[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #723
b-greek-digest Saturday, 27 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 723
In this issue:
John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Re: L. Brown "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
GW & dikaiow ek pistews
Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Re: KJV
Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Re: KJV
Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Dynamic Equivalence
Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Re: KJV
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 07:06:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
On Fri, 26 May 1995, Greg Jordan <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>wrote:
> I would also like to go on tangent - ... One thing ALL 4 GOSPELS
> have in common is a vastly underrated emphasis on John the Baptist as
> the way early Christians viewed the beginning of Christianity. Jesus
> was not the beginning, John the Baptist was. The Synoptics tend to
> indicate Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, and that he met
> many of his disciples first through his associations with him. All 4
> Gospels, as well as Acts etc., imply John the Baptist founded a major
> Jewish pietistic movement that layed the foundation for future
> Christian converts.
I'd readily consent to all the propositions hereabove cited (omitting
intentionally the item with which Greg sought to provoke us, namely, a
hint of the pre-existence of John the Baptist--although, I confess it, I
am curious as to how he sees that potentially implied in the Greek text
of 1:6-8); yet it seems to me that there is a fundamental distinction
between the treatment of John the Baptist in the Synoptics and in the
gospel of John. I think you came back, Greg, some time after I had tried
to get some feedback on this very question of the context in which Jesus
confronted and attracted the first disciples. You say, "The Synoptics
tend to indicate Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, and that he met
many of his disciples first through his associations with him." But I
see this happening only in John's gospel, where the Baptist has come "for
witness" and is interrogated by what appear to be judicial investigators
from Jerusalem regarding his MARTURIA; John is the MARTUROS in the great
KRISIS, the great "impeachment" of the KOSMOS and simultaneously the
"separation" of the blind from the seeing. It is in John 1 that Andrew
and an unnamed other disciple of the Baptist are attracted to Jesus by
the Baptist's MARTURIA; then Andrew brings Simon Peter. The narrative
only THEN moves to Galilee for the calling of Philip and Nathanael,
although it does mention that they are from Bethsaida, "the polis of
Andrew and Peter." This is in striking contrast to the Synoptic gospels
which seem to make Simon Peter and Andrew resident in Capernaum and which
also seem to place the first calling of them there in Capernaum by the
lake shore. Now while it could, I suppose, be argued that Mark's (1:14)
temporal reference preceding Jesus' Galilean ministry, META TO
PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN, implies that Jesus had previously himself been a
disciple of the Baptist following his own baptism, it seems to me that
(1) Mark's indication (1:12) of the temptation episode (1:12) as ensuing
IMMEDIATELY (EUQUS, 12) upon Jesus' baptism argues against any Marcan
perception of a linkage between the Baptist and the call of the
disciples; (2) the real point of the PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN reference in
Mark 1:14 is to introduce the distinctive Marcan theme that John, Jesus,
and the disciples will, each in turn, as they set out on their mission of
proclamation, face the doom of arrest and execution; (3) the attempt to
read the PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN phrase as a link between an earlier
ongoing association of Jesus with John the Baptist and the call of
disciples whom Jesus had earlier met in that association with John the
Baptist might theoretically serve the interest of harmonizing the
contrasting data of John's gospel and the Synoptics, but it will not
wash, because it distorts the function of the PARADOQHNAI phrase in
Mark's gospel.
Let me make myself clear at this point that I am not at all concerned
here with the historical question of whether Jesus did or did not meet
the first disciples in the context of the Baptist's circle--I really
suspect that is probably true--rather, I am asking whether Greg's
assertion that "The Synoptics tend to indicate Jesus was a follower of
John the Baptist, and that he met many of his disciples first through
his associations with him," is really an accurate representation of the
picture painted in the Synoptics. I think that there is really a sharp
divergence between the Synoptic and the Johannine representation of these
matters. If I am mistaken on this, I'd like to see an alternative
demonstrated.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Hans-Christoph Meier <hmeier@aixterm1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 15:17:01 +0200 (METDST)
Subject: Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
On Fri, 26 May 1995, Rex A. Koivisto wrote:
> descendant of Abraham and not a Gentile. That is my point. Perhaps I
> misunderstood you as implying that Paul changes the meaning from
> SPERMA=Israelites to SPERMA=Gentiles. BTW, I am not sure what you mean by
> saying "as historians we should point out that he takes a rather
> anachronistic point of view." Do you mean to say "divergent" or
> "inconsistent" instead of "anachronistic"? Please clarify.
>
Rex:
I didn't say that Paul changes the meaning of _sperma_ from
"Israelites" to "Gentiles" and I didn't intend to say so.
"Anachronistic" was ment to say: Paul doesn't refer to scripture
as a historical document but as a source which he is free to make use of
for his own purpose. So, when he talks about Abraham (or Moses or David)
he is more interested in the needs of his own time and theology than in
the literal sense of the OT texts. He wasn't the only one to do so. We
find comparable ways of reading the scriptures at Qumran (_midrash
pesher_), Philo and the Rabbines. But I don't think, I'm telling anything
new to anyone on this list.
I hope I didn't arrowse more misunderstandings. (Remember: English isn't
my first language).
hans-christoph, heidelberg
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 07:55:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Well, I have already read George Goolde's response to this question, and
I agree with the distinctions that he makes. But I would like to comment
on some particulars of the question as put here.
On Fri, 26 May 1995 CoParson@aol.com wrote:
> "God's Word," (World Publishing, GrandRapids, MI) renders Acts 7:55 (eiden
> doxan yeou kai ihsoun estwta ek dexiwn tou yeou) "He looked into heaven, saw
> God's glory, and Jesus in the position of authority that God gives." The
> visual image which is conveyed by the Gr. has been traded for an explanation
> of what that image meant. Any comments on what might be lost or gained by
> this? Is this a positive or negative thing?
I find the question(s) difficult because the rendering does indeed seem
to me to represent accurately the content of the Greek text. I think I'd
rather have an accurate representation of what the Greek text "says" and
a note indicating that it means "xxx." I think something is gained and
something is lost either way, although probably not as much in this
particularly instance as in others: has anybody got a clear notion of
what the "glory of God" looks like? On the other hand, I think most
people might readily draw the conclusion that "the right hand of God" is
the position of authority. The problem with the translation here is that
an interpreter has intervened between the Greek text and the reader, who
is one step further removed from the original. It strikes me that we
might well use the analogy from Book 10 of Plato's Republic with regard
to original, copy of the original, copy of the copy, etc. Plato applies
that to insisting that one ought to see the EIDH themselves, not concrete
particulars (if I may substitute Hegelian for Platonic terminology), and
not artistic representations of concrete particulars; by analogy we might
say that one ought to read the Greek text of the NT rather than any
translation. That's true to some extent, but the best of Greek scholars
today is still far removed from the position of an original reader
hearing (not reading but hearing) the text in his/her native language.
Is "in the position of
> authority that God gives" a good explanation of what it means for Him to be
> "estwta ek dexiwn tou yeou?" Can this type of rendering of the Gr. into
> English be called translation? If so, what kind of translaton and how does
> that differ from paraphrase?
I think it actually is a pretty good explanation. I'd be hesitant to call
it a translation, but I suspect George Goolde is quite right in using the
term "dynamic equivalence" for it. And I will add that I think this is
really quite different from a paraphrase, which tends to amplify
interpretation and erase ambiguities in the original. Ah--but even here,
I guess I'd end up saying that there are good paraphrases and highly
dubious paraphrases. As Greg Jordan said yesterday, the J.B.Phillips
paraphrase of the NT is marvelous (although I wouldn't want to be
dependent upon it alone), while on the other hand I think that "The
Amplified Bible" is a scandalously sectarian reading of the Biblical text.
> I would very much like to hear from anyone who would like to take on anyone
> or all of those questions.
> Thanks!
The opinions of the undersigned are his and his alone.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: CoParson@aol.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 10:18:40 -0400
Subject: Re: L. Brown "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
on May 26 L. E. Brown wrote
"In the text you're working with, are there any editorial comments in
the preface or forward which indicate their translation method?"
"God's Word claims a new theory of translation which they call "closesst
natural equivalent translation." I am familiar with "dynamic equivelance
translation" theory. However, regardless of the theory claimed, it seems to
me that the finished product must stand on it's own merit or lack of merit.
I hadn't intended to get into a discussion of translation theory. It seems
to me that these labels, "dynamic equivialnce," etc., are little more than
attempts to avoid the lable paraphrase. As others have pointed out,
Paraphrase, when well done can be helpful.
Carl Conrad says paraphrase " tends to amplify
interpretation and erase ambiguities in the original." At Luke 22:31 (simwn
simwn idou o satanav exhthsato umav tou siniasai wv ton siton) GW renders
"Then the Lord said" [this in half brackets to indicate and addition]
"'Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to have you apostles for himself.
He wants to separate you from me as a farmer separates wheat from husks."
expansion? commentary? Translator assuming the teacher's role?
Carl Conrad has hit the heart of the problem, as I see it, with this type of
translation when he says "the J.B.Phillips
paraphrase of the NT is marvelous (although I wouldn't want to be dependent
upon it alone)." A paraphrase, or these ". . . equivelants translations"
make fine commentaries (especialy for us who can compare with the original)
because that is, in fact, what they are. A translation which is for those
who must be "dependent on it alone," should leave the expansion,
explanation, and interpretation to the commentaries.
Carl, My Brother Aaron is in research over at Children's Hospital.
L. Brown, You are a long way from home. Bet you are missing our 50 degrees
and drizzle today!
J.M.Moe
------------------------------
From: MARK NISPEL <mnispel@herbie.unl.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 10:07:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: GW & dikaiow ek pistews
As a bit of background, the new translation "God's Word" was
previously named "God's Word to the Nations" as it was being developed
and this had its roots in Dr. William Beck's "The Holy Bible: An
American Translation." (AAT). Dr. Beck was a professor at Concordia
Theological Seminary in St. Louis, a school of the Lutheran Church
Missouri Synod.
"God's Word" is now causing a controversy among those long familiar
with the entire development of the translation especially because of its
rendering of texts where different forms of dikaiow ek pistews occur.
GW prefers "to have God's approval" for the verb and "because of
faith" for ek pistews, both unique translations I've been told.
For example: Romans 5:1 (dikaiwQentes oun ek pistews) is given as "Now
that we have God's approval because of faith ..." While the
controversy occuring is one of theology it is ultimately being fueled by
the translation. And while these texts and translations are difficult to
discuss apart from previous theological conclusions, anyone interested
in trying?
Mark Nispel
mnispel@herbie.unl.edu
Lincoln, NE
By trade: Electrical Engineer
by night: Grad Student in Classics
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 08:47:55 -0700
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
George Goolde wrote:
> Is "in the position
of
>> authority that God gives" a good explanation of what it means for
Him to be
>> "estwta ek dexiwn tou yeou?" Can this type of rendering of the
Gr. into
>> English be called translation? If so, what kind of translaton and
how does
>> that differ from paraphrase?
>
Carl Conrad answered:
>I think it actually is a pretty good explanation. I'd be hesitant to
call
>it a translation, but I suspect George Goolde is quite right in using
the
>term "dynamic equivalence" for it. And I will add that I think this is
>really quite different from a paraphrase, which tends to amplify
>interpretation and erase ambiguities in the original. Ah--but even
here,
Could "in the position of authority that God gives," in Acts 7:55,
pass for dynamic equivalent? The NIV, usually thought to be a
dynamic-equivalent translation, renders this passage "standing at the
right hand of God." The "God's Word" translation seems, rather, to be
*commentary* here. It may be correct commentary, but commentary,
nevertheless.
The translators have changed a visual image to an orginisational
statement. IMHO, it could be misleading: implying that Stephen was
conceptualizing rather than seeing a vision. The Greek certainly
portrays Stephen as relating a vision. Shouldn't the translation
reflect that?
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 10:52:56 -0300
Subject: Re: KJV
> Remember that the KJV is itself a translation--from the Greek NT
>and the Greek Septuagint. Modern scholarship has significantly progressed
since the time of King James, and modern translations (that draw on ALL Biblical
>languages in light of current scholarship) are just more accurate. If you
>really want to read the real thing, you should learn some Greek to read the NT
>and some Hebrew (and Aramaic) to read the Tanakh. Since I know isn't
>possible for most people, I would recommend getting copies of several of the
>most recent translations, as well as an interlinear Bible and a Greek/English
>dictionary. That way, you should be able to make sense of most exegetical
> Best wishes,
>
> Kenneth D. Beale
>
>_______
I cannot agree with you more - there are brothers and sisters in Christ who
honestly believe that the Authorized Version supercedes the original
languages (this is called Secondary Inspiration), and this is something I
cannot hold to in good conscience. But I am learning more and more that this
is not the real problem at hand. =(
Look at your above statement for a moment. Correct me if I am wrong, but is
not the above statement basing our abilities to interpret God's Word on our
scholasticism? Even though I firmly believe that my scholastics are an
invaluable tool, I also have to disagree with this view (even though it is
the most popular in modern Christian circles). This faulty conclusion breeds
two main problems:
1. The sin of pride is easily developed by an individual's scholastic
background.
and,
2. It inadvertently places man's intellect on a superior level over Scriptures.
The Scriptures tell us that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom
(Proverbs 1:7)." If anyone desires to have a correct interpretation of the
Word of God, it's not bad to get a couple years of Greek and Hebrew under
the belt, but more important than any scholasticism would be to have a right
and holy relationship with the Author: God.
