From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Thu Jan 08 1998 - 14:32:37 EST
At 06:20 PM 1/8/98 -0000, Vincent Broman wrote:
>Jonathan@texcel.no also quoted Robertson about this EIS
>indicating not aim or purpose but basis or grounds.
>Is this theory the "causal EIS" idea, which I saw called "absurd"
>by a respected pillar, when he saw the theory introduced into
>Bauer's dictionary by its English Translator?
For the record, here is what Edward Hobbs (hO DOKWN STULOS EINAI) had to
say about "causal eis" in Bauer's dictionary:
--http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives/greek-2/msg00015.html--
Unhappily, all three translators (Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker --
the latter two being friends of mine) chose to "revise" and to
"augment" in addition to translating; they are none of them any
match for Bauer in lexicography, with the consequences quite
evident. Often they simply attack Bauer's entries, instead of
translating them! (See, as a really hilarious example,
"skenepoios".) The absurd "causal eis" invented by J. R. Mantey
to support his fundamentalist-Baptist doctrine of John's baptism
(a matter of "translation driven by theology", as Brower has just
said in his recent posting!) was given a full five-line special
entry in the 1st ed. by Arndt & Gingrich; it is at least reduced
in the 2nd ed. to three lines, and credited solely to Mantey (who
obviously couldn't read non-biblical Greek very well, as Ralph
Marcus carefully pointed out, in two separate articles, despite
Mantey's co-writing a textbook).
------------------------- end quote -----------------------------
Reading between the lines, I take it that Edward does not believe in
"causal eis". Now the fact of the matter is that Edward reads Greek a lot
better than I do, and so did A.T.Robertson, so I'd better be careful here...
I believe that Robertson is *not* talking about "causal eis", but to see
that you have to look at his grammar; Word Pictures is ambiguous here. On
page 592, Robertson says:
"In Mt. 28:19, BAPTIZONTES EIS TO ONOMA and Rom 6:3 f., EIS CRISTON and EIS
TON QANATON, the notion of sphere is the true one. The same thing may be
true of BAPTISQHTW EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN (Ac 2:38), where only the
context and the tenor of NT teaching can determine whether 'into', 'unto',
or merely 'in' or 'on' ('upon') is the right translation, a task for the
interpreter, not for the grammarian."
That's what Robertson says when he is playing the role of the grammarian.
When he is playing the role of the interpreter, in Word Pictures, he says
that it is the same usage of these two verses:
Matt 10:41 hO DECOMENOS PROFHTHN EIS ONOMA PROFHTOU MISQON PROFHTOU
LHMYETAI "the one who receives a prophet EIS name of a prophet shall
receive the reward of a prophet"
This usage of EIS is repeated for DIKAIOU, MAQHTOU in this passage.
Matt 12:41 hOTI METENOHSAN *EIS* TO KHRUGMA IWNA "they repented EIS the
preaching of Jonah".
Neither of these verses need be interpreted as "causal eis" (would that be
"kausalische Eis" in German?); I'm not sure which of the flavors of 'into',
'unto', or merely 'in' or 'on' ('upon') Robertson intends here. I'm not at
all sure that Matt 10:41 and Matt 12:41 use EIS in the same way, incidentally.
Is Robertson looking for a way out? Quite possibly.
>Would it make a little more sense to read the verse as two pairs
>of expressions, parallel like Hebrew verse, forming two related commands
>and two related promises?
>
> PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS METANOHSATE [FHSIN]
> KAI BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TW ONOMATI IHSOU XRISTOU
>
> EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN
> KAI LHMYESQE THN DWREAN TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS
>
>That way, the baptismal command is comprehensible, placed between
>the command to repent and the promises. It also does not suggest
>that forgiveness could be obtained by baptism alone, without repentance.
>I just wonder how radically different the halves of a parallelism can be,
>in syntax, given that the thoughts underneath are still nicely matched.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the main
flow is MATANOHSATE...EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN KAI LHMYESQE THN
DWREAN, and that KAI BAPTISQHTW ktl. is a separate thought?
Jonathan
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT