  
>> progression in this verse refers to missionary expansion of the  
>> gospel, which relies on the contagion of faith.” Read this way it  
>> seems to concord well with “to the Jew first and also to the  
>> Greek” theme in 1:16 as well as the Habakkuk quote in 17b.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this is not too much in the area of exegesis to qualify for  
>> the list!
>> Yancy Smith
>
> I think that the example from 2 Cor is different, but the others do  
> seem to indicate a progression from one type or example of X to  
> another type or example of X.
> However, I do not agree with Jewett. L&N also place the instances in  
> 1:5,8 and 12 in a different semantic category than 17.
>
> Generally speaking, I believe that the immediate context takes  
> priority over the more distant context. This is actually my most  
> fundamental exegetical principle, which is often overlooked by  
> commentators. I remember a discussion with Don Carson when he came  
> to speak at an SIL seminar in Kenya, and we disagreed on the  
> exegesis of a particular passage precisely because I insisted on  
> this principle and he only accepted it in principle without applying  
> it.
>
> So, I prefer to exegete the phrase in v. 17 primarily from within  
> the context of. v 16-17. V. 17a talks about DIKAIOSUNH EK PISTEWS  
> and 17b also has focus on DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS. A DIKAIOS person is  
> someone who does the will of God and/or is accepted by God as being  
> in the right relationship with God. The source of being or the means  
> of becoming "in the right" is faith in the sense of trust in Jesus  
> Christ. To me, that is the core element of the Gospel (v. 16), that  
> we are made right with God on the basis of trust in Christ. That is  
> why I consider the phrase to refer to the progression from the  
> initial saving faith to the continuing "living by faith", and that  
> is in part caused by the word "live" in the ambiguous quote. Coming  
> to faith is the beginning of a life in faith. It seems to be similar  
> to the APO DOXHS EIS DOXAN, from one degree or experience of glory  
> to the next.
>
> I am wondering whether Paul by the phrase from faith to faith is  
> presenting his exegesis of the ambiguous quote. If we take EK  
> PISTEWS with hO DIKAIOS, the meaning is that faith/trust (in Christ)  
> is the basis for being reckoned a righteous person, i.e. the  
> initial, saving faith. If we take EK PISTEWS with ZHSETAI, then the  
> meaning is the continuing life as a Christian which is based on a  
> continuing faith. Did Paul intend both aspects by quoting in this  
> way from Habakkuk? I don't know.
>
> Iver




More information about the B-Greek mailing list