[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #732
b-greek-digest Friday, 2 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 732
In this issue:
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
1 Peter 2:13
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Mark's ending
Sinaiticus, Charlesworth, & Mark's Ending
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Codex Sinaiticus
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Dynamic Equivalence
Mark 16:8
Re: Mark 16:8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GGoolde@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 03:10:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
If we were translating Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" into another
language, where the culture did not have bread, but where the food stable was
sweet potatoes, D-E might have us translate "I am the sweet potatoe of life."
I submit it would be better to translate "I am the bread of life" and
explain through teaching (1) what bread is, and that (2) bread was a staple
in Jesus' time and culture. This would preserve all the connotations and
inferences found in other passages (e.g., the Lord's supper). What I am
saying is that we should translate the Bible in its own culture and explain
it, not place it in the culture of the recipients.
There are many people who do not have sheep or lambs. Do we substitute some
animal they do have, perhaps pig, for lamb?
When we look at American translations, of which there are many, what is the
place of the D-E translation? I have a daughter for whom English is a second
language. If all she can understand is the Living Bible, I am happy to have
her read it. But if she can understand a Bible that uses literal, formal
equivalence, e.g., the New King James, I would much prefer she use that to
the NIV. (Those two Bibles are 1 grade separated in reading level!)
I am really arguing that we keep every possible separation between the words
of man and the words of God. EVERY translation requires some amount of
interpretation. But I believer each believer is responsible to interpret for
him or her self. And I believe we should use formal equivalence in the text
and interpretive remarks in the margain, marking them as the thoughts of men,
not the words of God.
Comments?
George
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 10:24:12
Subject: 1 Peter 2:13
Hello,
I have been greatly helped by this mailing list. It is great to
have access to such scholarship at the 'press of a button'. I find
it particularly helpful because, since finishing college last year
and entering full time ministry, I miss having professors and
scholars 'on tap'. Can I take this opportunity to thank all those
of you who contribute to this list for taking the time to help us
younger ministers through the intrcacies of B-Greek. It really is
very much appreciated.
So to my question.
I am having difficulties with 1 Peter 2:13 and the meaning of
'anQropwn ktisei' (sorry if my translitereation is faulty!). Most
Bible translations I can find (NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, REB etc.)
translate this as something like 'human institution'. At first
sight this look OK *but* many modern commentators (eg. Michaels,
Clowney, Davids) argue that the noun 'ktisis' in the Bible always
refers to the creating action of God. Thus they translate the
phrase as something like 'human creation', that is, a creation not
*by* humans, but that is *itself* human ie. every human being.
This, they argue, fits the context better (and I am swayed by that
argument). However, other commentators (eg. Selwyn, Grudem, Best)
suggests that it is human institutions that are in view. Grudem
argues that the imperative 'upotaghte' cannot mean subjection to a
person, but only to an authority (although BAGD would seem to
disagree).
The probelm is that all the Bible translations I can find go with
the translation which, IMHO, is the inferior. How do I explain
this to lay people in the pew?
Do any of you have any wisdom on this?
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 05:42:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995 GGoolde@aol.com wrote:
> If we were translating Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" into another
> language, where the culture did not have bread, but where the food stable was
> sweet potatoes, D-E might have us translate "I am the sweet potatoe of life."
> I submit it would be better to translate "I am the bread of life" and
> explain through teaching (1) what bread is, and that (2) bread was a staple
> in Jesus' time and culture. This would preserve all the connotations and
> inferences found in other passages (e.g., the Lord's supper). What I am
> saying is that we should translate the Bible in its own culture and explain
> it, not place it in the culture of the recipients.
