[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #697
b-greek-digest Sunday, 7 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 697
In this issue:
Re: Gender [was Translations]
Re Translations
Re: Historical Present
Re: Historical Present
Re: Translations
Re: Historical Present
Re: Luke 16:26 EN PASI TOUTOIS
Concordances -- Apost. Fathers
Translations/Inclusivity
Re: Translations
Re: Translations sexist terms
Re: Translations
Re: Translations/Inclusivity
Re: Translations/Inclusivity
Re: Luke 16:26 EN PASI TOUTOIS
Re: Translations sexist terms
Re: Translations/Inclusivity
Textbooks on Paul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 02:44:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Gender [was Translations]
Important point: linguistic gender does NOT indicate sexual gender. For
example: The Greek word for child is teknon, a neuter noun. I've never met
a neuter child yet.
George
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 00:51:47 -0700
Subject: Re Translations
George wrote:
>
>...there are two words for man.
>
> anthropos = man as in human being, homo sapien
> aner = male or husband
>
>There is a corresponding word, gunee, which means wife or female.
>
Pidgin is probably the most inefficient language on earth, but it also
handles this well.
Man=man
Meri=woman
Manmeri=mankind or person
Someone else suggested earlier that we reinstitute the old English
werman, to specify the male. While were at it, could we add ifn when
ei..an introduce a subjunctive, and yall as the plural of you?
Just Ellen
(and probably worthy
of a slap on the wrist.)
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 12:28:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Historical Present
On Fri, 5 May 1995 Lee R. Martin wrote:
> I noticed the importance of the H.P. in Mark in 1982. Other syntactical and
> grammatical features led me to believe that Mark was influenced by his
> Semitic background. The hist. present would be similar to the waw-consec.
> in Hebrew (please note the abundant use of KAI as well).
Does Semitic influence mean that the "historical" present verbs are
scattered around indescriminately? Do they now function differently in
Mark than in Greek writings without Semitic influence? Or do they
function the same way that the waw-consecutive does in Hebrew? If the
answer to any of these is positive, I (being negative) still think we do
not have a clear idea of how these narrative present verbs function (I am
no Hebrew scholar, but I have not seen an explanation of the
"waw-consecutive" that is particularly satisfying either).
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 13:39:17 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Historical Present
On Sat, 6 May 1995, Philip L. Graber wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 1995 Lee R. Martin wrote:
> > I noticed the importance of the H.P. in Mark in 1982. Other syntactical and
> > grammatical features led me to believe that Mark was influenced by his
> > Semitic background. The hist. present would be similar to the waw-consec.
> > in Hebrew (please note the abundant use of KAI as well).
>
> Does Semitic influence mean that the "historical" present verbs are
> scattered around indescriminately? Do they now function differently in
> Mark than in Greek writings without Semitic influence? Or do they
> function the same way that the waw-consecutive does in Hebrew? If the
> answer to any of these is positive, I (being negative) still think we do
> not have a clear idea of how these narrative present verbs function (I am
> no Hebrew scholar, but I have not seen an explanation of the
> "waw-consecutive" that is particularly satisfying either).
My very strong impression (enhanced by current reading of Janice C.
Anderson & Stephen D. Moore, _Mark & Method: New Approaches in Biblical
Studies_) is that the use of the present tense by Mark is deemed a
deliberate strategy for engaging the reader/listener as a participant in
a drama playing out immediately before his/her contemplation. Would Larry
Hurtado care to comment on this? If that is so, it would certainly seem
to be more than a Semitism--or, as we regularly say in Greek and Latin
verse, certain forms may be required for the sake of the meter, but
there's more to the artist's work than metrical necessity.
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: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 14:39:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
On Fri, 5 May 1995, Micheal Palmer wrote:
> The language (at least for many speakers)
> has now changed in this regard, rendering the translation sexist. This is
> not the fault of the translators, however
I have kept out of this until now, and probably would be better advised
to continue to do so, but you know what they say about fools and angels.
I'm not so sure how a translation that was not sexist can be rendered
sexist. This seems also to apply to works written originally in English,
resulting in some scholars doing public penance for their past verbal
atrocities (which were unintentional at the time, but have since become
lamentable, if not crimes against womankind). Should we go back and patch
up the English classics that offend?
Part of the problem seems to be that a minority of people are working at
being offended. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most people still
recognize an inclusive masculine form, especially people outside of the
field of religion. I know annecdotal evidence is of limited value, but I
suspect that my sister-in-law, who could be the poster-woman for secular
feminism, is fairly typical. She teaches Social Work, is a member of NOW,
has politically supported people such as Bob Kerry and Walter Mondale,
etc. But she continues to use the inclusive masculine form in her
academic writing as well as in casual conversation, precisely because she
recognizes that there is an inclusive masculine form, and that it is
readily recognizable as such by those to whom she speaks and writes.
I keep trying to teach my son (not in these terms necessarily) that the
sentence "My brother is annoying me" is ambiguous semantically. "My
brother" can be understood as agent, or simply as a reference point. "Me"
can be understood as patient, or as experiencer. Just because my son is
annoyed doesn't mean his brother has done anything to CAUSE it. The same
is true, I suspect, of the sentence, "Non-inclusive language offends me."
If people are being offensive (as active agents), this must be addressed
in a particular way. But if others are taking offense at them when they
are not agents of offense, that is quite another matter.
I suspect that the language will eventually change through normal means
and perhaps even smooth over the clumsy attempts that are being made to
engineer the process to speed it up. But it is not easy to operate with
the language during the transition. If one wants to say certain things,
he cannot do it the way he was taught without becoming embroiled in
controversy that detracts from what he wanted to say, unless he happens
to be a secular feminist woman, perhaps.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 14:50:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Historical Present
> My very strong impression (enhanced by current reading of Janice C.
> Anderson & Stephen D. Moore, _Mark & Method: New Approaches in Biblical
> Studies_) is that the use of the present tense by Mark is deemed a
> deliberate strategy for engaging the reader/listener as a participant in
> a drama playing out immediately before his/her contemplation.
I have not read this book, but I am familiar with Anderson's remarks on
this topic in the published form of her dissertation (*Matthew's
Narrative Web*). I am not particularly satisfied with this explanation
because it is too general. When I lived in Texas, I used to listen to a
particular sportscaster who consistently recounted events from games in
the present tense. One could easily argue that he was using a
deliberative strategy for engaging the listener as a participant in the
drama of the game (sometimes his strategy even worked!). But this does
not explain why Mark uses present tense on some verbs and not on others.
Are the verbs chosen for this special treatment the only ones that are
supposed to specially engage the reader? Or perhaps these verbs are
climactic in the pericopes in which they occur? I have not found these
explanations to be useful in particular cases. If they function as
Anderson claims, their distribution still needs to be explained.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 16:14:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Luke 16:26 EN PASI TOUTOIS
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
cc: broman@nosc.mil
From: Timster132@aol.com
This is a parable of Jesus about the rich and the poor and =
who is in the kingdom (=DFasileia) of God and who is not. Luke puts this=
parable here, shortly after he describes the Pharisees as PHILARGUROI,
'lovers of money' (16:14).
If you look at the parable, in v. 26 PASI TOUTOIS, I believe, is referrin=
g to
the chasm that existed between Lazaros and Div=E8s when they were both li=
ving,
speicifically the rich/poor gap and the comfort/suffering gap.
EN PASI TOUTOIS would then signify the connection between =
the earthly gap and the afterlife gap. Div=E8s created the earthly =
gap between he and Lazaros by not being compassionate and sharing his wea=
lth,
and that gap continues into the afterlife. In =
other words, in the earthy gap, there is an eternal chasm. (Now =
that'll preach!)
One could change the word order around in English, so it reads: =
"between you and us a great chasm has been fixed IN ALL
THESE THINGS... " referring not only to the unbreachable =
chasm in the afterlife but also to the previous gap in their =
lifetimes. This wording is still somewhat ambigious, tho.
I agree that the later textual variant EPI, found in Byz and Western mss =
is a
scribal grammatical smoothing.
