[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Phil 2:13, etc.



On Thu, 3 Nov 1994 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:

> . . . could the strong verbal force that
> the participles have, both in Rom. 8:33 and Phil. 2:13, be significant in
> infuluencing whether they are taken as subject or predicate?  I can't help
> but understand them as the latter.  Practically all translations so
> understand them, if you take "It is God" as making "God" the subject.  At any
> rate, practically all make "God" the subject in relation to the relative
> clauses represented by the participles.  But this comes full circle to the
> question about Colwell's Canon, doesn't it.
> 
I'm not sure whether the strong verbal force of the participles has an 
influence on whether they should be taken a subject or predicate. I 
would, however, like to raise again the issue of the relationship between 
the translator's mother tongue (English in this case) and the 
understanding of grammatical structure in the language of the text being 
translated. Once again, I believe it is English which prompts us to see 
the participles as predicate here rather than subject (though I'm _not_ 
trying to argue that we are wrong if we conclude that our impression is 
accurate).

Regarding whether the articular participles are subjects or objects David 
wrote:

> I can't help
> but understand them as the latter.  Practically all translations so   
> understand them, if you take "It is God" as making "God" the subject.  
> At any
> rate, practically all make "God" the subject in relation to the relative
> clauses represented by the participles.

He is correct in assessing the way that the translation handle the 
problem, but I would argue that they handle it his way because of 
rhetorical assumptions which come from English rather than Greek. The 
following English translation of Romans 8:33

	The one who justifies is God

can be interpreted as equivalent in rhetorical force to 'whoever 
justifies is God.' This interpretation is clearly out of step with 
Paul's reasoning since it implies that there could be many gods (as many 
as there are people who justify). This is clearly not what Paul meant. 
For that reason, the translation is unacceptable, and we must make 'God' 
the subject IN ENGLISH to avoid misrepresenting Paul's argument.

This says nothing, however, about whether or not _O DIKAIWN_ is the 
subject of the GREEK sentence, since the grammar of Greek did not relate 
to Greek rhetorical structure in ways identical to the ways English 
grammar relates to English rhetorical structure.

So, I conclude that David is correct in seeing it as necessary to make 
"the one who justifies" (or simply the relative clause "who justifies") 
predicate rather than subject in the English translation. I just 
disagree regarding the motivation for the decision. 
The answer comes from our knowledge of two factors: 1) English discourse 
strategies and 2) Paul's overall argument. An answer to the question of 
which element is actually the subject IN GREEK will have to await the 
time when we understand Greek discourse strategies much better than is 
possible at this point.
Follow-Ups: References: