>Can I assume that there is a distinction in meanings in these verses
>depending on whether EN or EIS is used? = 23 "they exchanged the
glory
>of God FOR (EN) a likeness..." 25 "Who exchanged the truth of God FOR
>(EN) a (lit. "the") lie..." 26 "For their females changed the natural
>function into (EIS) that which is contrary to nature..." That is,
when
>the thing and that which it is exchanged for are two different things
>(e.g., God and images; the truth and the lie), EN is used, but when
EIS
>is used, it is because one thing is being talked about as being
changed
>into something else. If so, many translations fail to bring out this
>distinction - the least they could do would be to translate the first
>two with "exchanged...for" and the third with "changed...into."
I read this earlier this morning and marked it mentally as something I
wanted to look into further. I am without BAGD (and I guess I'll have
to take Edward's advice and replace my lost one with a new copy rather
than wait for the next edition which is slated to arrive sometime
before the Second Coming) but have consulted the latest LSJG (I know
that Edward would want half a dozen more initials in there!) and
Louw-Nida and I find I'm unsatisfied with this usual translation of EN
+ dative with ALLASSW or METALLASSW as "exchange FOR."
The texts read:
Rom 1:23 ... HLLAXAN THN DOXAN TOU AFQARTOU QEOU EN hOMOIWMATI EIKONOS
FQARTOU ANQRWPOU KAI PETEINWN KAI TETRAPODWN KAI hERPETWN.
Rom 1:25 ... METHLLAXAN THN ALHQEIAN EN THi YEUDEI KAI ESEBASQHSAN KAI
ELATREUSAN THi KTISEI PARA TON KTISANTA ...
Rom 1:26 ... METHLLAXAN THN FUSIKHN CRHSIN EIS THN PARA FUSIN ...
What really bothers me here (and I never thought about this until Eric
called attention to what appears--especially in the English
translations of these verses--as a significant differentiation between
the usage of ALLASSW/METALLASSW with EN + dative and of the same verbs
with EIS. The English translations give "exchange for" to represent
both constructions, but it seems to me that the way the dative is
understood here is somehow wrong--at least if the dative is understood
to indicate that INTO WHICH the exchange issues. Although the result
may be the same ultimately, it seems to me that in both 1:23 and in
1:25 the construction of EN + dative is INSTRUMENTAL and indicates the
MEANS whereby the alteration has been effected rather than the
END-PRODUCT of the alteration. On the other hand, in 1:26 the EIS +
accusative construction clearly DOES point to the end-product of the
alteration.
A bit on the logic of this splendid passage, perhaps the most profound
analysis of the nature of idolatry to be found in scripture if not in
all literature. If I understand Paul rightly, he's saying that humanity
originally could readily discern the Creator behind the unmistakable
marks he had left in the created world, that humanity knew very well
that the created world did not subsist in and by itself but was the
creative work of God. But human intelligence became perverse and
perverted the truth about creation, attributing to creation the
attributes belonging rather to God alone. This is what Jean-Paul Sartre
termed "mauvaise foi"--literally "bad faith" but usually rendered in
English as "self-deception." Humanity deluded itself about the status
of creation, attributing to it self-subsistence, permanence, and
endowment with qualities suiting it to become as a whole or in its
parts objects of worship and total commitment.
Now the fundamental sense of ALLASSW is "alter"; although etymology is
not the ultimate arbiter of word-meanings, it does appear that there's
a relatioship between the pronominal adjective ALLOS/-H/O and the verb
ALLASSW/ALLATTW. The verb root is a very rich one in terms of its
widely-branching compounds in the active and middle/reflexive voices,
such that we can get meanings as widely divergent from it as "pass
away" (in the sense of "die"), "become reconciled" (2 Cor 5) and
exchange currency. It seems to me that METALLASSW underscores the
radical nature of the alteration beyond what is indicated by the simple
ALLASSW: if ALLASSW may imply "adulterate," then METALLASSW implies
"transform."
As I see it, Paul in these verses in Rom 1 is suggesting a progressive
development of humanity's <italic>mauvaise foi </italic>whereby its
(humanity's) perception is progressively altered until it can no longer
recognize the marks of the Creator in creation. I think that in 1:23
HLLAXAN THN DOXAN TOU AFQARTOU QEOU EN hOMOIWMATI EIKONOS FQARTOU
ANQRWPOU KAI PETEINWN KAI TETRAPODWN KAI hERPETWN the dative EN
hOMOIWMATI indicates the MEANS whereby humanity has adulterated the
glory of God, and I think that in 1:25 METHLLAXAN THN ALHQEIAN EN THi
YEUDEI the dative EN THi YEUDEI is again instrumental and that the
sense is "they perverted the reality by means of a
delusion/falsehood"--and the consequence of this is the worship of
creation. Finally in 1:26 METHLLAXAN THN FUSIKHN CRHSIN EIS THN PARA
FUSIN we have a different construction, and in this instance METHLLAXAN
takes an object and indicates the resultant end-product of the
perversion: the dehumanization of natural human sexuality.
There may well be a mass of literature on the question of the EN +
dative construction in these verses, and that's why I miss my BAGD, but
I don't really find Louw-Nida very satisfactory on this question. And
I'm quite curious what others may think.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
</x-rich>