[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #727
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 31 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 727
In this issue:
flowers or ANAQEMA?
Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
MONOGENAIS in John's writings
Re: God's Word - Acts 7:55
Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
Re: Word order: classical vs. nt
Re: Paul & the Judaizers
Re: GW & dikaiow ek pistews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 06:05:23 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: flowers or ANAQEMA?
Shaughn:
+ Anthologia Graeca, Anthologia Graeca, Book 2, epigram 1, line 13:
Kekropivdh" d=E6 h[strapte, nohvmono" a[nqema Peiqou'",
Aijscivnh", lasivh" de; suneivrue kuvkla pareih'",
15 oi|a polutrocavloisin ajeqleuvwn ajgorh'/sin:
- - this one throws me for a loop--intelligent flowers of the greek=20
goddess Pathos?
+ Anthologia Graeca, Anthologia Graeca, Book 6, epigram 47, line 2
ANTIPATROU =AASIDWNIOU=BA
1
Kerkivda th;n filaoido;n =90Aqhnaivh/ qevto Bittw;
a[nqema, limhrh'" a[rmenon ejrgasivh",
ei\pe dev: =C6Cai're, qeav, kai; thvnd=E6 e[ce: chvrh ejgw; ga;r
tevssara" eij" ejtevwn ejrcomevnh dekavda"
5
ajrneu'mai ta; sa; dw'ra, ta; d=E6 e[mpali Kuvprido" e[rgwn
a{ptomai: w{rh" ga;r krei'sson oJrw' to; qevlein.=C6
- - what/who is Kerkida? what is bittw?
You missed (in the lexicon) the one word that does apply in both of
these bits of verse: ANAQEMA, gen. ANAQEMATOS, "offering," esp. in
fulfilment of a vow to a deity: something deposited in a shrine to
fulfill a promise for services rendered by the deity. The first is an
offering, it would appear, of a beard(!) by a young man who has won a
rhetorical contest; NOHMONOS ANQEMA PEIQOUS is here an "offering to
knowing Persuasion" (not Pathos, but Peitho, who in erotic guise as
one of the companions of Aphrodite, is Seduction, but in the
rhetorical sphere is the divine power of persuasive speech. The second
is an offering by a widow named BITTW of her "melodious loom-shuttle"
(KERKIS, gen. KERKIDOS) to Athena, who oversees, among other things,
the woman's craft of weaving. Now that she is forty years old and a
widow, she says, she has no more use for Athena's craft and prefers
"the works of Kupris" (Aphrodite). This is a playful sort of poem
written by the thousands in Hellenistic times like the sonnets of
Elizabethans on imaginary themes. In this instance, Bitto is finally
free from marriage and domestic duties and thinks it's time for love.
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: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 09:10:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
Without giving much attention to Paul's usage of Kyrios for Jesus, and
without examining the immediate religious setting for his expression,
yes, one could push the passage in the direction Gregory Jordan (kyrios
merely = "master," drawn from slave-relations), or Carl Conrad (kyrios =
master in a general sense) suggested. But if one takes account of the
Pauline usage factor, plus his Jewish religious tradition and its usage
of kyrios, and, most importantly, the immediate context of 1 Cor 8:5-6
(which runs from chaps. 8-10 and deals expressly with "idolatry" and
which cultic activities are permitted for Pauline Christians), then it
seems overwhelmingly likely that "kyrios" here must be a divine title.
On Paul's usage, see, e.g., my article "Lord" in _Dictionary of
Paul and His Letters_, eds. G. F. Hawthorne, r. P. Martin, D. G. Reid
(Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993), pp. 560-69.
Very important for the whole matter are two things: (1) The
confessional/cultic usage of "Kyrios" for Jesus in several Pauline
passages (Rom 10:9-10; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11), which indicate that
"kyrios" for Jesus held sacral and salvific properties, and (esp. Phil
2:11) likely carried the force of Greek equivalent for Yhwh; (2) the
likelihood that 1 Cor 8:5-6 is an allusion to Deut 6:4 (LXX), in which
Paul modifies the wording to include two figures (God and Jesus) in the
confessional expression.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Derrick Green <dgreen@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 08:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: MONOGENAIS in John's writings
For all I know, this topic may have already been beaten to death here, but
I am new on the list so please excuse me. I was wondering if there are
any on the list who have researched John's usage of MONOGENAIS. In the
doctrine of the Trinity there are many that use MONOGENAIS to form the
doctrine of eternal generation. Others see this term as stressing the
uniqueness of the Sonship of Jesus Christ as translated in John 3:16 in
the NIV, "One and Only Son."
