εἰς τὸ ὄνομα

[grogers]

I was informed by an aquaintance of mine that the expression εἰς τὸ ὄνομα was sometimes used in the first century on legal doccuments to signify the transfer of property, i.e into the posession of the new owner. I thought this interesting yet I have been unable to find any Greek documents of that period that offer any evidence of this. My questions is two-fold. Is there any credence to this claim and if so, can anyone direct me to any early documents where this expression is used in such a manor? Thank you for your help.

[Stephen Carlson]

The best place to look for this kind of information is Moulton & Milligan's vocabulary of the NT or even TDNT. Sometimes BDAG will cite parallels in the papyri or studies about them.

[grogers]

Thank you very much.

[Alan Patterson]

If I had to bet, I'd put my money on your acquaintance's proposition that it is used as an expression to denote new ownership. Please let us know how your research comes out.

[Paul-Nitz]

"As early as iii/B.C., in a Libyan’s will, we meet with κατὰ πρόσωπόν τινος; and in mercantile language we constantly find the formula διὰ χειρός, used absolutely, it is true—e.g. MP 25 (iii/B.C.), “from hand to hand,” as contrasted with “through an intermediary.” We may refer to Heitmüller’s** proof that the kindred phrase εἰς τὸ ὄνομά τινος is good vernacular. The strong tendency to use compound prepositional phrases, which we have been illustrating already, would make it all the easier to develop these adaptations of familiar language. "

Moulton, J. H. (2006-). A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume 1: Prolegomena. (99–100). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

**Im Namen Jesu 100 ff. So p. 63, for ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι, Mk 9:41.

[grogers]

So we do have secular MSS evideence to suggest that these two terms have been used synonymously to signify the transfer of property. Have you been able to locate such a MSS? I would really like to see it for myself.

[Miguel de Servet]

The best place to look for this kind of information is Moulton & Milligan's vocabulary of the NT or even TDNT. Sometimes BDAG will cite parallels in the papyri or studies about them.

So we do have secular MSS evideence to suggest that these two terms have been used synonymously to signify the transfer of property. Have you been able to locate such a MSS? I would really like to see it for myself.

Expanding Stephen Carlson's suggestion:

• "(5) The phrase eis (to) onoma tinos is frequent in the papyri with reference to payments made "to the account of any one" ... (J.H. Moulton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1914, page 451)

• "Through baptism eis to onoma tinos those who are baptized become the possession of and come under the dedicated protection of the one whose name they bear." (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2000 (?), page 713).

For the expression eis to onoma in Christian Baptism, you may want to take a look at my Journal, post What does it mean "to be baptized into the name of ..."?

MdS

[grogers]

Thank you very much. This was helpful.

[doday]

I’m a bit late to this party, but note that M&M and BDAG both cite a 1903 work by Wilhelm Heitmüller entitled Im Namen Jesu. His position (and that of a number of scholars) has been summarized as follows:

[T]he person baptized was dedicated to Jesus, having become his property.... [In the papyri, Heitmüller] found 'into the name' used in Graeco-Hellenistic banking terminology, the 'name' being that of a person to whose account something was credited. These observations naturally led to the interpretation that Jesus is the heavenly Kurios to whose ownership the baptized person was transferred.

Lars Hartman, "Into the name of Jesus: a suggestion concerning the earliest meaning of the phrase," New Testament Studies 20, no. 4 (July 1974): 432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868850001225X

Heitmüller (among others) has been criticized for assuming that this banking context should be inferred every time this construction is used. Hartman contended for another sense that is also represented by BDAG (i.e., that it is a Semitic idiom translating לְשֵׁם), noting it would have both "positive content as well as a negatively demarcating meaning," the former uniquely identifying the rite of Christian baptism and the latter differentiating it from John's baptism. He also noted that it could also have been understood differently in various regions.

[With] εἰς: somet[hing] evidently as rendering of rabb[inical] לְשֵׁם with regard to, in thinking of.... for his sake, or we have here the frequently attested formula of Hellenistic legal and commercial language.... εἰς (τὸ) ὄν. τινος to the name=to the account (over which the name stands). Then the deeds of love, although shown to humans, are dedicated to God.—The concept of dedication is also highly significant, in all probability, for the understanding of the expr[ession] βαπτίζειν εἰς (τὸ) ὄν[ομα] τινος. Through baptism εἰς (τὸ) ὄν[ομα] τ[ινος] those who are baptized become the possession of and come under the dedicated protection of the one whose name they bear.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 713.

I stumbled on this when answering a related question on a Q&A site and have reproduced some portions of my response here.