Do you believe that the Scripture is the Word of God based on empirical
facts and evidences, or because of its claims of authority? I read in the
Apologetics Mailing List where someone made the statement that if the Bible
was proven wrong (via evidences) their faith in God would be destroyed.....
what a shame!
My foundation is Scripture. Nothing more. From this foundation I build my
dogmatics - this is why I cannot hold to the Eclectic Text. I've had one
gentlemen accuse this as being circular in reasoning, but that's ok. I'd
rather be circular and Scriptural than base my dogmas on the faultiness of
man's intellect |8^).
Secondary Inspiration is wrong, but so is basing interpretation of Scripture
mainly on the Intellect of man.
>problems. Relying on just the KJV is foolish (in my opinion) in light
>of its translational deficiencies, and if you're ever debating somebody who
>knows Greek, they can rip up parts of the KJV with ease.
>
Oh, so are you saying that the Authorized Version is inefficient for dogmas?
Are you saying that if you don't know Greek or Hebrew, then you really
cannot know what God said??? Naughty, naughty!! :-0 {gasp}
The NIV has translational deficiencies. The NASB has translational
deficiencies. There will always have questions arise when you go from one
language to another, but to say that we cannot rely on the good ole' King
Jimmy, is NOT Scriptural, and only goes to strengthen my previous arguments
on the exaltation of man's intellect. _My_ oppinion is that the KJV is
superior to the NIV and the NASB because it is based on a superior text. Can
someone be saved from and NIV? Yep! Can someone receive a blessing from the
NASB?? Yep!! You see the NIV and the NASB CONTAIN the Word of God, but they
are NOT the Word of God. If you look at the facts, you'll find the AV to be
the best English Translation around.
Thanks, and Best Wishes to You Too,
John Calvin Hall - doulos tou Kuriou 'Ihsou Xristou
Pensacola, Florida
johnhall@gulf.net
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible does NOT contain the Word of God,
It IS the Word of God
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Isaiah 66:5 ***
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 12:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
On Sat, 27 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> I'd readily consent to all the propositions hereabove cited (omitting
> intentionally the item with which Greg sought to provoke us, namely, a
> hint of the pre-existence of John the Baptist--although, I confess it, I
> am curious as to how he sees that potentially implied in the Greek text
> of 1:6-8);
The first 5 verses, or at least, the first 3, of John are maintained at the
cosmic level in reference to primordial creation (as I see it). Then it
seemingly abruptly mentions John the Baptist as having come into
existence (egeneto) like one of the things the pre-existent Logos created
(v. 3 panta di' autou egeneto...). John the Baptist is described as
having been sent by God (apestalmenos para theou), which could imply an
earthly historical call like that of one of the prophets. But no NT book
mentions such a late life "call" - cf., Luke has John the B prophesying
from the womb. Then John says John the B came for the purpose of
testifying (v. 7 Elthen eis marturian) about the Light in order to make
everyone believe in it. I admit, none of this adds up to explicit proof
that John is invoking John the B's pre-existence, but I would say it is
strongly implied. ..... Not to be unduly provocative (heavens forbid!
Why else do I not give my snail-mail address? With my luck I'd get a
fattwa for my opinions & a nice package bomb in the mail...)
yet it seems to me that there is a fundamental distinction
> between the treatment of John the Baptist in the Synoptics and in the
> gospel of John. I think you came back, Greg, some time after I had tried
> to get some feedback on this very question of the context in which Jesus
> confronted and attracted the first disciples. You say, "The Synoptics
> tend to indicate Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, and that he met
> many of his disciples first through his associations with him." But I
> see this happening only in John's gospel,
You're right about the call of the disciples - I should have said "in all
4 Gospels" not in the "Synoptics" since I was thinking of the combination
of all of them. John's gospel does seem to be the most comfortable with
John the B's important role, and it may be the other gospels have
attempted to underplay that role, but they have still left important
vestiges.