Take care, Vincent.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Sat, 06 May 1995 16:29:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Concordances -- Apost. Fathers
Bill Mounce asked about the need for concordances to such texts as the
Apostolic Fathers, using new software he has developed.
Sounds like a wonderful tool. But in this case, we already
have a good one (even lists various forms of the article!), in the
_Index Patristicus sive Clavis Patrum Apostolicorum Operum_ by Edgar J.
Goodspeed, 1907, newly brought back into print by Hendrickson (1993),
with the Latin preface by Goodspeed translated into English by our
own fellow-subscriber James Ernest. I just picked up two copies this
morning at CBD, for less than $10 each.
God bless Hendrickson for bringing many wonderful tools back
into print, at low prices, too.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 18:37:47 -0400
Subject: Translations/Inclusivity
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
From: Timster132@aol.com
At 11:26 PM 04/05/95 -0400, Micheal Palmer wrote:
> ... 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.
While some have said that the RSV translators were sexists and others say
they were not, I don't know if this was personally true of the men who did
the translating.
The sexism was a _Systemic_ problem in our culture, refelcted in the
language. Having a standard Bible translation in English that used language
that possibly promotes systemic evil was the issue, -- not whether or not the
translators were male chauvenists or not.
Whether or not you agree with that line of reasoning, the NRSV
translates the Greek where it can be rendered inclusively, rather than
rendering the majority references to people as male, as in the RSV and the
KJV.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 18:38:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: pgraber@emory.edu
At the seminary I attended, inclusive language usage was required. Papers
were marked down a letter grade for each reference to God as "he". Less
hasher penalties resulted from using masculine forms when referring to
generic genders.
Not all the profs liked this, but they had voted on it, and that was the
policy they agreed to abide by. One male prof I know had a small class with
all men in it, and you could tell he relished in calling us, "Now Brethren".
:)
Now that I am out in the REAL world, I am not legalistic about inclusive
language as the seminary was, but I do try to use it because I think it
represents the gospel as it says that "in Christ, there is no male or female,
all are one."
I sometimes refer to God using the masculine pronoun, but I do it
sparingly, since I realize that God created both of us, male and female, in
God's own image.
When I refer to God as Father, I usually qualify that and say "Good Father
", because I know that not all fathers are good ones. And I use lots of
other images for God as well: Spirit, Shepherd, Rock, Almighty, Counselor,
Ruler, Creator, Redeemer, Lover of our Souls, Friend, etc. I have found
people respond well to this. Except I never use "Mother", but I occasionally
saying that God is "like a caring mother".
So when it comes to translating, when the Greek can be translated meaning
both genders, I translate it so when it is approprite to the context, because
it is appropriate to the gospel--- not because it is politically correct, but
because of my conviction to apply the gospel to life.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@on-ramp.ior.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 16:58:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Translations sexist terms
>Michael,
>
>I have checked quite a few places where the NRSV might have used inclusive
>language when the original referred to only to males, but I have not yet
>found an instance of such use. They were evidently very careful in that
>regard.
>
>Carlton Winbery
>LA College Rel. Dept.
Check 2 Tim 2:2 and the translation "and what you have heard from me,
through many witnesses entrust to faithful people" (anthrwpois). In the
histoprical setting, can there be any question that the author expected
Timothy to use only men in this transfer of authority? Regardless of
present-day implications, I think this is a clear mistranslation motivated
by theological biases.
Whether Paul was right or not, and whether modern day theology in some
circles is right or not, is not the question it seems to me. While all
translation is biased by the translator, it seems to me that the NRSV here
changed the historical intent.
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 20:14:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations
On Sat, 6 May 1995, Philip L. Graber wrote:
> I'm not so sure how a translation that was not sexist can be rendered
> sexist. This seems also to apply to works written originally in English,
> resulting in some scholars doing public penance for their past verbal
> atrocities (which were unintentional at the time, but have since become
> lamentable, if not crimes against womankind). Should we go back and patch
> up the English classics that offend?
No. We should not go back and patch up the classics. Still, the Bible
fits in quite a different category than the classics. Millions of people
treat it as a PRESENT voice--something which speaks to them with the
voice and authority of God. In this case, we must be extremely careful
to make translations current, updating them to make them as accurate as
possible at all times as the language changes.
I would hope that any good edition of an English classic, on the other
hand, would provide annotations designed to help the reader deal with
aspects of the language which have changed. By the way, have any of you
tried reading Beowolf in the original?
> Part of the problem seems to be that a minority of people are working at
> being offended. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most people still
> recognize an inclusive masculine form, especially people outside of the
> field of religion.
I am quite sure that you are right that "a minority of people are working
at being offended", but these are not the people who concern me, and I
would emphasize that they are a minority. Many women (and men) are
legitimately offended. I made my remarks on the current implications of
the RSV because of my experience with students in New Testament Survey
at Bluefield College (Virginia). Both male and female students
interpreted the use of "man" in their Bibles (not just RSV I might add)
to mean "male". I found myself having to explain time and again that
"man" could mean "person" when those translations were written, and that
some of the more recent translations continue to use "man" in this way
assuming that the readers will understand it inclusively. On more than
one occassion I had students ask, well why didn't they just say
"person". There are certainly people--even young people--who continue to
use "man" intending an inclusive sense, but their numbers are dwindling
as a new generation is growing up quickly.
> I keep trying to teach my son (not in these terms necessarily) that the
> sentence "My brother is annoying me" is ambiguous semantically. "My
> brother" can be understood as agent, or simply as a reference point. "Me"
> can be understood as patient, or as experiencer. Just because my son is
> annoyed doesn't mean his brother has done anything to CAUSE it. The same
> is true, I suspect, of the sentence, "Non-inclusive language offends me."
> If people are being offensive (as active agents), this must be addressed
> in a particular way. But if others are taking offense at them when they
> are not agents of offense, that is quite another matter.
I agree 100%. That's why I said that the translators of the RSV should
not be assumed to be sexists just because the work they produced has now
taken on a sexist tone as the language has changed. I think it would be
entirely unwarranted to assume any sexist bias on the part of the RSV
translators. They were working in a time when the inclusive use of "man"
was unquestioned. To fault them for the fact that the translation NOW
sounds sexist would be entirely unfair.
> I suspect that the language will eventually change through normal means
> and perhaps even smooth over the clumsy attempts that are being made to
> engineer the process to speed it up. But it is not easy to operate with
> the language during the transition. . . .
Philip is certainly right here. Linguistic changes which happen to
coincide with (and even be driven by) social changes can create tense
times and make communication difficult. I would hope that we can exercise
sensitivity as we seek to provide translations which speak with an
accurate voice in changing times.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 20:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations/Inclusivity
On Sat, 6 May 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> At 11:26 PM 04/05/95 -0400, Micheal Palmer wrote:
> > ... 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.
>
> While some have said that the RSV translators were sexists and others say
> they were not, I don't know if this was personally true of the men who did
> the translating.
> The sexism was a _Systemic_ problem in our culture, refelcted in the
> language. Having a standard Bible translation in English that used language
> that possibly promotes systemic evil was the issue, -- not whether or not the
> translators were male chauvenists or not.
Please allow me to clarify what I originally meant in the lines quoted by
Tim above. I'm sorry I was unclear, but I did NOT mean to imply that the
translators were maile chauvenists. Tim has a good point in saying that
sexism was a Systemic problem in our culture. It is also true that the
word "man" was used by MOST people in an inclusive way when the RSV was
produced. It would be unfair to use read their work now and infer that
they were sexists when they produced it (or even worse that they are
now). All I meant was that, given the way the language is changing, the
RSV text has now taken on a sexist tone for many readers. That is, they
understand it in a way not intended by its translators.
I do think, however, that the NRSV attempt to come to terms with the way
the language is now understood is a good thing.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 21:27:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations/Inclusivity
Tim,
Perhaps there may be a few more places where the NRSV could improve even more
in inclusive language. Matt. 7:24-26 perhaps could read that a person who
builds upon the rock is a wise person (not man) or the one who builds on the
sand a foolish person.
I assume that the guards who came to arrest Jesus were all men and the Roman
soldiers were all men. I have searched the NRSV with MacBible and have yet
to find a place where NRSV used an inclusive term where it should not be.
I have been in morning for the past few weeks at what is going on at a
formerly great international Seminary (Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY).
I noted in one publication where the president cited I Thess. 5:12 to
support only men in the pastorate! I would expect my first semester Greek
students to do better than that.
Carlton Winbery
LA College Rel. Dept.
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 21:38:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Luke 16:26 EN PASI TOUTOIS
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
cc: broman@nosc.mil
From: Timster132@aol.com
This is a parable of Jesus about the rich and the poor and who is in the
kingdom (Basileia) of God and who is not. Luke puts this parable here, shortl
y after he describes the Pharisees as PHILARGUROI, 'lovers of money' (16:14).
If you look at the parable, in v. 26 PASI TOUTOIS, I believe, is referring to
the chasm that existed between Lazaros and Dives when they were both living,
specifically the rich/poor gap and the comfort/suffering gap.
EN PASI TOUTOIS would then signify the connection between the earthly gap and
the afterlife gap. Div=E8s created the earthly
gap between he and Lazaros by not being compassionate and sharing his
wealth,and that gap continues into the afterlife. In
other words, in the earthy gap, there is an eternal chasm. (Now
that'll preach!)
One could change the word order around in English, so it reads:
"between you and us a great chasm has been fixed IN ALL THESE THINGS... "
referring not only to the unbreachable chasm in the afterlife but also to the
previous gap in their lifetimes. This wording is still somewhat ambigious,
tho.
I agree that the later textual variant EPI, found in Byz and Western mss is a
scribal grammatical smoothing.
Take care, Vincent.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 21:40:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Translations sexist terms
On Saturday Bill Mounce wrote
"Check 2 Tim 2:2 and the translation "and what you have heard from me,
through many witnesses entrust to faithful people" (anthrwpois). In the
histoprical setting, can there be any question that the author expected
Timothy to use only men in this transfer of authority? Regardless of
present-day implications, I think this is a clear mistranslation motivated by
theological biases."
I would not expect Paul to have expected Timothy to have used only men.
After all Paul included women in his own ministry. Poebe, a diaconess, had
rendered long and significant service at Cenchraea, and there are others. If
Paul did not write the Pastorals and they were written about the end of the
century, Pliny mentions two deaconesses who were interogated about their
faith. He is surely reflecting an actual situation that existed among early
Christians. I don't think that all the instructions and qualifications
listed in I Timothy necessarily exclude women.
Carlton Winbery
LA College Rel. Dept.
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 22:25:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Translations/Inclusivity
> Whether or not you agree with that line of reasoning, the NRSV
> translates the Greek where it can be rendered inclusively, rather than
> rendering the majority references to people as male, as in the RSV and the
> KJV.
What I was taking issue with is this definition of "inclusive". The
inclusive masculine forms WERE inclusive (that's why they were called
"inclusive masculine forms"). Take the now unacceptable term "mankind".
Does anyone really think that the term refers only to males? But alas it
has been replaced by "humankind". Does that really help? I object to the
rhetoric that claims that translations have never been inclusive up till
now. That is simply not true. The definitions of what counts (for some
people) as inclusive have changed.
I accept that some people are offended by "non-inclusive" language, but I
cannot claim to understand that offense. I know a Roman Catholic woman
who says she feels excluded every time she says the Nicene Creed phrase
"for us men and for our salvation." I cannot help but think that if she
feels excluded from salvation by this phrase, the problem is not
language, but something else. I must say that it puzzles me greatly why
the language is blamed. I know she is not happy that the RC Church
refuses to ordain women. But that is another problem altogether, is it not?
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 22:53:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Textbooks on Paul
I will return to my post as Assistant Professor of Religion (Greek, New
Testament, and Philosophy) at Bluefield College, Virginia in August. In
the Spring semester I will teach a course on the pauline literature. I am
interested in corresponding with any of you who have recently offered a
course on Paul. What text materials would you recommend? How did you
organize the course? What worked and what didn't?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #697
*****************************
** 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