[B-Greek] 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
Bryant J. Williams III
bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Sat Sep 27 01:36:27 EDT 2008
Dear Nicholas,
It is always a problem when dealing with EN. It is a preposition that overtaking
the use of EIS. Be that as it may, it is being used as the "means or agency" of
DIKAIOSUNH.
DIKAIOSUNH + cognates translate the Hebrew TSADDIQ + cognates in the LXX.
Furthermore, with regards to the passage. DIKAIOSUNH can be used of ethical and
forensic righteousness/justification. Both are always present, BUT the context
will usually determine which aspect is being emphasized. Here I think, though,
that you have forgotten what the rest of the verse says (I'll quote entire
verse),
SUMEWN PETROS DOULOS KAI APOSTOLOS INSOU XRISTOU TOIS ISOTIMON hHMIN
LAXOUSIN PISTIN EN DIKAIOSUNHi TOU QEOU hHMWN SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU.
The phrase, TOU QEOU hHMWN SWTHROS INSOU XRISTOU, qualifies the EN DIKAIOSUNHi.
Instead of the forensic/ethical righteousness, it is referring to the DIKAIOSUNH
of "our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (I will not go against list guidelines on
the theological ramifications of this clause). This entire clause of the
"righteousness of God" is used, as you know, in Romans. I think that it is
referring to that which is inherent in God = Jesus Christ. The KJV and NIV,
translate it as "through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
This righteousness is necessary for our own justification both in its forensic
and ethical aspects. It is impossible to have otherwise.
En Xristwi,
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Lamme" <nlamme at midamerica.edu>
To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:27 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] 2 Peter 1:1 EN as "by" or "in"
> Hello,
>
> I have a question about TOIS ISOTIMOV HiMIN LAXOUSIN PISTIV EN
DIKAIOSUNH... All translations that I have checked translate the preposition EN
as "by" (I live in Costa Rica--the Spanish translates it por, which could be by
or through...it is ambiguous in Spanish taken all by itself). Of all the
instances in the NT (of which I am aware--I find six), the only place where "by"
is a very viable translation of EN is Acts 17:31 and even there it doesn't read
as well as "in". Hence, my question why 2 Peter 1.1 translates it "by".
> Additionally, I would like to note that PISTIV and EN DIKAIOSUNH are
juxtaposed, giving the impression that they are to be read to together,
otherwise, could not he have included PISTIN within TOIS...LAXOUSIN? Perhaps I
am reading too much into that. Any ideas? Thank you.
>
> Nicholas Lamme
> General Editor
> CLIR
> Guadalupe, Costa Rica
> www.clir.net
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.7.3/1693 - Release Date: 09/26/08 7:35
AM
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list