[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #693
b-greek-digest Thursday, 4 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 693
In this issue:
Gal. 1:8-9
Re: Translations
Re: Apostolic Fathers Concordance
Re: Translations
re:night fishing
Re: Translations
Re: Translations
NT, LXX, Ap . Fathers Help
Re: Translations
Re: Translations
Greek aspect
Re: Apostolic Fathers Concordance
pericope adulterae
Re: pericope adulterae
Re: Translations (fwd)
Re: eis with accusative
Rabbinic Sources
Re: Translation and Style
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 17:42:34 -0400
Subject: Gal. 1:8-9
Shaughn Daniel wrote:
"Basically, I need to know if Gal. 1.8f fits a category of an imperative of
condition (Brooks & Winbery term, p. 117); thus, rendered as:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach
to you a gospel other than what we preached to you,
then he is accursed.
As we have said, and now I repeat, if anyone preaches (is preaching) to you
a gospel other than what you accepted, then he is accursed."
The Winbery half of Brooks and Winbery would not classify the imperatives in
these verses as imperatives of condition. They are the verbs of the main
clauses that are modified by a EAN plus subjunctive clause in verse 8 and EI
plus indicative clause in verse 9. An imperative of condition would express
the condition which if met would cause the main clause to be true. I would
see these imperatives as positive demand. Such a person as Paul is talking
about must be considered ANATHEMA. Also read the note on p. 129 concerning
third person imperatives. EAN plus subjunctive clause in verse 8 probably is
used because Paul is giving a hypothetical case. EI plus indicative clause
in verse 9 is used probably because Paul knows that someone in their midst is
proclaiming "contrary to that which you received."
Carlton Winbery
Prof. & Chair Religion Dept.
Louisiana College
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 05:58:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
On Wed, 3 May 1995, Mari Olsen wrote:
> > This is indeed distressing. Even the RSV obliterates the distinction
> > between "historical" present, imperfect, and aorist tenses in narrative
> > (one of my pet peeves), but the NRSV even takes out things like IDOU and
> > other structurally significant markers. I have decided to use Aland's
> > Synopsis in English (RSV) next year instead of the NRSV Throckmorton.
> >
> > Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
> > Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
> > pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
> >
> >
> Do ANY translations carry over the 'historical' present into the
> perfectly suitable English form of the same name? I think it would
> restore the 'flavors' of the various writers, which often tend to be
> levelled out by the style of the translators.
I think that a lot would be gained, particularly in the gospel of Mark,
if the present were regularly translated as a present; I think, in fact,
that the evangelist's intention (as many current scholars seem to feel)
to draw the reader/listener into a dramatic action playing out
immediately before one's mind's eye, would be particularly well-served
thus. I believe that the Jesus Seminar's version of Mark achieves some of
that and does frequently translate Mark's present tense as an English
present tense. I don't know, however, whether there's a way to convey the
tense structure of the Greek texts consistently in English, which really
does not have a thoroughly analogous tense structure.
In general, I think the old Italian mot is valid: TRADUTTORI
TRADITORI--"Translators are Traitors." The best translations of any great
literary work generally are great creative achievements in their own
right, not merely faithful reproductions of a model in another language.
Which is one reason why the achievement of the King James translators has
never really been matched.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 08:38:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Apostolic Fathers Concordance
On Thu, 4 May 1995, Robert Kraft wrote:
> Apropos the appended exchange, CBD lists Goodspeed's Index at $8.95, but
> the catalog I have in hand does not identify the (presumably most
> ernest) recent editor/contributor. Shame on them.
No shame. All I did was translate the 2 or 3 page preface. The rest is
a photographic reprint.
I am reliably informed, by the way, that the Index Apologeticus will be
forthcoming when the person responsible gets time to do it; it has long
been planned. (Since I have recently spoken of myself in the third
person, I should make clear that I am not the "person responsible."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 08:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
I believe the NASB translated historical presents as pasts but marked
them with asterisks. I don't think such tricks are endorsed by anyone's
translation theory, but they do let the occasional reader who cares
about such details see what has been done while providing only the
most minor annoyance to others.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: NormGoos@aol.com
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 11:12:19 -0400
Subject: re:night fishing
There is a wonderful little book authored by Mendel Nun of Kibbutz Ein Gev on
the Sea of Galilee that deals with this very issue. Mr. Nun has spent his
life studying the fisheries around the sea, as well as the lake itself. He
discovered many ancient breakwaters from the first centuriy which functioned
as harbors for the fishing boats. He was also able to determine the limits
of the fishing areas allotted to each village. You can get his books (5 in
number at present) at the gift shop at Kibbutz Nof Ginnosaur if you or an
aquiantance in travelling there soon. Or you can write and arrange to
purchase them by mail. They are $8.00 each. Write to Mr. Mendel Nun, c/o
Kibbutz Ein Gev, Israel.
Let me summarize what the book says regarding night fishing and Jesus' encount
er with Peter. There is a fish (Musht) that is sought at night because it is
a "flighty" fish that only comes into the shallows to feed in the dark. It
is called St. Peter's fish in the restaurants today. In Jesus' day, the
fishermen would use long Trammel nets to catch these fish. The net were
double nets 6' high and several hundred feet long (100' section attached
together). There were weights on the bottom of the "net wall" and cords with
floats on the tops. The boats would stealthlily slip out to 20' deep water
and quietly lower the nets to make a large crescent facing toward the shore.
Once in place, they would signal their helpers on shore who would get into
the water and make noise with sticks, etc. The frightened fish would rapidly
travel out and down to safety, only to get tangled in the nets and caught. A
good noght would yield 100 to 200 pounds of fish. This type fishing was
different than the cast net fishing being done by others.
In the episode regarding Peter, we need to remember that all the fishermen
would have been by the lake when Jesus arrived and asked Peter to do something
that would have been downright silly from a human vantage point. We can
imagine Peter, et al rowing out with the nets as the crowd snickered,
watching them let the nets down. I wonder if they had helpers get into the
water and make noise. If they did, imagine the reactiuons of the crowd. We
can now see why the results were so astounding and why they were seen as
miraculous.
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:43:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Translations
>> This is indeed distressing. Even the RSV obliterates the distinction
>> between "historical" present, imperfect, and aorist tenses in narrative
>> (one of my pet peeves), but the NRSV even takes out things like IDOU and
>> other structurally significant markers. I have decided to use Aland's
>> Synopsis in English (RSV) next year instead of the NRSV Throckmorton.
>>
>> Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
>> Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
>> pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
>>
>>
>Do ANY translations carry over the 'historical' present into the
>perfectly suitable English form of the same name? I think it would
>restore the 'flavors' of the various writers, which often tend to be
>levelled out by the style of the translators.
>
>Mari Broman Olsen
>Northwestern University
>Department of Linguistics
>2016 Sheridan Road
>Evanston, IL 60208
>
>molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
>molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
Mari and Philip:
Just a thought here: I think it is correct to say that English
does use a historical present "she comes and says to me . . ., etc." But,
although that function exists in English as a receptor language, is it
correct to say that it functions the same way? For example, in English what
I have just described is considered rather "uneducated" or "inappropriate"
English, is it not? I do not wish to quibble about what makes appropriate
English (tell me it ain't so!), but I think we must agree that there is a
"social" innuendo to this usage that does exist. So my question is this:
Is it appropriate for us to assume that the same social innuendo exists
when the historical present is used in Greek? If, for example, an educated
Greek writer properly and socially acceptably used what we call a
historical present without criticism or disdain, are we translating
properly into English as a receptor language when in English the present
form would be viewed as improper and socially unacceptable English? Simply
because a thing can be duplicated or found in a receptor language does not
mean it should be, does it? Certainly the nuance must be taken into
account.
Some thoughts.
