I said this "may be something that Lee has not intended--an APPARENT
assumption ..." I'm not ACCUSING you of any ERROR; rather I'm noting that
the way the question has been posed gives the reader an impression that may
not have been intended. I thought I had made it clear that the impression
was not necessarily intended.
>Also, I never said that the versions were "endeavoring to reproduce the
>structure" of Greek. Nevertheless, It seems to me that the two versions
>must understand the Greek differently, because "effective of a righteous
>man can accomplish much" does not carry the same message as "prayer of
>the righteous is powerful and effective." The difference is based on
>the translation of the participle, about which you and I agree.
No, you never said it; this is still part of the "impression" I said was
suggested by the formulation of the question
>>
>> The text: POLU ISCUEI DEHSIS DIKAIOU ENERGOUMENH.
>>
>> I would certainly understand POLU here only with ISCUEI: "A righteous man's
>> prayer avails a lot." I certainly would NOT take it as an intended primary
>> object of the participle ENERGOUMENH;
>
>My question had nothing to do with POLU. Where did I say it was an
>object of the ptc.?
You didn't. I thought it was implied by your statement about the NAB: "I
tend to disagree with the NAB's because of the distance between "dehsis"
and "enerngoumenh." The NAB version was:
>The New American Bible translates: "The effective prayer of a righteous
>man can accomplish much." Thus, "energoumenh" is understood as an
>adjectival ptc. modifying "dehsis."
I evidently misunderstood you; I see that your point is actually succinctly
stated: that ENERGOUMENH is circumstantial rather than attributive. But I
did not say that you had viewed POLU as object of ENERGOUMENH. I was
commenting on my own view of the deficiency of the NAB version in
relationship to the word-order of the Greek text. I don't object to
re-arranging the elements of a verse in translation, but I like to see,
where it's possible, the rhetorical force of word-order somehow
represented. I'm rather a nut about that and tend to express myself
forcefully without implying any criticism.
Especially in view of the fact that we are in agreement about the
understanding of the verse and the function of the participle ENERGOUMENH,
I regret all the more that the phrasing of my response appeared to have
offensive overtones.
Regards, cwc
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@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/