From: DBWILLIS@aol.com
Date: Mon Aug 07 1995 - 19:31:09 EDT
David Willis here responding to Craig who wrote:
<<Mark 11:22
...echete pistin theou...
>From my limited knowledge of the Greek, I would translate this "have faith
of God". Yet most translators render it "have faith in God". I understand
that theou is the objective "of" denoting possession, and could even be
translated "God's faith".
I searched out every instance where theou is used in Mark, and found no case
where it was (or could be) translated "in God". Most were phrases like
"kingdom of God", and "Son of God. Obviously "kingdom in God" and "Son in
God" make no sence. Yet in this one instance it is rendered "in God".
Also I see differences in the way that "eis" is translated. From my
textbooks, it is illustrated as a preposition denoting action or change:
starting at the "outside" of an object and ending at the "inside": hence
"into". Yet in John 3:16 the word is rendered "in" by almost everyone.
"pisteuon eis auton" = believe into him?
Hence my conclusion that some translation is the _opinion_ of the
translator, and not rote.
Question:
Is there a pure word for word translation somewhere that does not reflect
the opinion of a translator? I have an interlinear, and find similar
difference in it. I have Young's "Literal", and see similar inconsistancies.
Am I missing something? Or am I correct in saying that we are putting our
faith in the personal opinions of nevertheless good men.
forever humble
Craig>>
I realize his is a broader question about "pure" translations rather than one
tainted by the doctrinal opinions of the translators, but I would like to
address the two specific cases he cited.
His first case seems to be a question of the subjective versus the objective
use of the genitive. That is: is God the one _doing_ the believing or is He
the _object_ of another's belief? Both are proper uses of the genitive, and
as Robertson says "It (the subjective) can be determined from the objective
use only by the context." Perhaps a "pure" translation of "God's faith"
could leave that conclusion up to the reader, but it would probably presume
that the average English reader was aware of both possibilites. Apparently
the translators considered the context sufficiently clear to let them give an
English rendition that presumed the objective meaning. "Faith in God" is the
way that idea is properly expressed in English, even though the static
meaning of "in" is not what is meant here.
The second example Craig gives is more interesting to me because I believe
considerable doctrinal error has occurred over how the meaning of "eis" has
been distorted to fit a particular doctrinal viewpoint as to the purpose of
baptism in Ac. 2:38. Passages such as John 3:16, or a more frequently cited
example such as Mt. 12:41 ("they repented at (eis) the preaching of
Jonah"--does eis mean "because of?") are offered as evidence that eis can
sometimes mean something other than its primary meaning "into or unto."
"Believe into him" may not be all that doctrinally significant, but
"repented because of the remission of sins" rather than "unto..." is of
considerable doctrinal significance. I think that all these verses are
properly understood in light of the primary meaning of eis. In Jn. 3:16 the
idea of "unto" or "toward" fits well the context. The believer's faith has
Jesus as its object. Actually our English idiom of faith "in" something is
probably what is at fault, not the Greek. One places his faith INTO or
TOWARD its object, so we probably should be saying "faith into Christ" as our
normal English usage anyway! Similarly, those who repented when Jonah
preached not only repented as a causal result of what Jonah preached, but
they repented TOWARD Jonah's preaching. They repented away from their
previous practices UNTO or TOWARD what Jonah's instruction was. Their
repentance was both the result of and the object of their repentance. So the
use of eis in Mt. 12:41 does not establish a possible causal meaning of eis.
BTW, the phrase "unto (eis) the remission of sins" is also found in Mt. 26:28
when Jesus spoke of his blood being shed "unto the remission of sins."
"Because of" would certainly be an improper rendition of eis in that verse.
And so is it improper in Acts 2:38.
David Willis
DBWILLIS@aol.com
6728 Silver Tree Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46236
(317) 823-4858
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT