[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #725
b-greek-digest Monday, 29 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 725
In this issue:
Re: God's Word - Acts 7:55
Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
Re: God's Word - Acts 7:55
RE: "GW" - Acts7.55
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
"GW", Acts 7:55
dynamic translation
Re: RE: "GW" - Acts7.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Kloha <kloha@sauron.multiverse.com>
Date: Sun, 28 May 95 06:34:32 EDT
Subject: Re: God's Word - Acts 7:55
I hesitate to jump in here because this is not really a discussion of
Greek, but I've been using the "God's Word" translation devotionally
for about a month. I find it very readable; it is possible to read one
of the Gospels in one sitting--try doing that with the KJV or NIV!
That was the intent of the "translators": Not necessarily "dynamic
equivalence," but a clear, non-technical piece of literature. I do not
use it for preaching or Bible study because it "interprets" the Greek,
and that is what I get paid the big bucks for. I do not agree with
every interpretation I have come across (everyone has their pet ways
of translating their favorite texts), but it serves well the purpose
for which it is intended.
Compare the GW rendering of Eph. 1:7-9, to select a random sample,
with another version:
"Through the blood of his Son, we are set free from our sins. God
forgives our failures because of his overflowing kindness. He poured
out his kindness by giving us every kind of wisdom and insight when he
revealed the mystery of His plan to us. He had decided to do this
through Christ."
I don't wish to spark debate over this text, just wanted to give a
sample. Basically, pretty much any translation has its place. We will
never have the "perfect" English translation of the NT. Unless, of
course, the B-Greek list has a chance to write one! :-)
///////+\\\\\\\
Jeff Kloha [] Lakewood, OH
kloha@po.multiverse.com [] KCICXC
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 06:26:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
On Sat, 27 May 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> Carl,
> Your long post on John the Baptist is a good one. The use of Mark by both
> Matthew and Luke makes good sense in the John the B. materials from Mark and
> Q.
>
> The theme of being delivered over is important to Mark's telling the story of
> Jesus. Other related themes are 1) the way (starting with the combining of
> two OT quotes at the beginning containing "the way of the Lord" and
> continuing until even his enemies admit that he teaches "the way of the
> Lord.").
> 2) the theme of the failure of the disciples (Earnest Best has a good work on
> this theme concerning Discipleship in Mark). 3) Jesus response to the
> disciples' failure by teaching about discipleship in the section from
> 8:27-10:52. 4) the twice repeated statement that he is "going before" them
> into Galilee (Marxsen made good use of this).
>
> All of these themes combine along with the Messianic Secret motif to
> emphasize the fact that a concept of a suffering Messiah means that there
> must be a concept of a suffering discipleship.
Thanks, Carlton. I concentrated particularly on "being delivered up"
because it is so crucial to Mark's linkage of Jesus, the Baptist, and the
disciples, but the other themes you mention are no less important. And of
course the passion-predictions are tightly linked to the teaching of the
incredibly obtuse disciples that they must acknowledge and emulate the
"way of the Lord." This was one of the finest expositions in Perrin's
little book on Redaction Criticism.
I've probably mentioned this before, but I marvel repeatedly at how
sophisticated a LITERARY composition the gospel of Mark is, and that
despite the rather wretched Greek in which it is written and the powerful
apocalyptic focus which appears to be a major reason why Matthew and Luke
(I use the names as conventions) felt compelled to reformulate it to
serve the purposes of their own community in their own time.
I said yesterday how glad I am that we have SEVERAL different versions
today with different virtues (and failings); I am no less glad that we
have the four canonical gospels, each with its own very distinctive
orientation, despite the common focus that they all share.
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 06:57:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: God's Word - Acts 7:55
On Sun, 28 May 1995, Jeff Kloha wrote:
> ... omissions ...
> Compare the GW rendering of Eph. 1:7-9, to select a random sample,
> with another version:
>
> "Through the blood of his Son, we are set free from our sins. God
> forgives our failures because of his overflowing kindness. He poured
> out his kindness by giving us every kind of wisdom and insight when he
> revealed the mystery of His plan to us. He had decided to do this
> through Christ."