In Matthew, as soon as the infant narrative is finished, John the B's
movement is given as the context of the first prediction of Jesus as
Messiah (3:11). Jesus's baptism by John the B is his first public
appearance (3:13-17), and Jesus does not begin to make speeches until
John the B is imprisoned (4:12-17).
In Mark, the author can't get past what is apparently the title (1:1)
before s/he starts talking about John the B (1:2-8). Again John the B
predicts the imminent coming of the Messiah, which Jesus will use to
catapult his own messianic career. John the B's teachings (1:4-5)
prepared the kind of audience, charged by pietism, that would listen to
Jesus. And again, Jesus does not begin to speak until John the B is
imprisoned (1:14), which implies (to historical-Jesus fans like me)
that Jesus might have considered himself a student of John the B, a
follower initiated by that baptism, and that only when John the B was
silenced by politicians did Jesus get inspired to take leadership
himself. In Matthew 14:2 Jesus is even considered John the B resurrected
from his execution.
Luke's gospel, after a preface (1:1-4) elaborates John the B's birth as a
prophesied miracle complete with angelic annunciations and testimonies to
Jesus as Messiah from the womb. John the B is even described as a
relative of Jesus's. After narratives of Jesus's childhood, John the B
again takes center stage, creating the audience and political climate
that would determine Jesus's future career. John the B's teachings are
also very similar to Jesus's (3:3-15, 17-18). Jesus's baptism is
described as a common participating in John the B's movement (3:21).
> lake shore. Now while it could, I suppose, be argued that Mark's (1:14)
> temporal reference preceding Jesus' Galilean ministry, META TO
> PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN, implies that Jesus had previously himself been a
> disciple of the Baptist following his own baptism, it seems to me that
> (1) Mark's indication (1:12) of the temptation episode (1:12) as ensuing
> IMMEDIATELY (EUQUS, 12) upon Jesus' baptism argues against any Marcan
> perception of a linkage between the Baptist and the call of the
> disciples;
True, and Mark might be downplaying Jesus's career as a student of John
the B (only John's Gospel dwells on Jesus as John the B's follower). But
then again, Mark could have ommitted the comment about John the B's
arrest triggering Jesus's career altogether if s/he had wanted to, like Luke
does.
(2) the real point of the PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN reference in
> Mark 1:14 is to introduce the distinctive Marcan theme that John, Jesus,
> and the disciples will, each in turn, as they set out on their mission of
> proclamation, face the doom of arrest and execution;
I haven't noticed this theme. When Mark sends out the 12, they have a
pretty easy time of it (6:6-13), and Mark's version of the "great
commission" doesn't imply the 11 will be in any real danger (16:15-20).
(3) the attempt to
> read the PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN phrase as a link between an earlier
> ongoing association of Jesus with John the Baptist and the call of
> disciples whom Jesus had earlier met in that association with John the
> Baptist might theoretically serve the interest of harmonizing the
> contrasting data of John's gospel and the Synoptics, but it will not
> wash, because it distorts the function of the PARADOQHNAI phrase in
> Mark's gospel.
It's true Mark's distinctive treatment must be considered as a separate
development of the John the B legend, but I was more interested in
drawing whatever similarities I could to the other 3 gospels, and I don't
think that distorts Mark's received tradition, such as it was. Or not? :)
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 12:28:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
On Sat, 27 May 1995, David Moore wrote:
> Could "in the position of authority that God gives," in Acts 7:55,
> pass for dynamic equivalent? The NIV, usually thought to be a
> dynamic-equivalent translation, renders this passage "standing at the
> right hand of God." The "God's Word" translation seems, rather, to be
> *commentary* here. It may be correct commentary, but commentary,
> nevertheless.
>
> The translators have changed a visual image to an orginisational
> statement. IMHO, it could be misleading: implying that Stephen was
> conceptualizing rather than seeing a vision. The Greek certainly
> portrays Stephen as relating a vision. Shouldn't the translation
> reflect that?
I agree with David here. This particular passage is an example of a
paraphrase, not a dynamic equivalence translation or any type of
translation at all. A paraphrase is not a kind of translation, it is a
restatement of (some) of the original ideas into new words, and as such
functions exactly like a commentary. I consider the Phillips an inspired
example of dynamic equivalency translation, with all kinds of unusual
choices of wording, but faithful to the original's somewhat narrow
intentions.
