[B-Greek] Mark 16:15 -- participles and imperatives
Iver Larsen
ialarsen at multitechweb.com
Wed Dec 29 08:23:33 EST 2004
> [Chet Creider:] Turning to Mark 16:15, however, I think the real issue
here is that the
> conventional translations with "and" are misleading as they make the
> English reader believe that the Greek has two imperatives (e.g., "Go ye
> into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (AV),
> "Go into
> all the world and preach the good news to all creation" (NIV),
> when in fact
> it has only one. (One of the those who replied to James J's
> original post,
> which lacked the Greek, in fact seemed to assume that the Greek had two
> imperatives.)
A translation tries to carry over the meaning and focus of the original text
into another language. It is not the goal of translators to produce a
translation that will necessarily allow the reader to reconstruct the
grammar of the original. In the case of Mark 16:15, it is natural in English
to use two imperatives, and as far as I know all English versions do that.
> It seems to me that our efforts to understand the Greek
> should focus on what is being done by the expression of the
> clause with the
> motion verb in subordinate fashion, as a participle. It may be
> that it is
> an indirect imperative -- rather than telling someone, "Close the
> window!",
> one can say "I wish someone would close the window." Or it may
> be that the
> participial expression allows it to be presupposed. I don't know the
> answer here, but I do feel that this is what we should be thinking about
> rather than how to classify and how to translate the participial
> clause. That is, why is it a participle in the first place -- what extra
> subtlety of expression is accomplished that is lacking when two
> imperatives
> are conjoined? Perhaps it is only to blunt the relative heaviness of two
> direct orders, but whatever it is, that is what our efforts to understand
> the Greek should be directed to.
Agreed. The use of the participle demotes the content and significance of
that word relative to the main imperative KHRUXATE. A similar focus may be
carried by context and - hopefully - oral stress rather than grammar in
English. The "going" is a necessary requirement for the focus event
"preach".
It may be useful to look at a couple of examples:
Acts 5:20 POREUESQE KAI STAQENTES LALEITE EN TWi hIERWi (go and having stood
speak)
The two main events are first the going back to the temple and then the
speaking. The standing up while speaking is somewhat presupposed and of less
importance than the imperatives. In an idiomatic translation, it is possible
to leave the standing implied as the New Living Translation (NLT) has done:
"Go to the Temple and give the people this message of life."
Acts 8:26 ANASTHQI KAI POREUOU (get up and go) with equal focus on the
getting up and going. TEV: Get ready and go. NET: Get up and go.
Acts 9:11 ANASTAS POREUQHTI (having arisen, go) with the main focus on the
"going", and the "rising up" somewhat presupposed and less important. TEV:
"Get ready and go", NLT: "Go".
The translator is faced with a dilemma as is often the case. Should one use
two imperatives and consequently lose the demotion indicated by the use of a
participle? Or should one take the demotion to its logical conclusion and
leave it out altogether, so that it is implied in the translation? (One
obviously has to get up before one can go.) A third consideration is how
much of these constructions reflect a Semitic idiom, and if so, should that
be reflected in the translation? Understanding the original text with its
fine nuances is step one and translating the text is step two. The first
precedes the second.
Iver Larsen
SIL Translation Consultant
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list