There is something to be said for this; admittedly, "I am the Yam of
Life" does sound a bit weird. On the other hand, in that culture it just
might convey better than the literal what Jesus means. As an example of a
NT Greek expression with which we do something similar, take
SPLAGXNIZOMAI. The KJV could say "My bowels move with compassion;" I
don't think 20th century English can do that; but if we say "I really
feel so sad for ...," are we not possibly engaged in "dynamic
equivalence?" or what about the literal version of TRWGW: "Unless you
chew my meat and drink my blood ..." Of course it can be said that in
first-century Koine SPLAGXNIZOMAI had lost all conscious association with
intestines, and TRWGW had become the common equivalent of Classical
ESQIW, just as BLEPW had become the common equivalent of Classical hORAW,
but do we know this for a fact about SPLAGXNIZOMAI? I don't really know
the answer; but I DO know that metaphors are the hardest thing to convey
from one language to another, and a very high percentage of common
diction is metaphorical.
> There are many people who do not have sheep or lambs. Do we substitute some
> animal they do have, perhaps pig, for lamb?
>
> When we look at American translations, of which there are many, what is the
> place of the D-E translation? I have a daughter for whom English is a second
> language. If all she can understand is the Living Bible, I am happy to have
> her read it. But if she can understand a Bible that uses literal, formal
> equivalence, e.g., the New King James, I would much prefer she use that to
> the NIV. (Those two Bibles are 1 grade separated in reading level!)
>
> I am really arguing that we keep every possible separation between the words
> of man and the words of God. EVERY translation requires some amount of
> interpretation. But I believer each believer is responsible to interpret for
> him or her self. And I believe we should use formal equivalence in the text
> and interpretive remarks in the margain, marking them as the thoughts of men,
> not the words of God.
I am inclined to agree, except when we get down to your last statement
here, which perhaps gets to the crux of our feelings about translation of
a BIBLICAL text. Is it really so clear and beyond all doubt that we can
distinguish the words of God from the words of men/human beings? In my
own denomination (PC{USA}) we say that Jesus, not the Bible, is the real
"Word of God," while the Bible is "witness" to the "Word of God." To
some--and probably to some reading this--that's heretical. But I think
it's honest. I think God speaks to humanity through the words of men and
that necessarily means that the composition of a Biblical text is a
"co-operative" process. Occasionally in the course of these discussions
over the past few days we have let the "sad" truth come to full
expression: THERE IS NO TRANSLATION THAT IS NOT INTERPRETATION. Inasmuch
as every language is a cultural idiom (whatever its intelligible
structure may be), a translation of any sort must convey the substance of
an expression into a different cultural idiom at the unavoidable peril of
LOSS of substance and the ever-present potential for ENRICHMENT of
substance. But for better or worse (for the better, I think), God's word
is "incarnate" in human language. As applicable here as elsewhere,
Ithink, is my favorite from among Robert Frost's last compositions:
But God's own descent
into flesh was meant
as a demonstration
that the supreme merit
lay in risking spirit
in substantiation.
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: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:45:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
GGoolde wrote:
>If we were translating Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" into another
>language, where the culture did not have bread, but where the food stable was
>sweet potatoes, D-E might have us translate "I am the sweet potatoe of life."
I guess that I would have to say (yet again) that there is a place for a
translation which would use "sweet potatoe" because it would convey the meaning
of the passage to its hearers. I believe that one of the main reasons for
differences between yourself and myself, may lie in our
understanding of scripture. I do not think that it takes away from the
authority of scripture to translate using DE because it brings the
authority of scripture to bear in the culture and situation of the reader
(as far as that is possible given our obvious limitations in understanding).
My emphasis is the authority of the content of scripture as it testifies
to the revelation of God and the ultimate revelation of Himself in the Son
(the WORD), whereas you and others are emphasizing the authority of the
formal content in the written word. From that perspective I can see why
you have misgivings about undermining scripture, but as you said any act
of translation requires interpretation.
If the purpose of translation is to COMMUNICATE the message of the
source language to the target language, then it seems to me that the
emphasis on the meaning content and not the formal content is primary,
even with the scriptures. Besides, as has been pointed out, to take the
formal equivalent approach seriously would result in gibberish.
Gotta run.
Cheers.
