From: Carlton L. Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Fri Jul 26 1996 - 12:42:11 EDT
Leo Percer wrote;
>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?
>
A cardinal rule in syntax is that syntax is always dependent upon the
context. It is very unwise to think of what the lexicon does with
prepositions as simple lexicography. It is closer to syntax. Of course, a
verb like "blaspheme" makes the idea of hostility more evident in the
context. Some contexts are ambiguous, i.e. Lk 12:10. Hostility in this
context makes sense. Why else would the person spoken of need forgiveness?
Every translation I've consulted has it that way, because it does not make
sense without a note of hostility in the translation. Interestingly, there
is a saying in the G. of Thomas 44, "Whoever shall blaspheme the Father
shall be forgiven, but whoever shall blaspheme the Holy Spirit shall not be
forgiven, neither on earth nor in Heaven."
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. Religion
Louisiana College
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
Fax 1 (318) 487 7425
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT