[B-Greek] Titus 1:6, not in accusation of what?

Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Aug 24 15:24:05 EDT 2005


Dear Jeff,

>It seems to me some translations miss it in 
>Titus 1:6, but I'd like to run this by list 
>members in the event I'm the one who is missing 
>something. The phrase in question is MH EN 
>KATHGORIAi ASWTIAS H ANUPOTAKTA (É ? ?ÉÀ 
>ɻɸÉ-ɉɡÉÕɦ?? ?É-É÷É-?ÉøV ? 
>?ÉÀÉ"¼?É-ÉøÉ»É-Éø, "not in accusation of 
>dissipation or rebellious").
>Some translations (those that I think miss it) 
>take both ASWTIAS and ANUPOTAKTA as being 
>governed by EN KATHGORIAi. But ASWTIAS is a gen. 
>noun specifying the kind of accusation in view, 
>while ANUPOTAKTA is an adjective, neuter acc., 
>agreeing with TEKNA. So then I understand the 
>text to indicate that the children shouldn't be 
>accused of dissipation and they shouldn't be 
>rebellious. That's the meaning rather than "not 
>accused of dissipation or rebellion" (NAS), 
>which construes ANUPOTAKTA as a noun and 
>suggests that the point is the children 
>shouldn't be open to accusation of either 
>dissipation or rebellion.
>Any thoughts?

HH: You seem correct. it may be that the 
translations took the road of least resistance. 
They could have rearranged the sentence to put 
the rebellion first. Instead of the NIV:

Titus 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband 
of but one wife, a man whose children believe and 
are not open to the charge of being wild and 
disobedient.

HH: They could have put:

Titus 1:6 if anyone is blameless, the husband of 
one wife, having children (that are) faithful, 
not rebellious or accused of wildness.

HH: You lose rebellion as the final term, though.

				Yours,
				Harold Holmyard




More information about the B-Greek mailing list