Tim
--
Tim McLay
Halifax, NS
nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca
------------------------------
From: AGCarmack@aol.com
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 09:07:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark's ending
So what if Mark doesn't has a resurrection appearance. Wasn't it written for
people who were already converted to the Christian faith? Wouldn't these
people already have heard about the most central claim of Christianity (i.e.,
the resurrection) in the preaching that converted them? Wasn't Mark written
to show people who already believed in the resurrection the true meaning of
the Messiah and the cost of following him?
Alan Carmack
student, Austin Seminary
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 10:13 CDT
Subject: Sinaiticus, Charlesworth, & Mark's Ending
Recent exchanges on Mark's ending bear on Mark Nispel's
question about writings since 1980 on James Charlesworth,
St. Catherine's Monastery, and the missing leaves of
the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus. Charlesworth
has written the Foreward to James Bentley, *Secrets of
Mount Sinai: The Story of Codex Sinaiticus* (London:
Orbis Publ., 1985). Here's Charlesworth: "After examining
some Greek mss fragments, I was asked if I would like to
examine the recovered leaves of Codex Sinaiticus. I
answered 'Yes!'.... My privilege carried its price,
though, as at the end of this feast, Archbishop Damianos
asked me not to reveal what I had seen and learned.
I have kept this promise. The announcement and first
publication belongs to the Archbishop and fellow monks."
He adds: "Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Syriacus, Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Bobiensis do not contain the last
twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark." The rest of
the foreward and the book itself insinuate that this
may be a significant consideration for the doctrine of
the resurrection, but the authors neglect the important
points made previously by Larry Hurtado and Carl Conrad
(e.g., regarding the empty tomb and the announcement of what
will happen in Galilee). Bentley writes like a journalist
in search of a story, much in the way that Crossan and his
cohorts do, but at the very end, sobriety emerges:
"Oddly enough, the monks of Mount Sinai ... seemed
anxious to play down the importance of the find.
Although the documents are of a fantastic richness,
I was told not to expect any text the substance of which
was hitherto unknown. Indeed, I was informed, there
are fragments from the early centuries of the Christian
era; but the find includes no new gospel comparable, say,
to the *Gospel of Thomas*. It contains nothing comparable
to the DSS. In that sense at least the newly revealed
secrets of Mount Sinai are not revolutionary ones"
(pp. 207-8). Bentley's treatment of topics is
superficial, but the book does have some nice colored
plates. I wonder if such listmembers as Larry Hurtado
and Bart Ehrman have more information on the missing
leaves of Sinaiticus. Does anyone know if James
Charlesworth has an e-mail address?--Paul Moser,
Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 10:17:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On the question of whether mss. of Mark (or of other NT writings) may all
be descendents of a single early exemplar that somehow became seriously
defective: well, anything is *possible* in history, the question is
which of possibilities is more *likely*. And here analogies have to be
made appropriately. The NT writings, Gospels and Epistles, from the word
"go" seem to have been copied, traded, gathered, sent, in a flurry of
activity (e.g., read Polycarp's letter to Philippi for hints of the nture
of this activity, even with regard to other Christian documents such as
the letters of Ignatius). This is very different from the use made of
"high" literature in the ancient world, which, if genuinely "high" would
have been circualted in *very* small circles of the cultured elite,
making the possibility of early and uncorrectable corruptions much more
likely.
With regard to the NT, we have a *much* more abundant body of
mss. material, with sufficient variation to make descent from a single
exemplar most unlikely, and these many mss. are distributed
geographically much more widely also than for any other ancient texts.
So, there is in fact no real analogy for the frantic copying and
transmission of early Christian texts that I can think of from
antiquity. Nor is there any analogy for abundant textual materials
available for the NT.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:21:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995 GGoolde@aol.com wrote:
> If we were translating Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" into another
> language, where the culture did not have bread, but where the food stable was
> sweet potatoes, D-E might have us translate "I am the sweet potatoe of life."
> I submit it would be better to translate "I am the bread of life" and
> explain through teaching (1) what bread is, and that (2) bread was a staple
> in Jesus' time and culture.
