[B-Greek] re my wooden interlinear translations

Dan Gleason dan-bgreek at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 4 16:11:05 EST 2005


re my wooden interlinear translations

Dr Conrad wrote: Dan, you've made perfectly clear that you intend to persist 
with  this  "interlinear" mode of transliteration despite the fact that  
several  respondents have called attention to its inaccurate  representation 
of  the sense of the Greek. So here "immerse" for  "BAPTIZW" has been  
faulted by several respondents as inaccurate  certainy for the second  verb 
form here (BAPTISEI), and while you  might think "a Holy Spirit"  accurately 
represents the Greek text  PNEUMATI hAGIWi, what you're  deriving from the 
Greek is pidgin- English rather than an equivalent  of what the Greek text 
says.  What's wrong with this "interlinear"  style of "translation" is  that 
it's based on an assumption that the  "forest" of a sequence  of discourse 
is no less and no more than but  exactly equal to the  sum of the "trees" of 
words inside that  sequence. I think that's  been stated in different ways 
in several of  the responses to your  idiosyncratic renderings of Marcan 
texts, but I  felt it was worth  reiterating "yet once more again," despite 
the fact  that you've  made it obvious that you intend to go on doing it 
this way.

DG: Dr Conrad and others have criticized the way I translate many times. As 
you can deduce, there is a night and day difference between the grammar in 
my posts verses the grammar in my translations. I am very cognizant of the 
fact that my translations sound like pidgin English and that the grammar is 
tortured. I know my translations sound idiosyncratic. And I know it rubs 
many of you the wrong way - it's not a proper translation - it's frustrating 
to read - I should know better - and all that.  I thought that the comment 
of the "forest of trees being equal to the sum of the trees" was a very 
accurate description of my translations. I just want you all to know that is 
the way I read the Greek text.  I read it in painfully literal way - and I 
do it on purpose - for a purpose. And the reason is not to get people mad at 
me. And the reason is not to make fun of the text. And (kai) the reason is 
not to insult your intelligence. I do it to emulate Marks style, which 
appears on the surface, at times, to be grotesque. I do it because I am 
writing a book on Mark - that views the imagery of the text as a form of 
stagecraft one would see in a Greek play. The scenes are simple and so are 
the props. You have characters and choruses. The descriptions are minimal. 
The dialogue is easy to remember. My commentaries on the text are going to 
be from a metaphorical viewpoint in the style of Friedrich Weinreb who wrote 
Roots of the Bible. The grotesque grammar is not to be corrected. The 
translation is to be as wooden as I can render it. That's where the 
"carpentry" begins. That's what joining this list is all about. I don't want 
any mistakes in my translation. I want my translations to look like raw 
lumber - and out of that lumber I will build the commentary on the "play." 
It's all about visual stagecraft puns.

So, in closing, I just want to let you all know I am not mad or upset. I'm 
not interested in defending my translations, my take on the text, my 
incorrect grammar, winning anyone over to my point of view, or anything like 
that. I just want to ask some simple questions about how to literally 
translate the text. I thought that doing it through the buffer of a standard 
English bible translation might be the best policy to keep everyone happy.

Dan Gleason



>From: "Tim Lewis" <tim_lewis at dodo.com.au>
>To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Translating Mark 1:4
>Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:37:43 +1100
>
>Mk 1:4
>EGENETO IWANNHS [hO] BAPTIZWN EN THi ERHMWi KAI KHRUSSWN BAPTISMA METANOIAS 
>EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN.
>
>I began teaching NT Greek to six students recently and told them that 
>EGENETO here is likely being used with BAPTIZWN as a periphrastic 
>imperfect.
>
>Is this unlikely? Until becoming aware of Mark's periphrastic uses (cf. 
>similarly his fondness for imperfects) I had taken EGENETO more so as "it 
>was John" or "John came/appeared" but even in such a translation one ends 
>up virtually with an imperfect "John was baptizing/washing..."
>
>Even if we keep the hO (making hO BAPTIZWN substantive) we have KHRUSSWN as 
>a present which seems better to me as taken with EGENETO as periphrastic, 
>otherwise "it was John the Baptist in the wilderness (who) is 
>proclaiming..." seems strange.
>
>Am I missing something? Can one use EGENETO + present participle without 
>being periphrastic?
>
>I recognise that we usually find EIMI rather than GINOMAI for such a 
>purpose.
>
>Tim Lewis
>Greek Tutor, Whitley College,
>Melbourne College of Divinity,
>Australia
>
>
>-- Original Message --
>
>Message: 12
>Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:55:52 -0600
>From: "Dan Gleason" <dan-bgreek at hotmail.com>
>Subject: [B-Greek] Translating Mark 1:4
>To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <BAY111-F950D03237C559DDC273AE95610 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>Translating Mark 1:4
>
>EGEVETO IWANNHS hO BAPTIZWN EV THi ERHMUi
>John became the-one immersing in the Wilderness ...
>
>KAI KHRUSSWN BAPTISMA METAVOIAS
>and preaching an-Immersion of-Repentance ...
>
>EIS AFESIN HAMARTIWV
>into a-forgiveness of-Sins.
>
>Re what the greek text says
>
>Are there any errors in this translation?
>(re BAPTIZWN and BAPTISMA = immersion; or other words)
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05
>
>---
>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

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list