From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 09:09:34 EDT
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:32 EDT
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[b-greek] Re: to be hAMARTIAN</title></head><body>
<div>I want to comment on two responses on this query:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(1) At 9:59 PM -0700 7/29/00, J. Garnier wrote:</div>
<div>>In speaking of 2 Cor. 5: 21, Harold Holmyard wrote,<br>
>> It is probably for English comprehension. If the translation
was more<br>
>> literal, it might be confusing:<br>
>><br>
>> "God made the one not knowing sin to be sin for us, so
that in him we<br>
>might<br>
>> become the righteousness of God"<br>
>><br>
>> This could mean that he did not know about sin, or had never
seen it. The<br>
>> Hebrew idea of experiencing would not necessarily come
across. Even if the<br>
>> translation was "experiencing," people might think
that he had no run-in<br>
>> with sin from other people. The idea is that he did not
experience sin<br>
>> because he never committed it. Since he did not commit sin,
he had no sin.<br>
><br>
>And this could be yet another example where the intellectual's
attempt to<br>
>simplify and dumb down the Bible for the stupid people of the
masses (of<br>
>which I would be classed) has rendered a simple and perfectly
understandable<br>
>phrase awkward and imprecise. hAMARTIAN, rendered sin by
intellectuals of<br>
>another day, is more precisely missing the target, deviation, but
not<br>
>deviation as a condition, precise moments or acts of
deviation. Jesus was<br>
>not knowing a deviant act, and only a fool would believe he had
no<br>
>experience with one after reading any of the things the
intellectual elite<br>
>of his day did to him. The literal understanding of the
verse is:<br>
><br>
>for that one not having known a deviant act, he did in behalf of
us, in<br>
>order that we might become God's righteousness by him</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Isn't "a deviant act" most likely to be read by an
innocent reader to refer an act of sexual perversion? I think that's
more misleading than what traditional translators have offered us.
Preferable (if one actually believes that hAMARTIA means "going
astray" or "deviation") would be "mis-step"
or "error."</div>
<div>><br>
>This is not smooth English, and would not win a pulitzer, but as
a<br>
>translation it is perfectly understandable as it stands
written. The<br>
>ability to grant oneself poetic license is the first step in the
staircase</div>
<div>>leading to the arrogant position of being a Bible
corrector. MH GENOITO!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Quite frankly, I don't quite understand the stance being taken
here regarding hAMARTIAN in the verse in question. I hardly think
that this is a very apt instance of "the intellectual's attempt
to simplify and dumb down the Bible for the stupid people of the
masses." Have four centuries of translators of the Greek Bible
into English and other European vernaculars really been guilty of
such contempt for the intelligence of the readers of their
translations?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I think not. Although the word hAMARTIA has been explained
etymologically in terms of deviation from the straight path or an
archer's missing of the mark (and that IS one of the senses that the
verb hAMARTANW can take with an ablatival genitive), etymology is in
this instance, as very frequently indeed, an inadequate guide to
meaning. Below I'll cite Louw & Nida on the NT usages of hAMARTIA
and hAMARTANW, articles that I think are very well-phrased. But even
in classical Attic Greek, where the senses of hAMARTIA and hAMARTANW
sometimes involve simple deviation or error, the notion of sin as a
'polluted' condition requiring 'cleansing,' KAQARSIS, is
well-rooted--one may find it, for instance, in the Oedipus plays of
Sophocles and elsewhere in classical literature. Surely Romans 7 and
the celebrated first-person analysis there by Paul refers to 'sin' as
a state of helpless alienation and guilt from which the individual is
incapable of delivering him/herself through one's own resources.</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div>L&N:</div>
<div><font color="#000000">88.118</font> hAMARTIA<font
color="#000000"> b , f: a state of sinfulness as an integral element
of someone's nature - 'sinfulness, being evil.'EN hAMARTIAIS
SU EGENNHQHS hOLOS 'you were born completely in sinfulness'
or 'from birth you have been evil' Jn 9:34. The implication of
this statement made in criticism of Jesus in Jn 9:34 was that he had
not adhered rigorously to all the conventional requirements of the OT
law as interpreted by the Pharisees.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">88.289</font> hAMARTANW<font
color="#000000">;</font> hAMARTIA <font color="#000000"> a , f:
to act contrary to the will and law of God - 'to sin, to engage
in wrongdoing, sin.'</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">hAMARTANW: POREUSOMAI PROS TON PATERA MOU
KAI ERW AUTWi, PATER, hHMARTON EIS TON OURANON KAI ENWPION SOU
'I will get up and go to my father and say, Father, I have sinned
against God and against you' Lk 15:18.</font></div>
<div>hAMARTIA a: MHDE KOINWNEI hAMARTIAIS ALLOTRIAIS <font
color="#000000"> 'take no part in the sins of others' or 'do
not join others in sinning' 1Tm 5:22.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">88.310</font> hAMARTIA<font
color="#000000"> c , f: the moral consequence of having sinned -
'guilt, sin.' TO hAIMA IHSOU TOU hUIOU AUTOU KAQARIZEI hHMAS APO
PASHS hAMARATIAS 'the death of Jesus his Son makes us clean
from every sin' (or 'from all our guilt') 1Jn 1:7; AFESIN
hAMARTIWN 'the forgiveness of sins' Mt 26:28; ANASTAS
BAPTISAI KAI APOLOUSAI TAS hAMARTIAS SOU EPIKALESAMENOS TO ONOMA
AUTOU v 'stand up, be baptized, and have your sins purified by
praying to him' (literally 'Š by calling upon his name'; see
33.176) Ac 22:16; METANOHSATE OUN KAI EPISTREYATE EIS TO EXALEIFQHNAI
hUMWN TAS hAMARTIASß 'therefore, repent, turn to (God) so that
your sins may be wiped away' or 'Š forgiven' Ac
3:19.</font></div>
<div><font
color="#000000"><x-tab>
</x-tab>A number of languages make a clear distinction between the
active event of committing sin and the resulting moral effect of
guilt, so that one must speak of 'committing sin' but
'forgiving guilt.' This is often required in some languages since
a term meaning 'to forgive' is literally 'to wipe away,'
'to erase,' 'to blot out,' or 'to return to someone.' The
actual event of sinning often does not fit with such verb
expressions, since it is not the event itself which is eliminated but
the moral consequences of such an event, namely, the
guilt.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">-----------------</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div>(2) At 7:17 AM -0400 7/31/00, Jason Hare wrote:</div>
<div>>... about this verbless phrase (TON MH GNONTA
hAMARTIAN hUPER hHMWN</div>
<div>>hAMARTIAN EPOIHSEN), the 'to be' that is inserted so often
in the English<br>
>is probably adopted from the verb-supplied phrase in the second
part of the<br>
>verse: 'hINA hHMEIS GENWMEQA DIKAIOSUNH QEOU EN AUTWi.' So
we see that 'he<br>
>(assumed "God") made the one not having known sin *to
become* sin for us,<br>
>so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (i.e., in
the one<br>
>who knew no sin).'<br>
><br>
>The point is that *to be* is justified because: (1) it is a
verbless clause<br>
>and it is normal to insert equative verbs in verbless clauses and
(2) *to</div>
<div>>be* is adopted from *to become* (GINOMAI). Just some
thoughts.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I don't know why this should be termed a "verbless
phrase" at all. As Harold Holmyard clearly stated in the first
response to Mark's question, the construction here is that of double
accusative with a verb of making:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>TON MH
GNONTA hAMARTIAN ... hAMARTIAN EPOIHSEN</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab>"the one who knew not sin he made sin"</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>is exactly like the much more concrete phrasing of</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab>TON
KHRON QERMON EPOIHSEN</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab>"he made the wax hot" = "he heated the
wax"</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Finally, as for the "to be" which occasioned the
original query, I think it is implicit in the double accusative
construction: TON KHRON QERMON EPOIHSEN = EPOIHSEN hOTI QERMOS
ESTI/GINETAI hO KHROS ("he brought it about that the wax
is/becomes hot." Normally, however, we have no need to make the
infinitive "to be" or "to become" explicit in
English. I would guess that the reason why the translators have made
it explicit in this instance is to make it clear that "sin"
in the clause "he made him-who-knew-not sin sin" is NOT a
verb but a noun; otherwise that translated clause might be
misunderstood to mean "he caused him-who-knew-not sin to
sin." In fact, then, the translators have made what might have
been an ambiguous version if translated most literally a clear
English statement.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>What is left problematic still is the sense in which GNONTA is
being used in the phrase TON MH GNONTA hAMARTIAN. I think that this
text most illuminating for that question is Rom 7:7-8 ... ALLA THN
hAMARTIAN OUK EGNWN EI MH DIA NOMOU KTL. Here the sense of GNWNAI
must be "recognize, discern (in oneself), have an intimate
understanding of"</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
Carl W. Conrad<br>
Department of Classics, Washington University<br>
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243<br>
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad@ioa.com<br>
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>