[B-Greek] Semnatic domain of SARX

Remington186 at aol.com Remington186 at aol.com
Sun Dec 5 06:45:02 EST 2004


On 12/4/04 3:06:50 PM Pacific Standard Time 
Steven Lo Vullo, themelios at charter.net, wrote,

>On Dec 1, 2004, at 6:00 PM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

>> 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?

>No, it would always be better for a lexicon to give a **definition** of 
>a word rather than a **translation**. After all, that is what a lexicon 
>is for.

>>Now I don't know where to look for good translations for words.

>How about an English Bible?

This is not helpful.

A professor from CUTS seemed to be [scold]ing Kenneth because Kenneth would 
not accept hAMARTOLOS FUSIS as part of the "semantic domain" of SARX ...
And now you seem to be saying that a English lexicon of Greek words is "a 
**definition** [...] rather than a **translation**. [**After all**, that is what 
a lexicon is for.]
**How do Greek words get Englished without a translation?** Aren't the 
lexicons you use, Greek words *translated* into English?
The **definition** for what you're saying here ... rather than the 
translation ... is a word other than helpful.

       Kenneth Litwak:
       2.  Must SARX mean "sinful nature" anywhere in Paul's
       writings?  I would have said yes before, but Walt
       Russell's essay in _Christian Perspectives on Being
       Human_ has me convinced that this is an invalid
       understanding.

       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.

What I see, Steven, is Elizabethan ecclesiastics [and l8th, 19th, 20th, and 
21st century ecclesiastics) telling us what, by their hundreds of years after 
the facts, ecclesiastical minds, the definition of SARX is. 

Like Kenneth says, let the translators translate and the _commentators_ 
commentate.

Perhaps you know that Kenneth Taylor, when he first published his Living 
Letters, wrote, This is a paraphrase and must not take the place of your Bible. 
*Now*, his Bible says, "The old sinful nature [SARX] within us is against God." 
And, since it is found in, "how about an English Bible," it becomes ">>part of 
a word's semantic domain from its original linguistic context?<<

With warmest regards,
Remington Mandel
Hemet CA USA








No, it would always be better for a lexicon to give a **definition** of 
a word rather than a **translation**. After all, that is what a lexicon 
is for.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list