[B-Greek] Re: Semantic Domain of SARX

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 2 13:47:30 EST 2004


Ken, I think you'd do well to look at Spicq (Theological Lexicon of the New
Testament, by Ceslas Spicq, O.P. Translated and edited by  [this list's
own] James D. Ernest. Copyright © 1994 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.
Spicq has a nice and careful analysis of usage of SARX in the LXX, in
secular Greek, and in the GNT. Certainly the usage and favorable and
pejorative connotations the word may have range across quite a spectrum in
the GNT, and for that reason I hope you're not looking for any single
English word or phrase to convey its meaning in all its contexts. Secondly,
you may look down your nose at BDAG, but if you look carefully at it you'll
find a careful, lengthy, and nuanced account of usage in the GNT and
contemporary literature, that I won't begin to cite here but that I think
you err to skip over so contemptuously past it, although that's your
privilege; the distinctive pejorative sense that appears in several
instances in Paul's letters but not universally in them. You ought to look
in particular at BDAG s.v. SARX 2. c. alpha, which does indeed show the
negative
Pauline sense in Hellenistic secular literature: Epicurus, Philo, Plutarch,
Diogenes Laertius--philsophers especially, it would seem.

At 9:19 AM -0800 12/2/04, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:46:05 -0800 (PST)
>> From: Doug Hoxworth <doughoxworth at yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Semnatic domain of SARX
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Message-ID:
>> <20041202154605.22291.qmail at web51507.mail.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> ><Ken>
>> >Wouldn't it always be better lexicographically to
>> give a normal "translation" than an interpretive
>> gloss
>> that is clearly not really part of a word's semantic
>> domain from its original linguistic context?  Now I
>> don't know where to look for good translations for
>> words.
>>
>> <doug>
>> not necessarily. and what do you mean by "normal
>> 'translation'"? normal according to what standard?
>> are
>> you an advocate of concordant translation (e.g.,
>> would
>> you expect it to be englished as "flesh" everywhere
>> it
>> occurs?)
>>
>> also, you have not proven that the gloss
>> ["interpretive" as you call it] here is disallowed
>> in
>> all contexts. perhaps it is part of the semantic
>> range
>> of the word. i do not see that you have proven that
>> it
>> is not.
>>
>> Doug Hoxworth
>> Luther Rice Seminary
>
>Doug,
>
>   My point is not to argue here about the specific
>meaning of SARX in a given passage.  My point is that
>I have yet to be convinced that if you asked a person
>in Rome in the middle of the first century, "What does
>SARX refer to?", they might point to a body, they
>might point to a beef roast, they might use a SWMA as
>a synonym, but  they would not say SARX = (AMARTOLOS
>FUSIJ, or some other metaphorical idea.  That is
>simply not how SARX is used in Greek literature that I
>can see.  Therefore, a  lexicon should offer options
>for what the word meant to ancient Greek speakers and
>leave it to commentators if they wish to say that SARX
>is used by Paul to point to something metaphorical
>that goes well beyond the word's meaning.
>
>Ken Litwak
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>All your favorites on one personal page ñ Try My Yahoo!
>http://my.yahoo.com
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list