Rex Koivisto
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 14:31:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
On Thu, 4 May 1995, Rex A. Koivisto wrote:
> Just a thought here: I think it is correct to say that English
> does use a historical present "she comes and says to me . . ., etc." But,
> although that function exists in English as a receptor language, is it
> correct to say that it functions the same way?
Clearly it would be rash to say it functions in the same way. But, in my
opinion, there are no good explanations of how it functions in Greek at
all. You might note that I always refer to it in quotes (the "historical"
present) or as "the so-called historical present". Clearly translations
are made for various purposes, and I am merely suggesting that the
translation used for a synoptic parallel (and several other study
purposes) should be pretty literal and reflect as much Greek grammar as
possible. This is especially true of the "historical" present, because
most translators simply ignore it, since they don't know how it
functions. In doing parallel work, we need to know that it is there. Who
knows? We may even discover how it functions in the process. But we never
will if we pretend it isn't there, or that it doesn't matter that it is
there. I was very surprised when I first looked into the matter to
discover how few of the narrative present tense verbs were shared between
Mark and Matthew. The majority of such in Mark are aorist in the Mt
parallel passages, and most of Mt's narrative present tense verbs are
aorists in Mk. I don't claim to know what that means yet, but surely it
is an interesting fact that begs to be noticed (unless of course, you
happen to be reading an English version synopsis).
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 95 11:55:08 PDT
Subject: NT, LXX, Ap . Fathers Help
Thanks much to all who provided me with many valuable suggestions
for mastering the vocabularies of this literature to enable me to
sight read it in order to pass the Greem competency exam for my PhD
(not that I don't want to be able to sight read the NT anyway, but I
didn't expect to be tested on that ability at the level required).
I would have responded sooner, but I have spent the last several
days recovering from eye surgery for my one semi-good eye (it was
successful in every sense, for which I give thanks to God). Anyway,
thanks again.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 14:19:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
> Just a thought here: I think it is correct to say that English
> does use a historical present "she comes and says to me . . ., etc." But,
> although that function exists in English as a receptor language, is it
> correct to say that it functions the same way? For example, in English what
> I have just described is considered rather "uneducated" or "inappropriate"
> English, is it not? I do not wish to quibble about what makes appropriate
> English (tell me it ain't so!), but I think we must agree that there is a
> "social" innuendo to this usage that does exist. So my question is this:
> Is it appropriate for us to assume that the same social innuendo exists
> when the historical present is used in Greek? If, for example, an educated
> Greek writer properly and socially acceptably used what we call a
> historical present without criticism or disdain, are we translating
> properly into English as a receptor language when in English the present
> form would be viewed as improper and socially unacceptable English? Simply
> because a thing can be duplicated or found in a receptor language does not
> mean it should be, does it? Certainly the nuance must be taken into
> account.
>
It isn't clear that the Markan historical presents aren't also
colloquial and uneducated. I'm simply suggesting that the
translations could reflect the style of the original better than they
do. As to the English historical present: listen to people around
you (and to yourself)--it's fairly common in most registers. A more
palatable example might be something like, "So, I work till 6
yesterday and my boss still complains that I'm not putting enough time
in..."
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 14:46:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Translations
>> Just a thought here: I think it is correct to say that English
>> does use a historical present "she comes and says to me . . ., etc." But,
>> although that function exists in English as a receptor language, is it
>> correct to say that it functions the same way? For example, in English what
>> I have just described is considered rather "uneducated" or "inappropriate"
>> English, is it not? I do not wish to quibble about what makes appropriate
>> English (tell me it ain't so!), but I think we must agree that there is a
>> "social" innuendo to this usage that does exist. So my question is this:
>> Is it appropriate for us to assume that the same social innuendo exists
>> when the historical present is used in Greek? If, for example, an educated
>> Greek writer properly and socially acceptably used what we call a
>> historical present without criticism or disdain, are we translating
>> properly into English as a receptor language when in English the present
>> form would be viewed as improper and socially unacceptable English? Simply
>> because a thing can be duplicated or found in a receptor language does not
>> mean it should be, does it? Certainly the nuance must be taken into
>> account.
