>Craig R. Harmon wrote:
>
>
>Following is a suggestion about Craig's statement below concerning 3rd
>Imp'vs...
>
>>I suspect that my difficulty has something to do with the fact that
>English has >no way of expressing commands in the third person (other than
>the very weak "let
>>him...").
>
>Over the years I've gradually come to the conclusion that not only can you
>communicate in English what's in the Greek text (or Hebrew or
>whatever)--though
>you may have to use different words/idioms--and 3rd Impvs are no different.
> I think that you will find that many of the modern translations have
>started to go to "must", or "should" for this impvs, which seems to work
>for me (I'd be interested to know how Carl, Edward, Edgar, and Carlton
>"feel" about this). So in this case you would have: "'Repent'--he
>[further ?] said, 'Each of you must be baptized--...'"
Yes, I agree that one can communicate passably well using idioms of the
translation language (although, not perfectly by any means: witness the many
different translations; and, if a perfect translation could be produced, why
hasn't it, and if it has, why bother to study the GNT at all?). And I agree
that using "must" is probably the best we can do in English. I merely meant
to say that there is no way in English to reproduce the Greek 3rd pers.
impvs. while retaining the Imperative form in translation. "Let him..." is
weak because it isn't really an imperative but an hortative, and these days
really says, "Allow him to..." which doesn't at all do (the imperative is
really addressed still in the 2nd pers. to those who are not permitting "him"
to do something). And, while "He must..." retains the idea that it is
imparative that "he" do (whatever), the form is not Imperative in English,
but Declarative.
I'm still hoping for a clarification of my question regarding BAPTISQHTW
hEKASTOS hUMWN. Perhaps I haven't stated my question clearly enough so let me
try again (although I'm afraid that each successive attempt just muddies the
water still more). My guess is that, in Greek, B. is 3rd sing. impv. because
the subject of the verb is the nom. sing. masc. hEKASTOS. In other words
that the shift from 2nd pers. pl. impv. (METANOHSATE) to the 3rd sing. impv.
(BAPTISQHTW) was required by Peter's shift in emphasis (from addressing the
crowd as a whole with M., to addressing the whole crowd *as individuals*).
In English, "Be baptized each of you" would still be 2nd pl. impv. (because
of the "you"). But in Greek, I'm thinking that the subject of B. cannot be
hUMWN because it is gen. pl. and the subject of a 3rd pl. pass. impv. verb
must be in the nom. sing (doesn't it?). In other words (I wish I could
express myself more succinctly) in order for Peter to address the whole crowd
*as individuals*, he had no choice but to shift the verb to 3rd sing.
The reason I'm asking is that it has been suggested that when Peter shifted
persons (from 2nd pl. to 3rd sing.) he was thereby actually addressing a
different group (namely a subset of the whole: i.e. those who obeyed the
first command and excluding those hearers who did not). I really don't think
that the text requires any such interpretation. I'm just wondering how it
all fits together in the Greek.
If any of you can give me a hand with this, I'd appreciate it
>BTW, if you agree with UBS/NA on including FHSIN (it certainly is the
>hardest reading and is early Alex), then how does that fit into the
>structure of the speech ? I've made a *suggestion* above...
The text that I've adopted here at v. 38 reads PETROS DE PROS AUTOUS,
METANOHSATE, FHSN, KAI BAPTISQHTW... and translates (quite literally) "Peter
however to them, 'Repent ye,' said, 'and be baptized each one of you...'"
which I admit is quite unacceptable (at least modern) English; one is forced
to move the verb of speaking to just after "Peter". Thus, "But Peter said,
'Repent...'"
Rev. Craig R. Harmon
********************
MONWi SOFWi THEWi, DIA IHSOU CRISTOU, hWi hH DOXA EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWN;
AMHN. Romans 16:27