This reminds me of the anthropological linguists I used to study with. They
suggested that if a translation is prepared for islanders, their language
and cultural experience make them incapable of understanding "mountain"
so "mountain" should be rendered "wooden platform" or whatever.
Personally I find this condescending and patronizing in the extreme - a
simple picture of a mountain would get it across (I was raised in flat
Florida myself, never had a problem with envisioning mountains). There
has to be a careful decision about the amount of "teaching" that should
be taken for granted in a translation, though. Some people have time to
study in depth; others could get by with illustrations, footnotes, and
some teaching; others have no time or opportunity at all: for them, a
daring paraphrase may at least get across the "gist" to them. I know
when I read Asian texts that use symbols like the lotus, the yarrow,
etc., I don't have time to become an Asian expert on all the nuances of
those terms.
But D-E seems to cover a wide range of attempts. I understand that the
NIV is D-E, and it is very close to the F-E of King James. The Living
Bible I understand is a paraphrase. But even there I don't think you'll
find "yams of life." :)
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 10:30:23 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
More power to Mr. Finney & others to explore all technological
developments. However, I rather think him a bit ill-informed and perhaps
naive about what a critical apparatus of the NT really requires.
- --One *major* reason for the delay in the IGNTP work is that it had to be
done *before* any of the "golly-gee" wiz-bang techno-stuff he is so
enthusiastic about was available (having begun in 1947!). Matter of
fact, this "Collate" program has been available only for a few years,
subsequent to the publication of the IGNTP Luke vols.
- --Second, there were major theoretical/methodological problems to be
tackled, esp. what to do with the mass of medieval mss. This is the
background for the development of the Claremont Profile Method,
originally designed specif. to select representative mss. to collate
systematically from the 3,000 or so to be considered. No techno-fix
could work here; this required humans with sufficient expertise to figure
out *how* to proceed, although now that that is done computers could do
the Profile Method selection work *if* we had machine-readable texts for
the 3,000 mss.!
- --I'd be surprised if the Collate program can do what must be done in a
critical apparatus, without massaging by humans. Esp. necessary is the
determination of what the "variation units" are, a matter I can't discuss
here, but which readers can follow esp. in the new vol. by E. J. Epp, G.
D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and Mthod of NT Textual criticism_
(Eerdmans, 1993), *require* reading now for anyone venturing into serious
text-critical work in the NT.
With machine-readable texts (itself a painstaking,tedious and
time-consuming project), a collate program could identify variants, but
then the variants would have to be analysed to determine variation units,
which is necessary to the *display* of the variations in an apparatus.
There may well also be other factors. But these will illustrate that the
millennium of text-critical work is not quite in sight yet.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
P.S. On use of computers in text-critical work, see now R. A. Kraft's
essay on the topic in B. D. Ehrman, M. W. Holmes (eds.), _The Text of the
NT in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis_
(Eerdmans, 1995).
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 09:14:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
You wrote:
>
>If we were translating Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" into
another
>language, where the culture did not have bread, but where the food
stable was
>sweet potatoes, D-E might have us translate "I am the sweet potatoe of
life."
> I submit it would be better to translate "I am the bread of life" and
>explain through teaching (1) what bread is, and that (2) bread was a
staple
>in Jesus' time and culture. This would preserve all the connotations
and
>inferences found in other passages (e.g., the Lord's supper). What I
am
>saying is that we should translate the Bible in its own culture and
explain
>it, not place it in the culture of the recipients.
>
>There are many people who do not have sheep or lambs. Do we
substitute some
>animal they do have, perhaps pig, for lamb?
I've often wondered if Eskimo children who read in a radically
aculturated translation that Jesus is the "young seal of God" would not
ask, "But how did the people of Isreal know about seals in Jesus'
time?" We are now living in a world that has very few peoples who do
not have access to information about other cultures and times through
the press, television and radio.
I agree with G. Goolde that cultural differences are better
explained than translated away.
regards,
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, Florida, USA Southeastern Spanish District of
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:23:33 PDT
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
> On the question of whether mss. of Mark (or of other NT writings) may all
> be descendents of a single early exemplar that somehow became seriously
> defective:.... With regard to the NT, we have a *much* more abundant body of
> mss. material, with sufficient variation to make descent from a single
> exemplar most unlikely.