>>
>It isn't clear that the Markan historical presents aren't also
>colloquial and uneducated. I'm simply suggesting that the
>translations could reflect the style of the original better than they
>do. As to the English historical present: listen to people around
>you (and to yourself)--it's fairly common in most registers. A more
>palatable example might be something like, "So, I work till 6
>yesterday and my boss still complains that I'm not putting enough time
>in..."
>
>Mari Broman Olsen
>Northwestern University
>Department of Linguistics
>2016 Sheridan Road
>Evanston, IL 60208
>
>molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
>molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
Mari:
Good example for English. Thanks. Perhaps it is less "uneducated"
and more colloquial. Not being a linguist, I assume that you mean by
"registers" social registers or classes? I think perhaps we might
conclude that the colloquial use of an English historical present is found
in colloquial speech. But is it normal in narrative literature in English?
I don't mean to get off on a "genre" thing for Mark, but there are
examples in Thucydides and Xenophon of the use of a historical present in
rather educated narrative literature (see Smyth: 1893). I am just not sure
whether we can downgrade Mark's Greek to uneducated or colloquial without
taking Xenophon and Thucydides along with him. Perhaps you are correct
using the English analogy that the colloquial found its way upward
socially. But I guess my basic question is simply this: Is the linguistic
parallel a true one. Is a Greek historical present appropriately
communicated in an English translations with the English present or the
English past. I am inclined toward the English past. I wonder how many
readers would come across the English present in past time narrations and
wonder if there was a mistake there in translation, or need the explanation
that this is a "historical present" or be misled into thinking that the
events were construed as ongoing rather than as in the past, or whatever.
Is this misleading translation?
Rex K.
*********************************************
Rex A. Koivisto Email: rexk@teleport.com
Dept. of Bible and Theology Voice: 503/255-0332x415
Multnomah Bible College, Portland, OR FAX: 503/254-1268
*********************************************
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 18:24:29 -0500
Subject: Greek aspect
I don't have time to dig back through his discussion, but the best survey
of discussions of verbal aspect that I know is Stan Porter's _Verbal Aspect
in the Greek of the NT_ (Lang, 1989; 2d ed., 1993). Buist Fanning's _Verbal
Aspect in NT Greek_ (Oxford, 1990) also has some discussion. If you've
already read them, and didn't find any bibliog. citations there for further
help, I'm not sure where to suggest you turn next.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 16:46:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Apostolic Fathers Concordance
I have developed the software that creates concordances. It was fun to
analyze human language and reduce intelligent contexts to specific
algorythms. We are just finishing a complete concordance for World's new
translation and have a few more on the burner.
But I had always wondered about more esoteric types of concordances, like
the Apostolic Fathers. I had spoken with a few publishers out there, but
they have to be financially responsible so I doubt anything will get off
the floor. What do y'all think? I am getting in on the end of this thread
so I am not aware of what has been said.
------------------------------
From: Tom Frieze <tfr@ca1.leids.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 95 17:29:03 PDT
Subject: pericope adulterae
It is commonly accepted that the _pericope adulterae_ of Jn 7:53-8:11 is a
secondary interpolation and interrupts the flow of thought. The links
suggested in the literature between 8:12 and 7:52, however, have never seemed
convincing to me. I believe I have stumbled accross a connection that is
quite convincing and am posting my thoughts here to see what others more
versed in these matters think.
In Jn 7:52 we read the Pharisee's answer to Nicodemus' objection that Jesus is
being judged without a fair hearing. Their reply is that Jesus cannot be who
he claims to be since "no prophet arises out of Galilee." With the absence of
the pericope these words are immediately followed by 8:12 which reads: "again
therefore Jesus spoke to them saying, 'I am the light (phos) of the world; he
who follows me shall not walk in darkness (en th skotia), but shall have the
light of life.'" If this statement is taken as a reply to 7:52, Jesus might
be seen as answering the objection of the Pharisees that no prophet arises out
ot Galilee by referring to an OT prophesy that specifically indicates that THE
MESSIAH would arise in GALILEE.