Thank you,
- ---
Derrick Green
dgreen@iclnet.org
Springfield, VA
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 11:09:32 -0600
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! :-)
>
Carl Conrad wrote about Ephesians 1:3-14:
>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.
***********************************************
I venture to add to Carl's words the comment by Eduard Norden, _Die Antike
Kunstprosa_ (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913) 253, note 1:
"Eine solche [eine stilistische Ungeschicklichkeit] ist es vielmehr erst
geworden durch die Nachahmung im 1. Kap. an die 'Epheser' (3-14): das
monstroeseste Satzkonglomerat (denn von einer Periode kann man da gar nicht
mehr reden), das mir in griechischer Sprache begegnet ist und dem das
Anakoluth 3,1-14 wuerdig zur Seite steht; die Unechtheit dieses Briefes ist
erwiesen."
My tr.: "It becomes such a stylistic irregularity for the first time in the
imitation in Eph 1:3-14: the most monstrous conglomerate sentence (for one
can no longer speak here at all of a period [ic structure]) that I have
ever met in the Greek language, next to which the anacolouthon of 3:1-14
stands as a worthy partner; the inauthenticity of this letter is
demonstrated."
Norden knew what he was talking about. His master work, _Die Antike
Kunstprosa_, (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1915, + later reprints), which
discusses artistic prose in Greek and Latin, is still a work that deserves
consultation aand study.
I wonder how one should translate these sentences [Eph 1:3-14 and 3:1-14]
into comprehensible English. They are so densely packed, so run-on in
structure, that they defy easy transfer into acceptable contemporary
English. How would one achieve "dynamic equivalent effect" here?
I look forward to the discussion of this passage.
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th St., Chicago, IL 60615
(Voice) Home: 312/947-8105; Off.: 312-753-0752
------------------------------
From: "Rex A. Koivisto" <rexk@teleport.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 10:36:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Paul on Messiah as Seed
Hans-Christoph:
Thank you for your clarification. I think I am beginning to
understand more clearly what you meant. I did assume English was not your
first language. You do much better at it than I do at German, so we'll
continue to work on the communication. I am aware of the different
hermeneutical approaches among the rabbis in the first century, etc., as
you note. The example we have been discussing in Galatians, however, does
not convince me that Paul "is more interested in the needs of his own time
and theology than in the literal sense of the OT texts." It appears rather
that he attempting to interpret the SPERMA text in accord within a
legitimate school of interpretive thought. After all, Paul had to defend
his position before Jews and Judaizers who knew the Scripture as well as he
did. If he were too "free and easy" with the text and did not interpret
it within acceptable boundaries of interpretation, would he have been
convincing to them? I think not. So, perhaps it is a matter of degree.
You appear to think that Paul tended to disregard the historical sense of
the Scripture before him for the immediate need (Paul resorted to
"proof-texting?"); I would say that Paul did not disregard the historical
sense any more than the rabbis would have, and (at least in my view)
perhaps disregarded it less than they would have. After all, Paul is not
simply doing "homilies." He is trying to defend and prove a case. To use
evidence in a way that is disallowed by his opponents would not get him
very far, it seems.
Some thoughts, anyway. Perhaps we have spun this thread far enough.
Thanks for your interaction.
Rex K.
At 3:17 PM 5/27/95, Hans-Christoph Meier wrote:
>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
*********************************************
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: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:39:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
On Tue, 30 May 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Without giving much attention to Paul's usage of Kyrios for Jesus, and
> without examining the immediate religious setting for his expression,
> yes, one could push the passage in the direction Gregory Jordan (kyrios
> merely = "master," drawn from slave-relations)
I did say kurios in reference to Jesus implied his role as demiurge and
salvific mediator, but I do think the "master [of slaves]" connotation is
more important here.
> master in a general sense) suggested. But if one takes account of the
> Pauline usage factor, plus his Jewish religious tradition and its usage
> of kyrios, and, most importantly, the immediate context of 1 Cor 8:5-6
> (which runs from chaps. 8-10 and deals expressly with "idolatry" and
> which cultic activities are permitted for Pauline Christians), then it
> seems overwhelmingly likely that "kyrios" here must be a divine title.
The context of permitted activities would support the "master"
interpretation, since it concerns obedience and belonging. It's true the
mention of alien gods introduces deity into the passage, but how would
you get around the very clear distinction Paul makes between "heis theos"
and "heis kurios" in v. 6?
> On Paul's usage, see, e.g., my article "Lord" in _Dictionary of
> Paul and His Letters_, eds. G. F. Hawthorne, r. P. Martin, D. G. Reid
> (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993), pp. 560-69.
I'm familiar with your excellent entry there, but I would disagree with
the point that "kurios" is meant to imply Jesus's "conceptual overlap"
with God.
This could get quite complicated, but to start: do we have any
evidence that Paul even knew about YHWH? or that he could distinguish an
LXX kurios for YHWH from an LXX kurios for, say, adon-? Isn't it more
likely that Paul understood the OT God only through the
taboo-substitutions for his name in Aramaic and Greek translations? And
in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the taboo substitutions were certainly
ambiguous, since they could refer to various types of persons as well as God.
Of course, Christ was "directly and uniquely associated with Yahweh" in
Paul's radical Jewish messianic tradition. God himself was so utterly
transcendent that Paul may actually have thought that all God's dealings
with the human race as recorded in the OT were conducted through the
Messiah, that perhaps YHWH, whom he might only have known in translation
as "The Master" was in fact the Messiah, not God.
Paul seems to have thought of the pre-existent Messiah as a kind of first
reflection of God, and the instrument that channelled or funnelled all of
God's designs for the universe. As such, he had all of God's glory,
power, honor, etc. (except, conceptually, primacy), and was in every
sense _de facto_ God to the universe, but still distinct from God by his
very mediation. One could usefully compare the beliefs of some Roman
Catholics today about Mary's Mediation and Co-Redemption with Christ,
which exalts her almost to divinity but which nevertheless maintains
the firm distinction between herself and the 2nd person. Since God for
Paul is inaccessible without the Messiah, it is no wonder he mentions
them so often in the same breath. Although the Messiah was supposed to
bear God's name (as in rabbinic tradition also Jerusalem, Israel, the
Torah, etc.), this was probably understood figuratively (the name = the
character, authority, etc.). Even if 1 Cor. 8:6 echoes the Shema, it
does so to separate "kurios" from "theos" with "theos" as primary and
"kurios" as mediator only.
But this usage doesn't carry over to "kurios" specifically. To stick to
1 Cor., one can see Paul's cosmic Messiah described as such even without
using "kurios" - e.g., 1 Cor. 1:5, 24, 2:16, 3:11, 23, etc. For Paul,
"Khristos" or Messiah itself implies Paul's full Christology. There
is also evidence that Paul sees "kurios" as "master" here (even if by
exalted extension from the usual master/slave relationship): 1 Cor. 3:5,
7:34, 12:5, 15:58, etc. Sometimes he even seems to use it in what is
probably the older Jesus-circle sense of "teaching-master" - 1 Cor. 11:23
etc., cf. John 13:13-16. Also, "kurios" is clearly distinguished from
"theos" throughout 1 Cor., e.g., 1 Cor. 6:14, 15:57, etc., and the
distinction between Messiah and God is as intense here as anywhere in the
NT, cf. 1 Cor. 15:27-28.
In response to 2 of your comparison texts, I would say Phil. 2:11 clearly
distinguishes "kurios" from "theos," and even in a context in which the
"master" meaning of "kurios" is stressed: all of creation is on their
knees before the Messiah Jesus, recognizing that the "servant" (2:7) must
now be the master and representative of God, since he obeyed God (2:8) -
his "name" is much more broadly his whole exalted role, not the mere term
"kurios." In Romans 10:9 the confession also distinguishes "kurios" from
"theos."
