re: Romans 1:17

From: Kenneth Litwak (
Date: Wed Feb 07 1996 - 20:23:49 EST

Erik van Halsema wrote:
> Re: Romans 1: 17
> as regards the "difficult phrase EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN" I think one has to
> compare 2 Cor. 2:16: HOIS DE OSMH EK ZWHS EIS ZWHN
> I have not been able to check whether this use of EK - EIS can be found in
> the LXX too.
> I think one has to take into account the stylistic character of this phrase
> EK - EIS, i.e. perhaps we should be careful in inferring theological
> conclusions from this phrase.
I think this raises a very important point, not just about this text but
many NT texts. It seems as though we must do exegesis BEFORE we can translate
when it comes to many prepositions, which I am very uncomfortable with, since
I assume that Paul's original hearers/readers just "heard" EK and EIS and knew
what they most probably meant. How can we go about deriving a translation
without having to do exegesis firsxt? To use a very different passage,
1 Cor 11:10, the understanding of EPI THS KEFALHS depends exegesis. You have to
decide what Paul is saying before you can translate (or in case of virtually all
modern translation, maul) this phrase. If anyone has suggestions for how to
get around this type of problem, I'd like to hear them.

Ken Litwak
Bezerkley, CA

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:37 EDT