Romans 1:1. Own translation. Grammar check

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
davidstansfield
Posts: 8
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Romans 1:1. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by davidstansfield » August 1st, 2020, 1:41 am

Romans 1:1
Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (Paul a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, having been separated into the gospel of God)

Hello,
I have translated the above text with the unusual translation, "having been separated into". I understand that my translation may not make much sense to the reader. However, is the translation compatible with the Greek grammar?
1 x


David R. Stansfield

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1074
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

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

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » August 1st, 2020, 11:51 am

ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ

Here εἰς with the accusative is understood as marking purpose[1] but might also be awkwardly paraphrased as "conferring benefit upon" as if εὐαγγέλιον was a person who could be a recipient of this benefit.

[1] See Henry Alford, "εἰς] for the purpose of announcing".
1 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2979
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

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

Post by Stephen Carlson » August 1st, 2020, 6:36 pm

davidstansfield wrote:
August 1st, 2020, 1:41 am
Romans 1:1
Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (Paul a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, having been separated into the gospel of God)

Hello,
I have translated the above text with the unusual translation, "having been separated into". I understand that my translation may not make much sense to the reader. However, is the translation compatible with the Greek grammar?
On a fundamental level, if a translation does "not make much sense to the reader," it is premature to ask if it compatible with the grammar of the original language, because the original language text makes sense.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

davidstansfield
Posts: 8
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by davidstansfield » August 2nd, 2020, 7:01 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
August 1st, 2020, 11:51 am
ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ

Here εἰς with the accusative is understood as marking purpose[1] but might also be awkwardly paraphrased as "conferring benefit upon" as if εὐαγγέλιον was a person who could be a recipient of this benefit.

[1] See Henry Alford, "εἰς] for the purpose of announcing".
Thank you. I understand "marking purpose" is commonly expressed, in translations. e.g. set apart for the gospel, to preach, to spread.., etc.

The awkward paraphrase is interesting, to me. I was unaware of this. Wow.
1 x
David R. Stansfield

davidstansfield
Posts: 8
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by davidstansfield » August 2nd, 2020, 7:56 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
August 1st, 2020, 6:36 pm
On a fundamental level, if a translation does "not make much sense to the reader," it is premature to ask if it compatible with the grammar of the original language, because the original language text makes sense.
Thank you.
(To me, “the reader” is the person reading the translation…)
The phrase “separated into the gospel” may seem nonsensical. Because, the gospel is an announcement. Yet, the definition of the Greek word εἰς, per Strong’s Concordance, is " to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result)”. So, in a sense, my translation is (or is not, not?) the original language.

However, no other English translation, to my knowledge, translates the text as, “separated into the gospel.”
So, as a beginner with Greek, I ask whether my translation is compatible with the grammar. Is the text not translated this way because there’s a problem with the grammar?
1 x
David R. Stansfield

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1823
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

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

Post by Barry Hofstetter » August 2nd, 2020, 10:32 am

davidstansfield wrote:
August 2nd, 2020, 7:56 am

Thank you.
(To me, “the reader” is the person reading the translation…)
The phrase “separated into the gospel” may seem nonsensical. Because, the gospel is an announcement. Yet, the definition of the Greek word εἰς, per Strong’s Concordance, is " to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result)”. So, in a sense, my translation is (or is not, not?) the original language.

However, no other English translation, to my knowledge, translates the text as, “separated into the gospel.”
So, as a beginner with Greek, I ask whether my translation is compatible with the grammar. Is the text not translated this way because there’s a problem with the grammar?
There is no problem with the grammar per se. The "problem" is with the usage of είς. As Stirling pointed out above, it is here used of "purpose," commonly rendered "for" in English (although it can be made even more explicit in translation if necessary). Your translation, "separated into" does not reflect how εἰς is used in this context, and so no, it's not a valid translation (and why no published translation so renders).
1 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1074
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

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

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » August 2nd, 2020, 6:06 pm

John of Damascus? Commentary Epistles of Paul [dubious authorship]
»Ἀφωρισμένος εἰς Εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ.»
Δείκνυσιν ὅσον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀξίωμα. Εἴ γε ἀφώριστο
ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τὸ διακονῆσαι τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῦ.
Εὐαγγέλιον δὲ Θεοῦ καλεῖ, ἀπὸ τῶν προοιμίων
διεγείρων τὸν ἀκροατήν.

