[B-Greek] Poythrees on BDAG and translation theory
Kenneth Litwak
javajedi2 at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 28 18:47:41 EST 2004
HI Ann,
Thanks for your response, and on any point where I'm
wrong, I stand corrected. If I implied otherwise,
let me say again that I would never defend Poythrees's
understanding of the "gender" indication of a Greek
word. I think he is quite wrong. I was interested
to see, in fact, taht when Mark Strauss noted that
some languages do not use gender in word formtion and
this would create a problem, Poythrees and company
have no real response. I do, however, think that when
one says "such-and-such was transalted wrong in the
transaltion under attac" that this is a matter of
translation theory, i.e., how should one transalte ina
target language a word with a gener-specific form or
ending. It si not a question of the semantic domain
of a word. I also certainly reject the guideliens of
CBMW. At the same time, I can't think of anyh place
in the NT I've encountered PATHR where it would
reasonably mean anything but "father," though on this
point I havenot examined all the outside evidence
(which would be huge).
One culd argue that ADELPOI is never used outside a
famial way in the NT (brothers in the curch ar
considered aprt of a family), but it sounds as though
that's a more complicated isssue, determiend not so
much by the word's semantic domain as by what one
thinks the NT writers are doing when they use the
word. Personally, I have no problem with "brothers
and sisters" in a modern translation, where it's clear
that eveyrone is included, but I would never accept
"brother and sister" as part of the semantic domain of
ADELPOS wihtout compelling ancient evidence. The
Patristic writers I gather didn't do this, but when
they wanted to talk about femaile CHristians used hte
actual word for sister.
--- Ann Nyland <accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Kenneth,
>
> The trouble is, Poythress' statements about PATHR
> are incorrect, and quite
> frankly, are driven by his ideology with complete
> disregard for the Greek
> itself. His article needs to be viewed in light of
> various CBMW statements
> that PATHR can mean only "father", "forefather". In
> fact, the following
> statement is incorrect:
> >"One would be hard-pressed (as apparently
> > Danker is) to find ancient evidence that PATHR
> means
> > parent as opposed to father, but parent is offered
> as
> > away to be less patriarchal. "
>
> BDAG did not offer "parent" in an attempt to be less
> patriarchal, but
> because that is simply correct. Lexicographical
> disregard at a most basic
> level is to be found in the CBMW and lobbyists'
> Colorado Springs Guidelines,
> said to be set down to "govern" the translation of
> gendered language in
> Scripture. For PATHR, Guideline 3 states, "'Father'
> (pater, 'ab) should not
> be changed to 'parent,' or 'fathers' to 'parents'
> or 'ancestors.'"
>
> The following statement appears on the CBMW "List of
> 901 TNIV Translation
> Inaccuracies":
> "4. In fact, in line with 'political correctness' in
> language, the new BDAG
> Lexicon has already added 'Parent' as a definition
> of pater when used of God
> the Father (with no new evidence to support this new
> definition, p. 787)."
>
> Yet BDAG have not given a new definition - parent
> has been set down as a
> meaning of PATHR as long as I remember from right
> back many years ago in my
> first weeks as a classical Greek student, and it
> appears more so in
> Hellenistic times. P.J. Sijpesteijn, Tyche 2 (1987)
> 171-74 lists instances
> in the papyri where a singular woman is called
> PATHR. For meanings of PATHR
> other than "father", see Appendix 1 to
> G.Dagron/D.Feissel, Inscriptions de
> Cilicie, Paris, 1987, 215-220; C. Rouchev,
> Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity,
> JRS Monograph 5, ) London, 1989), nos. 42-43, and
> pp. 77, 101. BDAG has not
> added "parent" to its listings for PATHR due to any
> alleged politically
> correct agenda. They have added it as it is correct.
> In 1877, in
> pre-feminism times, George Autenrieth's Homeric
> Dictionary listed the
> meaning "ancestor" under the entry for PATHR. The
> Liddell-Scott lexicon,
> first published in 1843 (I think it was then??),
> also listed the meaning
> "ancestor" under its entry. They can hardly be
> accused of being driven by
> feminist agendas or for a desire for political
> correctness.
>
> It is noteworthy that (the old) BAGD had "ancestor"
> under their listings for
> PATHR contrary to the lobbyists' Colorado Springs
> Guidelines, but were not
> accused of being driven by a PC agenda then.
>
> At any rate, terms such as PATHR, ADELFOS, hUIOS,
> were commonly used to
> indicate social relationships in non related people.
> (Btw, Hesiod, Homer and
> Aristophanes used pater as "origin".) Poythress does
> not appear to be aware
> of this fact. Poythress' sometimes coauthor and
> fellow lobbyist, CBMW main
> lobbyist (along with Jerry Falwell and Pat
> Robertson) Wayne Grudem, states
> "Another solution was necessary, so the NRSV in this
> case decided to keep
> the singular nouns but change 'brother' to 'member
> of the church'... the
> strong nuance of membership in a family is lost when
> 'brother' is deleted."
>
> Of course, there is no nuance of membership in a
> family when ADELFOS is used
> as fellow member of an association. To state that
> "fellow member" is an
> incorrect meaning of ADELFOS is an error at the most
> basic level.
>
> When reading works by Poythress, Grudem, and their
> fellow members (ADELFOI!)
> it is helpful to remember that they are part of a
> highly active lobbyist
> group which has successfully had a Bible version
> withdrawn from sale, and
> also lobbied hard, publically, and vocally against
> the NRSV and continues to
> lobby vehemently against the TNIV. It is also
> important to note that Grudem
> insists that none of the LS entries for ANHR are
> inclusive of women, even
> "man as opposed to monster", "man as opposed to
> gods". The lobbyists present
> a confusion between the original languages and the
> English, which is
> difficult to explain, but easy to see. The following
> quote by Grudem should
> help:
> "...throughout the NRSV the human race is no longer
> called 'man.' The
> majestic, noble name which God gave us as humans at
> the beginning of
> creation - the great and wonderful name 'man' - is
> no longer our name in the
> Bible.... Feminist pressure has renamed the human
> race. We are now to be
> called 'humankind,' instead of the name God gave
> us."
>
> By the way, this has nothing to do with translation
> theory. Translation
> theory in gendered language would apply if one uses
> inclusive language in
> this society of this time, despite the exclusiveness
> of gendered language in
> the NT. The words on which the lobbyists focus were
> in fact inclusive in the
> original languages of the NT, but the lobbyists
> state incorrectly that they
> were not and attempt to confuse the matter by
> presenting a confusion of
> Greek with English. In the English language people
> have a choice: they can
> use either "mankind" and "humankind". This is their
> personal choice which
> they are free to make and this is where translation
> theory comes in.
> However, Grudem, Poythress, and their fellow
> lobbyists go further in
> implying that these are the actual words in the
> Greek (or Hebrew) as
> evidenced by Grudem's above statement about the
> human race. Yes, it doesn't
> make sense, but does distance the reader from the
> facts of the matter.
>
> Poythress and Grudem state that certain Greek words
> are used only of males.
> They are incorrect, and at a basic level. When the
> lexica clearly contain
> evidence with which their incorrect statements do
> not agree, they write
> articles against the lexica and have them published
> on their website or in
> their own journals. Grudem has also complained
> publically that the Louw-Nida
> lexicon doesn't work like other lexicons as it
> groups according to "word
> meanings", but this should not surprise anyone who
> has read its title, "The
> Louw-Nida Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains." Thus
> it is not a matter of
> translation theory, it is a black-and-white,
> yes-or-no, right-or-wrong
> matter about basic Greek word meanings which are
> incorrectly represented.
>
> Poythress and Grudem wrote a book entitled "The
> Gender-Neutral Bible
> Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words"
> (2000) in which they
> state that the English words "he" and "man" are
> theologically necessary.
>
> I hope this provides a little bit of context for
> Poythress' article.
>
> Ann Nyland
>
>
__________________________________
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