The OT reference suggested is Is 9:1,2 which, acc to the LXX reads: "O land of
Zebulon, land of Naphtali and the rest inhabiting the sea-coast and the land
beyond the Jordan, GALILEE of the Gentiles. O people who WALK IN DARKNESS (ho
poreumenos en skotei) behold a great LIGHT (phos); those who dwell in the land
and SHADOW OF DEATH (skia thanatou), THE LIGHT will shine upon you." While
Jesus is not making a direct quote, the verbal similarities are such as to
strongly suggest an allusion. In addition, understanding Jesus' statement in
this way shows it to be a brilliant (NPI) response to the Pharisees contention
that no prophet arises out of Galilee. Jesus, in proclaiming himself to be
the light of the world, is identifying himself with the "great light" that has
now shone on "the people who walk in darkness" so that he who follows after
Him "shall not walk in darkness" and those who dwell in the "land and shadow
of death" "shall have the light of life."
What do you think? Or has this connection been published and I missed it?
- --
***************************************************************
___|___ Pastor Tom
| FIRST CHURCH OF THE NET
| tfr@ca1.hden.victorville.ca.us
***************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 23:12:57 -0400
Subject: Re: pericope adulterae
At 5:29 PM 04/05/95 -0700, Tom Frieze wrote:
>It is commonly accepted that the _pericope adulterae_ of Jn 7:53-8:11 is a
>secondary interpolation and interrupts the flow of thought. The links
>suggested in the literature between 8:12 and 7:52, however, have never seemed
>convincing to me. I believe I have stumbled accross a connection that is
>quite convincing and am posting my thoughts here to see what others more
>versed in these matters think.
Without addressing the issues that Pastor Tom raises, it would be probably
be useful to point out that the primary for reasons for believe that the PA
is secondary are purely textual. For example, that it does not appear in
most early manuscripts, and when it does appear it tends to "wander around"
- --in particular there exist manuscripts in which the passage appears in
Luke[!].
Nichael __
nichael@sover.net Be as passers-by -- IC
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 23:26:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations (fwd)
On Wed, 3 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> The following message, to which I've appended my response, came to me
> from a list-member whom I shall not identify. As I indicate, I don't
> think this is really a political-correctness issue at all (am I in a tiny
> minority?) but of translations with integrity for pedagogical purposes.
>
[LARGE DELETION]
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
> On Wed, 3 May 1995, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Prof. C:
> >
> > I pretty much agree with you about the NRSV, but I use it because it
> > comes along with the Harper-Collins Study Bible, which has useful
> > notes. Within the Biblical Studies guild, however, I bet you won't
> > find too many people who would hazard voicing a politically incorrect
> > opinion such as yours....
>
> I hasten to add that I am all in favor of inclusive language in the
> liturgy, but when I'm doing careful study of the phrasing of the NT, I
> don't want the sense of the Greek shrouded in periphrasis.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University
> One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
> (314) 935-4018
> cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
While I do recognize that there are places where the NRSV has made it
more difficult to recover the exact Greek wording from the English
translation, I feel compelled to add that the RSV was unecessarily sexist
in that it often includes the English word "man" where there is
absolutely no ground for it in the Greek text. In Matthew 10:41, for
example, DIKAIOS is three times translated as "righteous man" when
"righteous person" it is not at all clear that Jesus intended to exclude
women. Here, the NRSV has made the right move.
In Mt 15:14 the RSV translates TUFLOS as "blind man" when it is not at
all clear that Jesus was referring specifically to males. The NRSV change
to "blind person" is entirely appropriate.
There are, of course many more examples of the needless inclusion of
"man" in the RSV, but these two will suffice. It should also be noted
that there are many places where ANTHRWPOS is used in Greek, but without
restricting the meaning to males. In such cases it is better translated
by the English word "person" than "man" since *man* has (at least for the
vast majority of my female students!) lost its once inclusive sense in
English.