MPG v95, p441, line t1
εἰς τὸ διακονῆσαι τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῦ. A slightly expanded rendering.
2 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

davidstansfield
Posts: 8
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by davidstansfield » August 3rd, 2020, 12:22 am

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
August 2nd, 2020, 10:32 am
There is no problem with the grammar per se. The "problem" is with the usage of είς. As Stirling pointed out above, it is here used of "purpose," commonly rendered "for" in English (although it can be made even more explicit in translation if necessary). Your translation, "separated into" does not reflect how εἰς is used in this context, and so no, it's not a valid translation (and why no published translation so renders).
Thank you.
This helps me - to know there is no problem with the grammar, per se.

I understand that the "problem" (constructive reason?) is with the usage of είς. (That "into" the gospel does not seem to make sense…)

In considering the feedback above, I think the rendering of είς as “for”, is nevertheless interpretative, as purpose (preaching). And, an attempt to make sense of the immediate text, and also of the themes of the wider text, etc. (And which is my want, also.)
I think “for” is a less common rendering. e.g. The KJV renders είς as “into” (32%), “to” (16%), and “in” (8%) - in total, about 56% of the time. Whereas “for” (8%) is less common, and with “unto” (12%) - is about 20% of the time. Source of the percentages.

Considering further the Greek εὐαγγέλιον (translated: the gospel) for a moment, I note Harvey’s exegetical guide to Romans 1:1 - “Cranfield suggests that εὐαγγέλιον includes both the message of the good news and the activity of preaching that message (54 n. 2).” (Quoting Cranfield’s A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1980.”) Consideration of the message (content?) of the good news, perhaps widens the interpretative options for είς…

I am interested in interpretation, of course. Yet, I am concentrating here on the grammar.
1 x
David R. Stansfield

davidstansfield
Posts: 8
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by davidstansfield » August 3rd, 2020, 12:49 am

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
August 2nd, 2020, 6:06 pm
εἰς τὸ διακονῆσαι τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῦ. A slightly expanded rendering.
Thank you.
I understand the MPG is the Patrologia Graeca. And, the Greek quote is from the *8th century* John of Damascus. A long time after Paul wrote…

I think this is interpretative (also), and not based on another manuscript. And, I understand the 8th century interpretation/commentary by John of Damascus, εἰς τὸ διακονῆσαι τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῦ, to be translated as, “into the service of the gospel of him”. As an evidence that the text has been interpreted this way, a long time ago...

Could you please translate the Greek text you quote above? (I had some trouble with the wider text…)
0 x
David R. Stansfield

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1823
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

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

Post by Barry Hofstetter » August 3rd, 2020, 1:52 am

davidstansfield wrote:
August 3rd, 2020, 12:22 am

Thank you.
This helps me - to know there is no problem with the grammar, per se.

I understand that the "problem" (constructive reason?) is with the usage of είς. (That "into" the gospel does not seem to make sense…)

In considering the feedback above, I think the rendering of είς as “for”, is nevertheless interpretative, as purpose (preaching). And, an attempt to make sense of the immediate text, and also of the themes of the wider text, etc. (And which is my want, also.)
I think “for” is a less common rendering. e.g. The KJV renders είς as “into” (32%), “to” (16%), and “in” (8%) - in total, about 56% of the time. Whereas “for” (8%) is less common, and with “unto” (12%) - is about 20% of the time. Source of the percentages.

Considering further the Greek εὐαγγέλιον (translated: the gospel) for a moment, I note Harvey’s exegetical guide to Romans 1:1 - “Cranfield suggests that εὐαγγέλιον includes both the message of the good news and the activity of preaching that message (54 n. 2).” (Quoting Cranfield’s A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1980.”) Consideration of the message (content?) of the good news, perhaps widens the interpretative options for είς…

I am interested in interpretation, of course. Yet, I am concentrating here on the grammar.
1) When I say the problem is not specifically grammatical, I am talking about morphology and syntax. The issue is specifically semantic, what usage of εἰς best fits the context, and particularly with ἀφωρισμένος.

2) Statistics like this are practically meaningless in determining the usage of a word. It's context that does it, and here clearly it's purpose. "For" is one way of expressing that in English.

3) You seem dependent on secondary sources. This communicates to me that you may not have studied the language in any depth. Is that an accurate assessment?
1 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”