>
> I don't wish to spark debate over this text, just wanted to give a
> sample. Basically, pretty much any translation has its place. We will
> never have the "perfect" English translation of the NT. Unless, of
> course, the B-Greek list has a chance to write one! :-)
I don't know that there need be a "debate" over this text, but It has
always seemed to me that the opening of Ephesians (1:3-14) is something
of a scandal and a minefield in the Greek (I use it to illustrate the
versatility of participles in Greek, although here that versatility does
not seem to be exploited in the prettiest fashion). The links between
clauses are unwieldy and the flow of thought seems best understood in
terms of liturgical composition rather than exposition. It is precisely
the contortedness of this passage that has seemed to me one of the
weightier factors in the question whether Ephesians is authentically
Pauline, although I am well aware that there are several other factors
that can be interpreted in more than one way, aware also that styles can
change; nevertheless, the later Henry James was never this contorted, it
seems to me.
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: RlMackie@aol.com
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 08:08:50 -0400
Subject: RE: "GW" - Acts7.55
I originally replied to John Moe off list since we were classmates. He
encouraged me to share my comments with the rest of you. Since I wrote the
following remarks, many of you have submitted much better definitions of
"dynamic equivalence" translation, so I apologize ahead of time for my less
scholarly version.
I learned a four-fold classification of efforts to render the
Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek into other languages. With apologies to my profs (whose
wisdom has mouldered in my memory for quite a few years now), Here it is:
Word-for-Word --- (interlinear) equivalents for each word;
Modified Literal --- (KJV, NASB) follows the basic structure
of the original with changes in word order, etc, to
follow the receptor languages' rules of grammar;
Dynamic Equivalence --- (TEV) attempts to put the meaning
of the message into an "equivalent" form in the
receptor language so that the modern reader receives
the originally intended message;
Paraphrase --- (Phillips, Living) interprets the original
message for the reader.
Adopting the scheme employed by GGoolde@aol.com, the options toward the top
place responsibility for (accurate) interpretation on the reader while the
translator takes increasing amounts of responsibility as you approach the
bottom of the list.
The distictions between these four approaches blur in practice. In places, a
"paraphrase" like the Living Bible can be quite literal. Sometimes a
"modified literal" translation slips into "dynamic equivalence". NIV seems
to toe the line between "modified literal" and "dynamic equivalence". Each
translation strategy has it's strengths and weaknesses.
Since I do not have a copy of "God's Word", I will not attempt to classify
that version in its entirety. But the example you give from Acts 7:55 could
fall under either "dynamic equivalence" or "paraphrase" depending on the
presuppositions of the evaluator.
Answering your question "Is 'in the position of authority that God gives' a
good explanation..."--it is _an_ explanation. Did Stephan have that
understanding when he saw Jesus "at God's right hand"? Perhaps, but I doubt
if "Jesus is in the position of authority that God gives" accurately renders
the formost thought in his mind and heart at seeing his Lord. Consequently,
I would label this verse as "paraphrase", especially if they render Stephan's
words in verse 56 "...I see the Son of Man standing at God's right..." If
they keep a similar construction between verses 55 & 56, I _might_ classify
it as "dynamic equivalence".
To me, the abandonment of visual imagery for abstract concepts subtracts from
the message of the original text. Stephan's opponents would not need to see
God's right as "a position of authority" for them to stone him. Just the
validation of Jesus being with God would anger those who condemned him. Yes,
God's right hand is a position of authority, but that rendering of the Greek
does not have the same theological and emotional impact on me as reading the
original visually-oriented language. I do not like the "God's Word"
rendering at this point because I believe it puts unnecessary limitations on
the impact of the original message.
