From: Iver Larsen (alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001 - 07:53:40 EST
Steven raised this issue:
> I've run across a syntactical phenomena which I call (for lack of a better
> description) a "Syntactical Chiasmus."
>
> At Philemon 5, the NRSV translates: "because I hear of your love for all
> the saints and your faith toward the Lord Jesus," whereas a more literal
> translation might be: "because I hear of your love and faith[fulness],
> which you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints."
>
> At Matthew 7:6, the CEV translates "Don't give to dogs what belongs to God.
> They will only turn and attack you. Don't throw pearls down in front of
> pigs. They will trample all over them," whereas a more literal translation
> might be: "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls
> before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you"
> (NRSV).
>
> (1) Does any of the major reference grammars mention or approve of
> this syntax?
>
> (2) Are there any non-biblical examples of this syntax (such as might be
> found in classical Greek)?
>
> (3) Are there any other biblical examples (in the NT or LXX) of this syntax?
>
> (4) Does this syntax appear legitimate to you?
>
> (5) Has there been any articles written which attempts to justify or
> discuss this syntax?
>
> Any help on this issue will be greatly appreciated.
It seems to me that we are comparing pears and apples. It is commonly accepted
that Hebrew has a rhetorical device call chiasm. It is not really a syntactical
concept and it is not a Greek rhetorical concept. I very much doubt that Greek
has anything that could be called syntactical chiasm.
The Matthew 7:6 is generally accepted as a Hebrew chiasm, partly because
hRHXWSIN refers to tearing apart, a word that fits wild dogs better than
domesticated pigs. Since Jesus spoke in Hebrew/Aramaic to people who were used
to expect and look for the rhetorical device of chiasm, and since Hebrew
structure is theme oriented rather than time oriented, the Semitic audience
would readily catch the intended chiasm. And I believe Jesus did intend this
rhetorical device here. A Greek audience reading the literal Greek translation
from Hebrew would probably not grasp that there was a Hebrew chiasm intended
here, because it is not reflected in the syntax. The same applies to an English
audience reading a literal translation. So, a literal translation in English
will lose a significant part of the intended meaning.
Since chiasm is not a rhetorical device in English, many modern translations
adjust the structure in the translation in order to help the reader understand
the text in the way it was intended. I don't see why such a translational
restructuring should lead us to impose any different analysis of the Greek
syntax.
Concerning Phil 5, I consider it doubtful, but not impossible, that a chiasm was
intended here. Paul is speaking in Greek, not in Hebrew, to a person who was
probably not thinking in Hebrew rhetorical structures. Philemon is characterised
by Paul as a man of "love and faith(fulness)". And these qualities are directed
towards God and fellow Christians. I take the relative hHN as referring back to
"your love and faith" as a unit and therefore this unit appears to be directed
towards both Jesus and the Christians.
The main problem for a translation into English is that "faith" is more narrow
than PISTIS and it seems strange in English to talk about "faith towards the
Lord Jesus and towards all the Christians." The English "faithfulness" would fit
better here. Therefore, from a translation point of view the NRSV can be
defended as a reasonable rendering in English. I think it loses something, but
so does a more literal rendering. How it has been translated does not change the
analysis of the Greek syntax. It seems to me as a Bible translator that some
people confuse two different concepts. It is one thing to analyse Greek grammar
and syntax. It is a different thing to translate meaningfully into another
language. A meaning-based translation is not a description of the syntax of the
Greek text, but an attempt to transfer the intended meaning into a different
language with different syntactical structures and limitations. I have noticed
that the word "translation" is often used on the b-greek list to refer to
"describing an analysis of Greek syntax by using English words and
Greekish/English syntax". That may be the way "translation" is used and
understood in Greek classrooms, but it is very different from how the word
"translation" is used by professional translators.
Iver Larsen
Kolding, Denmark
alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:49 EDT