[B-Greek] John 10:29
Beata Urbanek
baurbanek at op.pl
Fri Feb 25 03:13:23 EST 2005
Thanks. Now I do have a problem - and I must choose something. I'd thought
I'd go for the first one after reading Birdsall's article, but if it's not
correct and almost senseless I wiil not. Writing a thesis is not easy.
Beata Urbanek
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iver Larsen" <ialarsen at multitechweb.com>
To: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>; "Beata Urbanek"
<ap22 at wp.pl>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 6:09 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] John 10:29
> >1. hO PATHR MOU hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZWN ESTIN
> >Birdsall says: "Barret translates it as a perfectly acceptable Greek
> >sentence 'My Father in regard to what he has given me is greater than
> >all'. (relative clause as an accusative of respect)
> >B. Metzger says that this reading is impossible Greek and cannot be
> construed.
> >Who is right?
>
> I think Metzger is right on that score.
>
> >2. hO PATHR MOU hOS DEDWKEN MOI MEIZON PANTWN ESTIN
> >Barret translates it: " My Father who gave them to me is greater than any
> >other power".
>
>
> > [Carl:] My own opinion, by which I would not lay much store here, is
that
> NONE of
> > the variants (including the text presented in UBS4/NA27) yields a
> > satisfactory meaning.
> > --
> >
> UBS4/NA27: hO PATHR MOU hO DEDWKEN MOI PANTWN MEIZON ESTIN (only found in
> first hand of Vaticanus, corrected later in the same ms as it obviously
> cannot be correct)
>
> I would agree that none of the two variants listed nor the UBS4/NA27 text
> yields a satisfactory sense and therefore none of them are likely to be
> original.
>
> There are several mss variants that do yield a satisfactory sense, and it
is
> that sense, rather than the UBS/NA text that pretty much all translations
> (except the non-sensical TEV rendering) have decided to translate, simply
> because the context demands it. IMO, that is one of the major differences
> between Bible translators and textual critics. Translators emphasize sense
> and context, textual critics emphasize speculations as to assumed
intentions
> behind assumed scribal changes. Metzger dismisses any variant with hOS
> basically because the hOS would make good sense in the context, and
> therefore there would be no need to intentionally change it. The problem
> with this kind of reasoning is that it ignores the common phenomenon of
> "typos", i.e. unintentional errors by an early scribe. Even if the hO were
> original, which we can never know, most modern translators would still
> translate the intended contextual meaning, i.e. hOS, rather than the typo
or
> unintentional error in the original, i.e. hO.
>
>
> P66 has: hO PATHR MOU hOS EDWKEN (MOI) MEIZWN PANTWN ESTIN
> The majority of mss have: hO PATHR MOU hOS DEDWKEN MOI MEIZWN PANTWN ESTIN
> A few have: hO PATHR MOU hOS DEDWKEN MOI AUTA MEIZWN PANTWN ESTIN
>
> Both EDWKEN and DEDWKEN make good sense and both are found in similar
> constructions in John's gospel.
>
> Iver Larsen
> Translation Consultant
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list