[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