Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Jason Hare
Posts: 695
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Jason Hare » October 18th, 2020, 3:42 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
October 7th, 2020, 7:00 pm
Translation isn't a path to understanding.
Right. It would be a better attack strategy to sit down with a teaching grammar and work through it. One can try to do inductive study on his own, simply comparing the Greek to the English and trying to understand what's going and draw conclusions from what he thinks he sees, or he could go through a decent study curriculum and really learn the features of the language. I think the better strategy is the latter, especially when your inductive study has no teacher to guide it or textual commentary to point out what you're inevitably going to miss.
0 x


Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Jason Hare
Posts: 695
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Jason Hare » October 18th, 2020, 3:45 am

Daniel Semler wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 11:31 pm
But might one not just say "... who descended from the line of David ..." and carry the intent perfectly well ?
Spacing before punctuation... I resist the temptation to modify the post. :lol:

What if Paul intended a double entendre in the minds of his readers that would be missed by rending ἐκ σπέρματος as "descended from"? σπέρμα can, after all, be a bodily production.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Daniel Semler
Posts: 185
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Daniel Semler » October 18th, 2020, 11:34 am

Jason Hare wrote:
October 18th, 2020, 3:45 am
Daniel Semler wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 11:31 pm
But might one not just say "... who descended from the line of David ..." and carry the intent perfectly well ?
Spacing before punctuation... I resist the temptation to modify the post. :lol:

What if Paul intended a double entendre in the minds of his readers that would be missed by rending ἐκ σπέρματος as "descended from"? σπέρμα can, after all, be a bodily production.
I've never really like the nestled ?. I looked into it once and it appears it was at one time done the way I have it though I have no recollection now of where I got it.

As to the translation, I am not seeing the distinction you are trying to make. "descended from" is qualified by κατὰ σάρκα. Could state the two meanings you see as possible here ?

Thanx
D
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3018
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Stephen Carlson » October 19th, 2020, 12:31 am

davidstansfield wrote:
October 17th, 2020, 7:34 pm
Daniel Semler wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 11:31 pm
Are you trying to translate or commentate ?
I am (a beginner) asking whether the Greek grammar (morphology and syntax) is compatible with my translation.
The problem is, you haven't really supplied a "translation" at all but rather a series of word-for-word glosses strung together as if that constituted a translation. It's not, because it's not grammatical in English (*"the having come" is not valid English). The first and necessary criterion for a translation is that it must make sense in the target language. Yours does not, however. Since we know that the Greek text makes sense according to Greek grammar makes sense but your "translation" does not, I must conclude that, no, the Greek grammar is not compatible with your translation.

I encourage you to take a class in Greek before attempting further translations.
1 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”