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:00:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: kurios in 1 Cor 8:5-6
I shan't take up much space here to respond to Gregory Jordan's more
ample discussion of Kyrios in Paul. Much of what he says is, so far as
it goes, correct, in my judgment. Viz. Paul *does* seem to find "Kyrios"
a useful divine title to distinguish Jesus from "the Father", often.
"Kyrios" for Jesus *does* sometimes seem to carry a primary force of
"master" (but it is unrealistic to think of Paul and his converts not
"bleeding" together in their minds this connotation/usage with others
such as the more cultic/devotional ones for Jesus). Gregory J. is also
correct to emphasize the amazingly exalted, cosmic role/significance Paul
gives to "ho kyrios Jesus christos".
In my book, _One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and
Ancient Jewish Monotheism_ (Fortress, 1988), I have tried to discuss in
greater detail just how earliest christ-devotion/christology finds
analogies in Jewish treatment of "principal agent" figures, and how the
former differs from the latter. The most important difference is the
programmatic way Jesus is treated as an object of cultic reverence along
with God among early Christians, Aramaic-speaking as well as
Greek-speaking ones. For this, I can find no analogy among ancient pious
Jews (nor have my 15 or so reviewers).
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 18:33:12 CST
Subject: Re: Word order: classical vs. nt
Last week Shaughn Daniel wrote about Greek word order:
>Further, just from a logical standpoint, there must be some sort of
>rule/tendency on where the predicate NORMALLY appears; otherwise, how would we
>could we ponder whether something was emphatic due to position?
Excellent point! However, there is not a SINGLE normal word order. Word
order varies by the texttype (narrative or non-narrative) and clause type
(relative clauses are usually SVO). Clauses with verbs of speaking are likely
to be VSO. In non-narrative text (my research is from 1 Corinthians and
James) the unmarked (i.e. normal) order varies between SVO and SOV. It is SVO
for "heavy" objects (e.g. embedded clauses and noun phrases with articles).
It is SOV for "light objects" (pronouns and noun phrases without articles) and
for copula verbs. There is some indication that one difference between
narrative and non-narrative text may prove to be that in two-element clauses
(subject and verb alone) narrative texts may prefer VS word order while
non-narrative texts prefer SV. Three element clauses (contra Friberg and
Radney; see bibliography below) seem to be the same for all texttypes but
perhaps with a different frequency of usage.
>it does interest me that there may be a quarrel among classical greek
>grammarians concerning word order
My understanding is that classical word order is usually said to be SOV, but I
have not studied that question for myself.
>with the advance of the TLG CDRom, it may be possible to write a program to
>use the 65 million word library for the purpose of statistically proving word
>order.
Such a project to be valid would have to take into account emphatic orders,
quotations from older texts, texttypes, clauses types, the presence or absence
of an article on the article, and verb semantics, at the very least, to be
valid. There is no way to do this without looking at each clause individually
when entering it into a database.
In addition, Robert Longacre has suggested to me that whether a clause is
foregrounded (on the storyline) or backgrounded may affect word order.
Here is some bibliography on Greek word order, by date order:
Moulton, James Hope, and Wilbert Francis Howard. 1920. Accidence and word
formation. In James Hope Moulton (ed.), A grammar of New Testament Greek,
vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. [pages 416-418]
Rife, J. Merle. 1933. The mechanics of translation Greek. Journal of Biblical
Literature 52: 244-252.
Dover, K. J. 1960. Greek word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, Nigel. 1963. Syntax. In James Hope Moulton (ed.), A grammar of New
Testament Greek, vol. 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. [chap. 27]
Friberg, Timothy. 1982. New Testament Greek word order in light of discourse
considerations. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota.
Callow, John. 1983. Word order in New Testament Greek 1. Selected Technical
Articles Related to Translation 7: 3-50.
________. 1983. Word order in New Testament Greek 2. Selected Technical
Articles Related to Translation 8: 3-32.
Radney, J. Randolph. 1988. Some factors that influence fronting in Koine
clauses. Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 2(3):1-79.
