RE: Questions on EIS

From: Dave Haggard (dave.haggard@mci.com)
Date: Fri Jul 26 1996 - 10:31:49 EDT


The traditional translation, "against," is traditional only for fact that it has stood for so long. Somebody, way back when, decided for unknown reasons that EIS in the passage in question should be translated "against." The reasons for this could be many. Yet it could be as simple as the translator couldn't make grammatical sense of it in his own brain otherwise.
It occurs to me that "traditional" translations become traditional simply by no one's challenging them. Maybe the traditional is wrong. It occurs to me, too, that the editors of BAGD may have followed the traditional for lack of anyone's standing for another view.
Certainly EIS translated "against" rather than "to, unto, into" is the exception rather than the rule, and it may be that the rule, rather than the exception, needs to stand here. Theologically, speaking unto (into) the Son of Man certainly fits. Confessing Jesus Christ as Lord is the basis of salvation.
On the other hand, the witness of many of the converted (maybe some of us?) attests to the fact that many who have spoken against the Son of Man ultimately came to accept Him, and thus were saved.
One thing that must be addressed in translating EREI LOGON EIS TON UION
TOU ANTHROPOU, is the second half of the verse. Just what does it mean to "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit?" How does one do that? What was Christ saying (in whatever Gospel account) when He uttered those words? Figure that one out, and I'll bet that EIS TON UION becomes clear.
New thread, anyone?

----------
From: Leo Percer[SMTP:PERCERL@baylor.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 1996 2:38 AM
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Subject: Questions on EIS

My thanks to David Moore and Carlton Winbery for pointing me to the proper
lexical versions of EIS as "against." I admit that in my cursory glance
at BAGD I missed the section David pointed out. After looking a second
time, I have one further question. Does EIS obtain the hostile sense
primarily from the verb used with it? In other words, is it the hostile
nature of the verb "blaspheme" that causes the EIS to carry the meaning
of against, or is there some other explanation? If it is the verb that
determines the friendly or hostile sense of EIS, then how does that
effect the reading of our current passage of discussion, Luke 12:10?
It certainly seems to me that "speaking a word" (EREI LOGON) is not
necessarily hostile and may require a friendly interpretation (i.e.,
"speaking a word for the son of man"), which I think is how the original
poster on this thread read the passage. Any suggestions?

Regards,

Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
Waco, TX



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT