[B-Greek] Form versus Meaning (Was Meaning of EIS in Galatians 6:8

Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Wed Jun 30 07:04:56 EDT 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Lightman" <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
To: <bgreek at global4.freeserve.co.uk>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Form versus Meaning (Was Meaning of EIS in Galatians 
6:8


>is exactly what the verse means, and by "exactly" I mean "approximately." 
>On the other hand, I think what George and Barry and Iver have done is what 
>I like to call "the original sin of B-Greek." They have allowed form to get 
>in the way of meaning. I am well aware that EIS plus the accusative does 
>not normally indicate agency, and maybe it never does, but yes, here 
>meaning can stretch that far. I have been reading Homer a lot and I have 
>noticed something over and over again that I cannot yet figure out how to 
>articulate, but your question reminds me of it. MEANING TRUMPS FORM in 
>Greek. Meaning can absorb, can take over, re-write and cut through form. 
>Once you establish the meaning of a Greek phrase, the form of the Greek 
>phrase no longer matters. Let me say that again. ONCE YOU ESTABLISH THE 
>MEANING OF A GREEK PHRASE, THE FORM OF A GREEK PHRASE NO LONGER MATTERS. I 
>wish I could site examples from Homer but I always forget to write them 
>down when I come across them. I am not saying that Homer uses EIS plus the 
>accusative to indiciate agency--I don't know if he does or does not. I am 
>saying that he COULD, if he wanted to, because meaning is to form what 
>Napoleon was to Belgium. I don't know if Napoleon ever conquered Belgium or 
>not. But he could have, if he wanted to.

Mark, often I find your comments helpful, and nearly always entertaining, 
but this one, not so much.  The problem here is making the Greek mean what 
you want it to mean despite what the writer is actually saying.  I remember 
reading Sophocles with Steven Tracy at OSU.  There was a difficulty in the 
translation of one line that had all of us (graduate students) worked up, 
and we had come to several competing theories as to the proper meaning (and 
translation).  When we got to that point, Tracy simply said "Now, this is an 
obvious typo.  It should read..."  He thereby saved us all from embarrassing 
ourselves.  Now the point is this: we had essentially been trained that if 
there is a problem understanding the text, the problem is with us, and we 
were to work on it until problem solved.  It never occurred to us that the 
problem might be with the text itself, and our Greek wasn't quite good 
enough at that point for us to say, "This just doesn't make sense."  So we 
invented meanings and explanations, none of them correct.  We simply didn't 
know Greek well enough at that point to see what was really wrong.

That's exactly where I see your philosophy above leading.  Grammar and 
syntax (form, if you will) really mean something, and writers don't just 
violate the language on a whim, not if they wish actually to communicate 
something to their contemporaries who share the same linguaculture.  With 
regard to εἰς, EIS, clearly from context the usage is metaphorical, but it 
still means εἰς, EIS, and not διά, DIA.  The student should be encouraged 
not to fabricate a meaning to clarify his difficulty, but to keep pushing 
through until he sees what the writer is actually saying.  To paraphrase, 
the form is chosen by the author to express his meaning...

It would be interesting to see your examples from Homer, if you should 
remember them...

N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
(2010 Savatori Excellence in Education Winner)
Mentor, TNARS
http://www.tnars.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry




More information about the B-Greek mailing list