[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-ÉÉ¡ÉÕɦ?? ?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