I wonder if there are any places where it is clear that the Greek text
refers exclusively to males, yet the NRSV has rendered an inclusive
translation. Do any of you know of one? (Notice that I am not denying
that they exist. I'm simply saying that I am ignorant of them.)
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 23:31:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: eis with accusative
On Wed, 3 May 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> Bruce,
> I would agree with what you have said, "I think it is helpful here to make
> Ken Pike's distinction between semantics
> and the conceptual (which he usually calls "referencial") realm." I would
> also tend to deal with Acts 2:38 EIS AFESIN in much the same way. I would
> not see this necessarily as an accusative of purpose or result, but as part
> of the conceptual world of repentance, forgiveness, baptism.
I agree with both Bruce and Carlton here. This distinction is not limited
to the perspective of Ken Pike and his followers. A similar distinction is
widely accepted in the field of pragmatics. See for example, Geoffrey
Leech's _Principles of Pragmatics_ which distinguishes between semantic
meaning and pragmatic meaning (which would include much of what Pike
calls "referencial").
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: "Richard R. Dupont" <rdupont@ozarks.sgcl.lib.mo.us>
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 22:43:14 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Rabbinic Sources
Speaking of rabbinic sources and the New Testament: Does anyone know of
the usefulness of
John Lightfoot's "A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and
Hebraica" for NT
background studies? It has been reprinted by Hendrickson.
I am posting this on several lists. I apologize if you have to read this
twice. Thanks in advance
for your input.
Richard Dupont
Evangel College
(rdupont@ozarks.sgcl.lib.mo.us)
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 23:50:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Translation and Style
To: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Andrew, ATaranto@aol.com, said....
>On to my question: What are stylistic considerations when >translating the
NT? For example, Will Durant says Paul's
>writings are marked by "bad grammar," and a "robust style."
>With more attention to the former point, how does
>this work itself into a translation? Does the translator
>have to assume the role of editor at times? Is this a problem
>with other NT authors?
Paul's grammar isn't all that bad. He does have a lot of "run-on"
sentences. A lot. But that isn't atypical for Greek. He
certainly does have a "robust" style-- due to his personality
coming through the letters.
1 Peter is very good Greek, while 2 Peter is notrotious. Luke is
generally considered excellent Greek.
The book of Revelation is barely Greek at all, in the
_grammatical_ sense. Although the Revelator never makes
one single quotation of the OT, every other word is a borrowed
phrase from the OT, and the book is littered with hebraisms.
Some translations try to reflect various author's styles. I
noticed that the NRSV preserves the high brow-ness of 1 Peter
by using a higher level vocabulary in English.
J.B. Phillips, IMHO, caught the spirit of Paul in his dynamic
translation, but the style he uses for Paul bleeds over into
the other NT books. Maybe it was just JB's style after all.
Some translations seem to be even throughout as far as style.
The NIV, I believe, falls into this category. Then there is the
NASV which is so literal there are times it barely makes sense
in english, let alone conveying any stylistic tones.
Then there is the question of what the actual text is, and
some translators will use one edition of the Greek NT (such as NA27), others
will use another (like the Majority Text), and still
others prefer to pick and choose their own manuscript variants
(NEB, Jerusalem Bible).
As far as translators assuming the role of interpreters, when it
happens, translators often supply a footnote with an alternate rendering (but
not always). It is an art to translate something
that is ambiguous in the Greek and keep it ambiguous in the
receptor language. Often that is impossible and an interpretation
must be made. Some translations go beyond that and interpret
in places where the Greek is clear, and their elaborations become
part of the translation instead of in a footnote.
But as it has been said, every translation is an interpretation
since one is replacing the words of the text with other words from
a different language. It definitely is an art more than a science. In
fact, I think it helps to think of different translations as different
painters painting pictures of one model. Picasso has a different
rendering of her than Monet.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #693
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu