[B-Greek] Poythrees on BDAG and translation theory

Kenneth Litwak javajedi2 at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 28 14:32:39 EST 2004


   Recently, there was a post about an article in JETS
by Poythrees on BDAG.  Now I've had a chance to read
the article, and I wanted to make a comment because I
think that Poythrees makes an important point or two
to be born in mind when working with the Greek NT.  I
would preface this by saying that the article is the
opposite of what I expected.  I find Poythrees's
views, expressed elsewhere, on _translation_ to be
quite unacceptable, as he seems hung up on the Greek
gender of a word, and unable to disentangle that from
the potential connotation of the word in a given
context. (If I rigorously followed his approach, the
NT would not be for women because there is hardly any
place where any statement is made for those of the
female gender).

   Poythrees critiques BDAG for failing to give the
semantic meaning os three words, PATHR, ADELFOS and
IOUDAIOS, and instead giving extended "meanings" and
glosses for ideological reasons, in spite of Danker's
disapproval in the introduction of doing this exact
thing .  The point at issue, which is why I'm posting
this, is that there is a vast difference between what
a word's semantic domain is for its original
author/hearers/readers and what might be appropriate
as a "translation" (a slippery word at best) in a
target language in a different time period and
culture.  It appears that BDAG has not observed this
distinction.  One would be hard-pressed (as apparently
Danker is) to find ancient evidence that PATHR means
parent as opposed to father, but parentis offered as
away to be less patriarchal.    Now, one might wish to
justify "parent" as an appropriate "translation" in a
modern English version (I wouldn't but some may), but
that is not the same as saying that  someone in the
1st century who is fluent in Greek would have ascribed
this meaning to PATHR.   Similarly, one looks in vain
for Danker's justification for extending ADELFOS to
"member."  Most inappropriate is Danker's rendering of
IOUDAIOS as "Judean."  This word almost always
referred to "Jew" and inventing this meaning, which is
wholly inappropriate in the vast number of
occurrences, goes way beyond giving the meaning of the
word, which "Judean" is not, and inventing a
"translation to fit an ideological agenda, which
Danker said shouldn't be done.  

    Again, one might, in a given context, "translate"
IOUDAIOI as Judeans or Jewish leaders or something
else, but that's a far cry from telling users of BDAG
what the word means.

    THis is important because it reinforces my
perception that a lot of the "meanings" in BDAG  and
even BAGD are not part of the given word's semantic
domain but a theological/ideological decision (wishful
thinking?) on the part of the lexicographer.  Since
our community has at least one lexicographer in it,
Ann, I'd be really interested in her thoughts about
the difference between the meanings a lexicon should
list and the way the words might be translated in a
target language.  Certainly, what BDAG has done with
IOUDAIOS should give one great pause before affirming
that "BDAG said it, I believe it and that settles it
for me."  I'm not kidding.  I see discussions here and
elsewhere in which the "trump card" is what BDAG says
the word means.  Case in point:  my question some time
ago about lingusitic analysis of PLHROFOREW.  BDAG and
its predecessors invent a "definition" out of the air
of "fulfillment," even though that cannot be justified
from the word's use elsewhere (I've examined them
all).  Since the words Poythrees chose are readily
testable, it makes me very nervous about trusting
anything in BDAG. 

Kenneth Litwak, Ph.D.
Affiliate Faculty
Southwestern College
Wichita, KS


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list