Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: EIS = into in Mark 1.10?

Expand Messages
  • Carl W. Conrad
    ... Well, I think that there are at least AS GOOD grounds: I d understand it as onto --just as one boards a ship, EISBAINEI EIS TO PLOION. You may say that
    Message 1 of 4 , May 6, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 5:00 PM -0500 5/6/98, Mark Goodacre wrote:
      >An interesting discussion on the Crosstalk list causes me to seek
      >some Synoptic-L wisdom. A consensus is beginning to emerge there
      >that EIS AUTON in Mark 1.10 ought to be translated with 'into
      >him' and not 'upon him'. This to me would seem pretty natural, yet
      >every translation I have looked at goes for 'upon him' (RSV, AV, NIV,
      >NASB).
      >
      >I suspect that this a classic case of translators being unduly
      >influenced by synoptic parallels. After all, both Matthew and Luke
      >have EPI here.
      >
      >What do others think? Are there any good grounds for going for
      >'upon' instead of 'into' here?

      Well, I think that there are at least AS GOOD grounds: I'd understand it as
      "onto"--just as one boards a ship, EISBAINEI EIS TO PLOION. You may say
      that implies "to the inside of the boundaries of"--yes, but it doesn't
      necessarily imply "below the surface of." I'd still be inclined to think we
      have an echo here of OT usage of the RUACH-YHWH coming "upon" a person, be
      it a judge or a prophet.

      But apparently the good crosstalkers are thinking of some sort of reversal
      of the process of birth of Athena from the head of Zeus--after he had first
      swallowed her mother, Metis. Now it is sinking in.

      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@... OR cconrad@...
      WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... Carl and Mark, My inclination is not to expend significant time on this, holding the view that it derived from Matthew, but was there expressed in Hebrew
      Message 2 of 4 , May 6, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:49 PM 5/6/98 -0500, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
        >At 5:00 PM -0500 5/6/98, Mark Goodacre wrote:
        >>An interesting discussion on the Crosstalk list causes me to seek
        >>some Synoptic-L wisdom. A consensus is beginning to emerge there
        >>that EIS AUTON in Mark 1.10 ought to be translated with 'into
        >>him' and not 'upon him'. This to me would seem pretty natural, yet
        >>every translation I have looked at goes for 'upon him' (RSV, AV, NIV,
        >>NASB).
        >>
        >>I suspect that this a classic case of translators being unduly
        >>influenced by synoptic parallels. After all, both Matthew and Luke
        >>have EPI here.
        >>
        >>What do others think? Are there any good grounds for going for
        >>'upon' instead of 'into' here?
        >
        >Well, I think that there are at least AS GOOD grounds: I'd understand it as
        >"onto"--just as one boards a ship, EISBAINEI EIS TO PLOION. You may say
        >that implies "to the inside of the boundaries of"--yes, but it doesn't
        >necessarily imply "below the surface of." I'd still be inclined to think we
        >have an echo here of OT usage of the RUACH-YHWH coming "upon" a person, be
        >it a judge or a prophet.
        >
        >But apparently the good crosstalkers are thinking of some sort of reversal
        >of the process of birth of Athena from the head of Zeus--after he had first
        >swallowed her mother, Metis. Now it is sinking in.
        >
        >Carl W. Conrad

        Carl and Mark,

        My inclination is not to expend significant time on this, holding the view
        that it derived from Matthew, but was there expressed in Hebrew or Aramaic;
        then whether the writer of Mark chose to translate its equivalent of "in,
        into or onto" as EIS or EPI was pretty much a matter of chance. Later, the
        translator of Matthew into Greek decided that EP' was better than EIS.

        Of much more interest to me is Matthew's first part of this verse (Mt 3:16)
        where the writer spoke of the heavens (or sky) being opened, which Mark duly
        expresses in almost the same terms. I believe that the writer of Matthew
        took that expression from Ez 1:1, he being more knowledgeable, apparently,
        than the writer of Mark regarding what's in the Scriptures. He may have
        done this because the event that occurred in his source bore strong
        resemblance to what Ezekiel said he saw. So this was the writer of
        Matthew's way of introducing an edited form of what his source had to say.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) - ... The English translation of Mark in S. E. Johnson s commentary The Gospel according to St Mark , second edition (London,
        Message 3 of 4 , May 7, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark Goodacre wrote (SNIP) -
          > on the Crosstalk list ...a consensus is beginning to emerge
          >that EIS AUTON in Mark 1.10 ought to be translated with 'into
          >him' and not 'upon him'. This to me would seem pretty natural, yet
          >every translation I have looked at goes for 'upon him' (RSV, AV, NIV,
          >NASB).

          The English translation of Mark in S. E. Johnson's commentary "The
          Gospel according to St Mark", second edition (London, 1972) has the
          wording "he saw the heavens parting and the Spirit as a dove coming down
          INTO him". Also R. L. Lindsey gives his English rendering of this
          phrase as "the Spirit descending as a dove INTO him" on page 60 in the
          introduction to his "Hebrew Translation of the gospel of Mark" first
          edition (1969, Jerusalem).

          One possibility which seems not to be have been considered is that EIS
          in Mk 1:10 may have been written in error in the original manuscript.
          No manuscript of any length in antiquity was free from mistakes, and
          that includes the original documents. No-one today could write by hand
          in English a book the length of Mark's gospel without making some
          unintentional errors in his writing. Why should not EIS have been
          written in error for EPI in the autograph of the gospel of Mark? The two
          words are both used frequently, both the same in length, both begin with
          the same letter, and both have the majority of their letters in common,
          and in the same order.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          E-MAIL: brian@... TELEPHONE: +44-1480-385043
          SNAILMAIL: Rev B. E. Wilson, HOMEPAGE:
          10 York Close, Godmanchester, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
          Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.