From: Edgar Foster (questioning1@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 04 1998 - 20:07:58 EDT
Dear Paul,
On pages 132-133 of the New American Commentary (the book of Acts),
John B. Polhill provides a lucid rationale for the NIV rendering of
Acts 3:16.
In short, Polhill says that "the Greek is complex and somewhat
obscure, but the NIV probably renders it as clearly as it can be by
separating it into two parallel statements."
As for the question of whose faith healed the man in Acts 3, Polhill
writes that Luke intentionally left it open. He does say, however,
that the apostles had faith which antedated the man's healing; the
restored man was unequivocally filled with faith after the miracle.
The NA Commentary is published by Broadman Press: Nashville, TN. The
copyright year on Polhill's commentary is 1992.
Regards,
Edgar Foster
---"Paul S. Dixon" wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 May 1998 05:51:43 -0500 "Carl W. Conrad"
> <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
> >At 10:34 PM -0500 5/3/98, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> >>B-Greekers:
> >>
> >>I am at a loss as to understanding the justification for the NIV
> >>translation of Acts 3:16a. It reads:
> >>
> >> By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see
> >> and know was made strong.
> >>
> >>The Greek has:
> >>
> >> KAI EPI THi PISTEI TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU TOUTON
> >> hON QEWREITE KAI OIDATE, ESTEREWSEN TO ONOMA
> >> AUTOU,
> >>
> >>First of all, it apparently takes the masculine accusative TOUTON as
> the
> >>subject of the sentence. Secondly, it renders the active
ESTEREWSEN
> >>as a passive, "was made strong."
> >>
> >>Most translations take TO ONOMA AUTOU as the subject and render the
> >>active voice actively. Just wondering where the NIV translators get
> >>their translation. Does "dynamic equivalency" have this much
> >latitude?
> >
> >Paul, as I read it, the translator is not taking TOUTON as the
subject
> of
> >ESTEREWSEN at all, but simply transforming the structure of the
original
> so
> >that the active construction with the order O-V-S becomes in the
> >English a passive construction with the order S-V-Agent. The
meaning has
> not
> >been altered, nor would I really consider this a "dynamic
equivalence"
> >version. (Actually, this is a translation strategy that I suggest
to my
> own
> >students for preserving the word-order of the original; when the
> accusative
> >object comes first in its clause and the subject last: translate the
> object
> >as subject, make the verb passive, and convert the subject into an
> agent.
> >One might argue (and I think that is the point of Mike Beazley's
> response
> >to your message) that this alters the meaning, but I don't really
think
> >so; sometimes the word-order is as powerful and communicative as the
> >phrasing itself, and I believe that is the case here; one thing to
> remember is
> >that inthe Greek the beginning is one place of powerful emphasis
and the
>
> >end is another. This sentence, however, also makes a powerful
emphasis
> upon
> >the object by making it a demonstrative and qualifying it with a
strong
> >relative clause; note also that the concluding phrase, TO ONOMA
AUTOU,
> >reiterates the opening formula, EPI THi PISTEI TOU ONOMATOS AUTOU.
In
> >order to convey the full rhetorical force of the original, I'd make
the
> >translation even stronger:
> >
> > "And it is on the basis of faith in him that this very man
> >whom you see and know has been made strong: it was His name that did
> it."
> >
> >But of course, even if that's the real sense of the original Greek,
it
> >probably wouldn't be acceptable to any translation committee that
thinks
> it
> >more important to reproduce the FORM of the original than the
CONTENT.
> >
> That was helpful. Thanks, Carl. This apparently explains the NIV
> thinking. The word order of the Greek is often lost in the
translations.
> So, we are somewhere between wanting to retain the word order
(FORM) and
> retaining the CONTENT. How about something like this?
>
> "and on the basis of faith in His name, this one, whom you
> see and know, His name has made strong."
>
> A little awkward, perhaps, but true to the content and form, and
> intelligible.
>
> Paul Dixon
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:39 EDT