Cervin, Richard S. 1990. Word order in ancient Greek. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Illinois.
________. 1993. A critique of Timothy Friberg's dissertation: New Testament
Greek word order in light of discourse considerations. Journal of Translation
and Textlinguistics 6(1): 56-85.
Terry, Ralph Bruce. 1995. A discourse analysis of First Corinthians.
Publications in Linguistics 120. Dallas: SIL/UTA. [Section 5.3]
Notes: 1) The journals START, OPTAT, and JOTT are all available from the
Summer Institute of Linguistics, as is my book.
2) Callow's articles are a summary of the findings of Friberg in his
dissertation. They are generally supportive.
3) Cervin's article in JOTT and the section in my book are, in part, an
attack on Friberg's contention that Greek is a VSO language. It isn't!
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 20:59:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Paul & the Judaizers
Rex K. wrote,
" After all, Paul had to defend his position before Jews and Judaizers who
knew the Scripture as well as he
did. If he were too "free and easy" with the text and did not interpret it
within acceptable boundaries of interpretation, would he have been convincing
to them? I think not."
I'm not sure that this is a valid argument. I don't think that Paul was so
much trying to convince Judaizers as to prevent others from accepting their
claims, i.e., their "other gospel." He was speaking to those who had already
at one time embraced his gospel.
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Prof. NT & Greek
LA College, Pineville, LA
(318)487-7241 Fax (318)442-4996
Winbrow@aol.com or Winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 23:00:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GW & dikaiow ek pistews
On Mon, 29 May 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> As someone said, the purpose of paraphrases is to give a smooth
> uninterrupted reading, even if it does not do full justice to the text.
I don't know who the 'someone' was who said this, but I would have to
disagree. (That does NOT mean that I disagree with everything Gregory
said, just this characterization of a paraphrase which he seems to be
quoting from someone else.) The purpose of a paraphrase is to do MORE
justice to the text than a wooden overly literal translation can do. For
those of us who read Greek, a strictly literal translation can be useful,
but for someone who does not read Greek, and who also happens to be
unfamiliar with the world views of the writers of the various NT books
(and I would wager that this includes the vast majority of the readers
of the Bible), an overly literal translation can be seriously
misleading. By not taking into account the differences between our
discourse strategies and those of the writers of the NT documents, it
makes it easy to read our own values and world view into the text
without meaning to do so or even realizing that we are doing so. A
paraphrase is designed to overcome this problem by choosing idioms
and discourse structures in the receptor language (in our case, English)
which match as closely as possible the MEANING and emotional import of
the original text rather than its WORDING.
Of course the natural drawback of such a translation is that in the process,
the translator must eliminate some possible readings of the text in order
to communicate clearly the meaning which she or he takes to be the one
intended by the author. We, of course, may disagree, since we read Greek
and can check the original. Most readers cannot.
On the other hand, I think we are seriously fooling ourselves if we think
the same thing is NOT true in the case of a literal translation. Even in
a literal translation, the translator is constantly faced with decisions
regarding choices of wording. In many such cases, any choice will rule
out some possible readings of the original. A much larger problem facing
a literal translation, however, is its inability to convey what is
conveyed by the larger discourse structures in the original text.
Meaning is not limited to words. A paragraph communicates more than the
sum of the words used to write it. An overly literal translation often
fails to convey such meaning, and worse, sometimes creates its own discourse
meaning which may be at variance with that of the original text.
In my experience, students who produce very literal translations tend to
be those students who have not understood the text very well. They have
found English glosses for the Greek words and manage to string them
together into reasonable English sentences, but they often fail to see
the overtones of those English sentences which can hide the meaning of
the Greek sentence they translate. Of course, from the perspective of a
teacher, it's easier to grade a literal tranlsation than one which has
captured the meaning of the sentence or paragraph well, but which may
reflect a student's prior knowledge of other translations and hide
failure to recognize important grammatical information in the original
text. So what do you do?
Anyway, a paraphrase which gives "a smooth uninterrupted reading, even if it
does not do full justice to the text" is an extremely poor paraphrase and
misses the point of what a paraphrase is supposed to do.
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #727
*****************************
** 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