This is true in general, but an interesting, possibly-related example
might be the theory that all MSS of Acts descend from _two_ exemplars,
one or both of them being Lukan autographs.
Elsewhere in the NT, Hort and others have conjectured that in some
few verses the original text is no longer extant in any witness because of a
very ancient error. I'd have to look that up in W-H if more details
are needed for discussion.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 13:05:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
At 9:45 AM 02/06/95, Tim McLay wrote:
>GGoolde wrote:
>>If we were translating Jesus' statement "I am the bread of life" into another
>>language, where the culture did not have bread, but where the food stable was
>>sweet potatoes, D-E might have us translate "I am the sweet potatoe of life."
>
>I guess that I would have to say (yet again) that there is a place for a
>translation which would use "sweet potatoe" because it would convey the
>meaning
>of the passage to its hearers.
But isn't this exactly the problem: i.e. the presupposition that, indeed,
this _is_ "the meaning of the passage"?
Suppose, for a moment, that in addition to the supplying of sustenance that
other meanings in the text --perhaps even the "real" meaning-- had to do
specifically with the nature of bread. For example, the inclusion of
leaven (and by extension all that this implies wrt purity laws); that the
existence of the bread presupposes the efforts of a baker; that the unbaked
dough has gone through the process of rising; that the bread has passed
through the fire of the oven... etc. etc. The translation "Yam of Life"
would supply none of these resonances[*].
I certainly wouldn't argue that this is necessarily the case in the present
instance but a serious problem, it would seem to me, in many D-E
translations is that often exactly this sort of presuppostion gets imposed
on the text. This is particularly problematic when the presuppositions are
theological in nature, resulting in "translations" as "In the beginning was
Christ" or passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that are made to refer
explicitly to Christ.
Such problems are certainly not unique to D-E; nonetheless it would appear
that such shortcomings are all but unavoidable given the nature the
technique.
[* Or more to the point, it could supply resonances never intended <insert
your favorite vegatative metaphor here>.]
Nichael -- Do not trust in these deceptive
nichael@sover.net words: "This is the
temple of the
Paradise Farm Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
Brattleboro VT temple of the Lord".
------------------------------
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 13:17 EDT
Subject: Codex Sinaiticus
My recollection of a conversation with Charlesworth
from some years ago is that all of the "new"
leaves of Sinaiticus are from the Old Testament and that
there were no new NT mss discovered at the monastery.
- -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 10:37:44 PDT
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca responded to finney@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au thus:
> One *major* reason for the delay in the IGNTP work is that it had to be
> done *before* any of the ...wiz-bang techno-stuff ...was available.
We all realize Luke was slow for that (and other) reasons,
but the concern is that John, which began in the 80's I assume,
will still progress with 1940's methods and take 40 years.
> what must be done in a
> critical apparatus, without massaging by humans. Esp. necessary is the
> determination of what the "variation units" are....
Actually, the isolation and integration of variation units
is something that NA26 does, but _not_ IGNTP Luke.
In IGNTP Luke, the reader has to do his own identification of
overlapping/interrelated variants to define his own "units".
As far as I can tell, the processing steps between M.R. collation
and printed IGNTP apparatus are all automatable in straightforward fashion.
What takes human judgement is the spelling regularization of the text
and the culling of "insignificant" variants, both done by the collator.
The Claremont Profile Method exists now, and it requires no computing to apply
and not much rethinking to repeat. The Tischendorf, von Soden, and
Nestle-Aland apparatuses would suffice to choose the test readings in John,
if they are not chosen already. The collation of test passages would not take
horrifically long, and automated cluster analysis of the results
would be rather easy.
What I am concerned about is minimizing the labor needed for
performing those selected collations, with man-hours being scarce.
MANUSCR is nice, but I could think of possibly faster approaches with
off-the-shelf software and some home-brew glue.