That's my two-cents worth (for what it's worth)
Roger
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
e-mail: rlmackie@aol.com | EKEINON DEI AUXANEIN
Roger L. Mackie | EME DE ELATTOUSQAI
301 Sherman, PO Box 36 | John 3:30
Good Thunder, MN 56037-0036 | "THAT MAN MUST GROW
(507) 278-3169 | BUT I MUST DIMINISH"
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
------------------------------
From: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 08:59:37 -0300
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus
>" Just because I personally believe that Aleph and B are products of
>heresy should not sway me from tossing them _IF_ I were to make an
>objective Critical Apparatus."
>
>Is this what you REALLY meant to say? that you WOULD dismiss Aleph and
>B because you believe that they are products of heresy IF you were to
>make an objective Critical Apparatus? Or did you really mean that you
>WOULD NOT dismiss them? I think there's a flaw in the logic here,
>unless the statement was mis-formulated. Am I missing something here?
>
If I were to make a totally objective Critical Apparatus, I would be wrong
to leave them out. If I left them out because of their corruption, I would
then cease to objective..... right? =0
I think our logic-wires just got crossed somewhere..... ! =)
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: Sun, 28 May 1995 11:05:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: John the Baptist in Synoptics and John
On Sat, 27 May 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> But would it not be true that everything entering existence AFTER the
> original creation could also be designated as something that EGENETO?
> And the normal sense of EGENETO is "was born."
Yes, and before they come into the world, that means pre-existence,
although not the same pre-existence as the Logos (1:15) which pre-exists
all others, or is uncreated. The verb egeneto from ginomai has many
meanings in the NT, but it *doesn't* usually mean "was born." For that
the verb used was usually gennaO or tikto in the passive.
> Moreover, it is commonly held (and I would certainly agree) that the
> abrupt mention of John the Baptist in vv. 6-8 constitutes a prose
> interpolation into what is a liturgical composition with a single
> original focus on the LOGOS and its incarnation. There's no proving
> that, but it's as plausible (if not more so) than any notion of the
> Baptist's pre-existence.
I see abruptness only in the usual expectations of John the B's distance
from Christ, which doesn't really hold in the Prologue. That is, it's
abrupt to us if we don't expect John the B to be a cosmic figure. I see
1:6-8 and 1:15 as an integral part of the Prologue as it stands. The
Logos reveals God (1:18) by coming into the world (erkhomenos 1:9 same
verb as John the B's Elthen 1:7). The Messiah as God's son is
apestalmenos from theos (3:17 etc.) unlike any other in John's gospel
except John the B, who is sent to verify recognition of Jesus as Logos so
that others can believe (1:12).
> What about one Saul of Tarsus, surnamed Paul (as in Rom 1.1 KLHTOS
> APOSTOLOS AFWRISMENOS EIS EUAGGELION QEOU)? Krister Stendahl has argued
> eloquently that Paul does not refer to his "conversion"but rather to his "call."
I meant about John the Baptist's career only. Although it is interesting
that Paul usually describes himself as sent by the Messiah (1 Cor. 1:1
etc.) not by God.
> Come now, do you rally mean to deny that you were teasing us with
> the suggestion of the pre-existence of John the Baptist? Forsooth, a
> lapsed Pharisee, was he? And in what sense did the Pharisees hold such
> a doctrine? Surely not the Pythagorean/Platonic sense? Are you relying
> on Josephus?
It was a loosely defined doctrine, and still is, among Orthodox Jews. No
one relies only on Josephus.
> Personally, I will stick here with the assumption of Marcan priority. I
> really think that the conception of the Baptist presented in both Matthew
> and Luke is fundamentally a redaction of Mark's conception of the Baptist.
If you decide, based on Mark's content, that Mark has "priority," you
*can't* then turn around and use "Marcan priority" to interpret Mark's
content. Redaction criticism and other forms of interpretive criticism,
like historical-Jesus criticism, have to be seen as interdependent, not
with one as the foundation of others. Both are equally
hypothetical/speculative.
> A historical Jesus fan like you might well be wary of reading too much
> biographical implication into Mk 1:14. This is precisely the META TO
> PARADOQHNAI TON IWANNHN I spoke of before (more below).