This "God's Word" Bible, if it has many passages like this, should not be
considered a translation or version of the Bible but rather a commentary.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: RoyRM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 12:55:26 -0400
Subject: Re: KJV
>but more important than any scholasticism would be to have a right
>and holy relationship with the Author: God.
I shouldn't get into this, but . . .
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that this is only available if
you reject an eclectic text. Wouldn't (if it were the case) this be
spiritual pride, something you mentioned in reference to scholasticism?
>but that's ok. I'd
>rather be circular and Scriptural than base my dogmas on the >faultiness of
>man's intellect
Are you forgetting that the KJV was put together by scholars? Or that any
translation at all was done by scholars? You seem predisposed to accept
scholasticism when it is convenient for your "dogmas," but willing to vilify
it when it goes against what _you_ have determined should be a matter of
dogma. How is the scholarship behind the KJV more in line with a "right
relationship with God" than that done by, say, the NIV translators'?
Whatever the merits or demerits of the NIV, at least political forces with
your buddy King Jimmy were not the impetous behind the NIV. You seem to want
to have your cake and eat it to. Face it, if there were no scholarship, you
would have _no_ revelation from God. Can you give a coherent reason for
accepting the scholarship behind the KJV above that of the NIV or any other
translation? Are you at least honest enough to admit this dillema?
Roy Millhouse
RoyRM@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 12:34:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Could I ask for a (or "the", if there is an official one) definition of
"dynamic equivalence?" I know that we had a lengthy thread on this
several months back and I will go back and check the log, but I have a
sense that there never was a carefully-articulated explanation even then
of exactly how the term is to be understood.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 16:15:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Dynamic Equivalence
Fee and Stuart (*How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth*, p. 35) define
three "theories of translation":
"Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the
exact words and phrasing in the original language, yet still make sense
in the receptor language. A literal translation will keep the historical
distance intact at all points.
"Free: The attempt to translate the *ideas* from one languae to another,
with less concern about using the exact words of the original. A free
translation, sometimes also called a paraphrase, tries to eliminate as
much of the historical distance as possible.
"Dynamic equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and
grammatical constructions of the original language into precise
equivalents in the receptor language. Such a translation keeps historical
distance on all historical and most factual matters, but 'updates'
matters of language, grammar, and style."
I hope this is of use to the current discussion.
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 13:59:03 -0700
Subject: Re: "God's Word" - Acts 7:55
Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com) wrote:
>Could I ask for a (or "the", if there is an official one) definition
of
>"dynamic equivalence?" I know that we had a lengthy thread on this
>several months back and I will go back and check the log, but I have a
>sense that there never was a carefully-articulated explanation even
then
>of exactly how the term is to be understood.
>
There is a section on dynamic equivalent translation in _How to
Read the Bible For All Its Worth_ by Fee and Stuart. It reads in part:
The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical
constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in
the receptor language. Such a translation keeps historical
distance on all historical and most factual matters, but "updates"
matters of language, grammar, and style (Fee and Stuart, _How To
Read the Bible For All Its Worth_ [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982]
p. 35).
There are probably definitions of dynamic equivalent translation in
other works on hermeneutics and translation, but this was the first one
I came across in books easily at hand.
Regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 1995 17:57:14 -0400
Subject: Re: KJV
<My foundation is Scripture. Nothing more. From this foundation I build my
dogmatics - this is why I cannot hold to the Eclectic Text. I've had one
gentlemen accuse this as being circular in reasoning, but that's ok. I'd
rather be circular and Scriptural than base my dogmas on the faultiness of
man's intellect |8^).>
Well, it seems, John, you are saying Scripture is "circular" in the above
paragraph, which is a rather frightening statement, I'd say.
My statement to you a few months ago was that you are indeed arguing in
circles, but, what's more, when you are not arguing in circles you are
arguing illogically. To pick out a particular translation (KJV), or, in this
case, a particular text (TR), and invest it with the title "Scripture"
without providing any basis, makes no sense. And then, to attack modern
texts for disagreeing with the TR, and saying men are relying upon their
"intellect"---well, again, such is illogical argumentation. Are you not
"relying upon the intellect" of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV
translators, for your TR? If not, why not?
James White
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #723
*****************************
** 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