Then, of course, we would all gain if preliminary results could be
published electronically at intervals.
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641
------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 95 14:59:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Dynamic Equivalence
I prepared this response before Nichael's excellent points, but I think my
answer will suffice,
David Moore wrote:
> I've often wondered if Eskimo children who read in a radically
>aculturated translation that Jesus is the "young seal of God" would not
>ask, "But how did the people of Isreal know about seals in Jesus'
>time?" We are now living in a world that has very few peoples who do
>not have access to information about other cultures and times through
>the press, television and radio.
> I agree with G. Goolde that cultural differences are better
>explained than translated away.
I suppose we could start listing the various metaphors and how to
treat them and the various problems involved, but ultimately it
comes down to the translator(s)doing the best job s/he/they can do in a
given circumstance (Besides, young Eskimo children would not know that
there were not seals in Palestine). What we might belittle in our context
might make the best sense in another. As Carl Conrad noted, metaphors and
idioms are the most difficult linguistic elements to transfer from one
language to another and I do agree that it does raise serious questions
about what to do. Teaching and appropriate footnotes have their place, we
all affirm that, but so does appropriate (dynamic) translation. The
sweet pot. and seal examples remind me of a missionary film, though I
forget the details. The crux of it was the use of the equivalent of
"Peace Child" to translate some word in order to communicate the
significance of Christ's death on the cross. Was this decision
inappropriate when it made clear the meaning of the message in their
context?
George Goolde asked whether it was because people were lazy
that DE translations are popular. In some cases, perhaps, it is because
the TVgeneration wants the answer given to them. But I don't think the
reason can ever be that simple. Most readers just don't have access to
the tools and it isn't because they are lazy. They are people
of divergent intellectual abilities and access to tools. Furthermore,
some tools they use we would scoff at (eg. a Schofield bible, my apologies
to dispensationalists). In my experience as a pastor, being
able to understand what they are reading is one of the greatest
motivations for people to read their bibles more. How can I treat that
negatively?
All translations have difficulties. Should we translate
literally "heap coals of fire on his head"? FE translations can have the
same kinds of misleading effects as any example one could give of DE. But
enough of trading problems. This is too long already. Sorry.
Tim McLay
>
>regards,
>
>
> David L. Moore Director of Education
> Miami, Florida, USA Southeastern Spanish District of
>Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com the Assemblies of God
--
Tim McLay
Halifax, NS
nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 13:29:31 CST
Subject: Mark 16:8
I would say that there is resurrection in Mark even if it ended at 16:8. But
I think that Kenneth's point is well taken: something vital is missing if it
did end at verse 8. When Paul lists the four basic facts of the gospel in
I Cor. 15, he includes the ressurection appearances as the fourth basic fact.
(This is sometimes overlooked because I have often heard it said that the
death, burial, and ressurection are the three most important things of the
gospel). The burial proves the death and the appearances prove the
resurrection. It is hard for me to believe that someone would write a
scroll's worth of gospel about the life of Jesus and intentionally leave out
one of the basic facts of the gospel.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:04:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Fri, 2 Jun 1995, Bruce Terry wrote:
> I would say that there is resurrection in Mark even if it ended at 16:8. But
> I think that Kenneth's point is well taken: something vital is missing if it
> did end at verse 8. When Paul lists the four basic facts of the gospel in
> I Cor. 15, he includes the ressurection appearances as the fourth basic fact.
> (This is sometimes overlooked because I have often heard it said that the
> death, burial, and ressurection are the three most important things of the
> gospel). The burial proves the death and the appearances prove the
> resurrection. It is hard for me to believe that someone would write a
> scroll's worth of gospel about the life of Jesus and intentionally leave out
> one of the basic facts of the gospel.
BUT: Mark recounts the burial and recounts the empty tomb, and I suspect
that form of the passion predictions is not unrelated to the same
tradition that Paul cites in 1 Cor 15. Is this just a vague surmise of
mine or has it ever been suggested?
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/
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #732
*****************************
** 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