[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