[B-Greek] What does this mean
Remington186 at aol.com
Remington186 at aol.com
Sat Aug 21 08:53:35 EDT 2004
Barry Hofstetter nebarry at verizon.net
Sat Aug 21 06:10:49 EDT 2004
Writes,
>Remington, why would you want to use the KJV as a base? One normally starts
>with the best available critical Greek text, and goes from the Greek to the
English.
[RM] Nothing personal, but I think Professor Hofstetter feels somewhat
responsible for my 'loose canon' effect.
Why should I suppose, Barry, that Rbt. Young is 'using the KJV as a base'? He
is quite obviously using the TR as a base. I had assumed that this was your
special 'base.'
Dr. Young lists the words from the TR, such as PISTIS, and then shows us the
frequency (in this instance) which the KJ translators translate it as
assurance, 1, belief, 1, faith, 239, fidelity, 1, them that believe, 1, (he which)
believeth, 1. And so on through the other Greek cognates of PEIQW in the TR. If
Dr. Young had had Nestle's recension he may, perhaps, have used an English
version based on that.
[Even though you have shown me nine English versions that 'are all in
agreement,' and one wonders why this would come up: "One normally starts with the
best available critical Greek text, and goes from" there, if you feel they are
all in agreement, 'translation-philosophy-wise.'] The Greek recensions, even
"the best available critical Greek text(s)" differ hardly at all compared to the
differences in each new English version.
[Professor Hiofstetter]
Steven is not "brush[ing] off" PISTEWS. You see, Steven has actually studied
Greek, and is aware that the EK is a preposition that governs the genitive
case,
so that if EK is used with PISTIS, PISTIS has to go into the genitive.
Furthermore, he understands that it is the same word, with the same semantic
range, as PISTIS, but PISTIS is in the nominative case. The case endings do
not
change the semantic range of the word, only its grammatical/syntactical usage
in
context.
[RM]
I am quite happy to be corrected, Barry. But to say, "Steven has actually
studied
Greek," is a little more than correction. And by 'studied Greek' I feel you
mean that I haven't memorized A. T. Robertson's, A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament. Well, I've got it here beside me - and I've studied the Greek language
for a lot of years. I'd be even happier if you 'could cut me a little slack,'
as the vernacular goes.
It is good to have your comments, Barry - it is not good to have a snide
remark. Seriously though, I don't really need any slack. I learn more from your
interaction than I do from plowing through A. T. Robertson. Whatever tone you
take with me.
[Professor Hofstetter]
As for your final claim, that has to be determined on a case by case basis,
as
with any word, but I think you will find very few who agree with "most of the
time."
[RM: Well, well.]
My
acquaintance with the Greek [and Hebrew] has been one of the greatest
blessings of my life. The fact that I have come to [attested] translations different
than people who knew long before they knew Greek, exactly what the Bible said,
speaks volumns to me about ecclesiastical 'translating' of the Bible.
When you read this: ESTIN, DE, PISTIS ELPIZOMENWN, UPOSTASIS PRAGMATWN,
ELEGXOS OU BLEPOMENWN, all you see is what a myriad translators before you have
seen (even before they learned Greek they knew what It said). You don't see
ELPIZOMENWN as part of the first clause, you don't see PRAGMATWN as a 'real' word.
A significant word. You see it as undefined 'things.'
Just as you see hOUTOS dozens and dozens of times as things. Just as you see
TADE and hODE as 'things,' just as you see TA and TAUTA and TOUTWN, dozens and
dozens and dozens of times, as 'things.' Can't find the antecedent? It must
be 'things.'
I don't see PISTIS 'governed by' a preposition - is that because it's
nominative?
I appreciate you, Barry. I regret that I haven't learned to discourse
charitably. Forgive me now and then.
Cordially, Remington Mandel
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list