I'll always be wary. But I think you are overstressing the _paradidOmi_
passages. The word can be used a simple technical (legal) term. It has
many different uses in the NT (cf Matt. 11:27, 25:14, Mark 7:13, 4:29;
Acts 14:26, 7:42 etc.).
The persecution of John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus's followers - their
arrests/executions - are considered by most historians to be historical
facts and real events, not mere literary themes. It's not the _event_
of "handing over" I see as relevant to this thread, but rather the
_timing_ of it. John the B is handed over, arrested, just before Jesus
begins teaching.
I don't believe any of the Synoptics are unified literary works. Instead
they are poorly patched-together from previous works, whose prehistory is
difficult to reconstruct. As they stand, their inconsistencies,
incompleteness, and disconnected narrative and thematic patterns are
obvious. Only in John's Gospel can we speak of continuous themes and
narrative developments/expositions.
> I wasn't referring to the Mission of the Twelve in chapter 6, but rather to
> the Marcan apocalypse, 13:9-13 ... BLEPETE DE hUMEIS hEAUTOUS:
> PARADWSOUSIN hUMAS EIS SUNEDRIA KAI EIS SUNAGWGAS
> DARHSESQE ...
But in other Synoptics even the Sending of the 12 is more dangerous than
in Mark (cf. Matthew 10), which is why I was surprised you considered
this distinctive of Mark.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: CoParson@aol.com
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 13:28:13 -0400
Subject: "GW", Acts 7:55
GW claims to be an example of a new theory which it calls "closest natural
equivanent translation" (Introduction p. XII). GW claims a place for itself
between what it calls "Form-equivalent translation" and "Function-equivalent
translation.
I, have read GW's New Testament and find it a "looser" translation than NIV
or perhaps even TEV which claim to be dynamic-equivalent translations. I
agree with Jeff kloha that it reads easily. However, it claims that its
first priority is to be "faithful to the meaning intended by the original
writer. The next consideration was readability" (Introduction p. XII).
Carl Conrad has well remarked what an awsome task is translation, and, of
course, there will never be a perfect one. My original question had to do
with the removal of the visual image of Jesus at the right had of God from
Luke's account of Steven's vision. To render ihsoun estwta ek dexiwn tou
theou "Jesus in the posistion of authority that God gives," Is, as David More
and Greg Jordan wrote, commentary rather than translation. It may be helpful
commentary. It may be correct commentary, but it is commentary just the
same. Commentary which might be helpful for those who can handle the Gr.
text, but restructive for those who read Scripture only in traslation. As
Roger Mackie pointed out, many posibilitys which are presented by Steven's
vision of Jesus Standing at God's right, are precluded by this rendering.
For English only readers all possibilities but this one are out of the
picture. Thankfuly there are many English translations available, but how
does the English only reader know which rendering is, in fact, what the
Greek has?
I am a relative new-comer to the list. I apologize if I have led us off
the subject. I have much appreciated the discussion and have gained much
insight. Thanks!!!
John M. Moe - Country Parson
------------------------------
From: Melchizedk@aol.com
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 18:00:08 -0400
Subject: dynamic translation
One translation of the NT in English that I highly enjoy sitting down and
*reading* for long sections at a time is
"The Unvarnished Translation," by Andy Gaus
Sure it has its defects but it is highly readable and jolts me awake at
times--hits me with the unexpected.
Alan G. Carmack
Austin Presbyterian Seminary
PS--Anyone read the "Tao of Jesus"? Just saw it in the store.
PPS--I also just finished James Dunn's "Unity and Diversity in the NT"--my
brain hasn't had such a vigorous workout in a while; the book led me to
places I did not wish to go, but I am the better for it.
------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Sun, 28 May 1995 23:56:35 -0400
Subject: Re: RE: "GW" - Acts7.55
Roger,
Thanks for your "two cents" worth. I do like your fourfold division because
it helps to paint the continuum. I would "base" the NIV in the dynamic
equivalent sector because of the stated purpose of the translators. Your
comment that any treatment may reflect, in some verses, a treatment different
from the primary treatment, is cogent. Thanks.
George
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #725
*****************************
** 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