[B-Greek] Hebrews 1:1-2 EN

George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 15 18:55:18 EST 2007


We do the same thing in English as is done in Greek and specifically in the NT when we use a similar construction with a preposition repeatedly.  If we were to translate it into another language (perhaps one which is not Indo-European particularly) we might be surprised what would happen.  To us it is perfectly comprehensible and we automatically understand that the usage differs; but, unless it is translated differently into whatever language we happen to be translating it, it may become unclear or even misleading.  I wouldn't call it chutzpah.  Sometimes all you can do is to fly by the seat of your pants which means having enough of an understanding of the usages in the language to avoid a wooden repetition of the same formula such as abc every time we see xyz.  I remember when I first met my wife's parents.  We were going to go "by so-and-so."  This was not so incomprehensible, but it did strike me as rather funny so I asked if we were going to drive past their house.  I
 happened to have had some Dutch so I understood that to go "bij X" was to visit them nevertheless, it is slightly humorous from the standpoint of the English speaker.  I would concur with Elizabeth that this is best taken up in a translation venue.
   
  george
  gfsomsel
  _________

Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com> wrote:
  I find this question to be interesting. Everyone would agree
that there are lots of instances in NT Greek where the same
word in the same sentence HAS to be translated with a different
English word, but is there a point where the constructions are
so similar that it almost becomes impermisible to use different
words, and if so, is Hebrews 1:1-2 one of them?

Glancing at translations I find only two where EN is
rendered with a different word in verse one than in
verse two, namely NIV which has through/by and
NET which has through/in. 

I understand Elizabeth's point that EN plus the dative can
of course mean different things, but what is the argument
that they mean different things here? Maybe the lack of the
article in hUIWi, but that seems far fetched. I mean, you 
have the same verb in the same tense in an obvious parallel
construction. If there is ambiguity in the two EN's, why not
just have two "throughs" or two "ins" and assume that the
English reader can pick up on the same ambiguity.

It seems like for many of us Greek learners, free translations
routinely drive us crazy. I recognize this as a certain lack of
maturity; it seems people who have studied Greek longer 
develope MORE tolerance, if that is the right word, for free translations. 
I occasionally find the the freer versions helpful not as good
translations but as showing something that IS there in the 
Greek. But this instance seems to me a case of free
translation chutzpah where a translator seems to be seeing
something in the text that the rest of us just don't see.
What I can almost never understand about such a free
rendering as this (and now I feel that I am getting into
something that does not belong on this list, but I'm almost
done) is how can the translator feel so confident in his or 
her rendering that s/he is willing to say something that
MIGHT be in the text at the risk of saying something that
is clearly NOT in the text, namley two different words. But I 
know there is another side to it, and if anyone can make the
case for the NET or NIV rendering I would like to hear it. 

Elizabeth Kline wrote:
HEB. 1:1 POLUMERWS KAI POLUTROPWS PALAI hO QEOS LALHSAS TOIS PATRASIN 
EN TOIS PROFHTAIS 2 EP' ESCATOU TWN hHMERWN TOUTWN ELALHSEN hHMIN EN 
hUIWi, hON EQHKEN KLHRONOMON PANTWN, DI' hOU KAI EPOIHSEN TOUS AIWNAS:

Several assumptions are made here which should be questioned.

The assumption that two EN + dative constituents in a parallel 
construction must be semantically identical.
EN + dative is very common. Danker (BDAG) places instrumental EN + 
dative and personal agency under different headings at the same level 
whereas BDF 219.1 lists personal agency under the heading of 
instrumental. Westcott appears (??) to take it as a locative, but 
Ellingworth and Koester call it as an instrumental. Quibbling over 
this in regard to Hebrews 1:1-2 gets us nowhere.

The inferential ambiguity of EN + dative in the greek text isn't 
translatable because no target language will have exactly the same 
semantic mapping for a prepositional phrase. When you translated it 
you end up damaging the goods. This ambiguity is a very important 
aspect of the semantics of the original. Translating it via 
paraphrase reduces the ambiguity. Any attempt at a so called literal 
translation will skew the ambiguity. You end up with damaged goods in 
both cases. Take this question up in a translation forum.

What makes this parallel construction powerful in greek is precisely 
that fact that it cannot be semantically pinned down. An attempt to 
prove that EN TOIS PROFHTAIS is semantically identical to EN hUIWi is 
bound to fail because the argument of Hebrews is decidedly against 
it. Hebrews is a book filled with comparisons of the old and the new 
and the stress is on the difference between the old and the new.

Cognitive approaches to semantics recognize the importance of 
inferential ambiguity. The classic approaches to exegesis which 
attempt to remove ambiguity by forcing us to choose one of several 
alternatives are based on the code model for language. Ambiguity is a 
positive and beneficial attribute of texts not just a problem to be 
solved and removed.


Elizabeth Kline

On Dec 15, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Alderman, Jim wrote:

> The parallel structure of the first two verses of Hebrews is quite
> striking, especially if viewed in a diagram. Here is a sentence 
> tree of
> these verses, albeit using Marshall's literal translation, which I am
> using with a study group:
> http://www.freewebs.com/jlaindy/Hebrews%20Mind%20Map/index.html.
>
>
>
> My question is regarding the two phrases "by the prophets" (EN TOIS
> PROFHTAIS) and "by a son" (EN hUIWi). Both PROFHTAIS and hUIWi are
> dative. EN would literally be translated "in" but more naturally "by"
> for readability in this context. In a previous message
> (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2004-July/030716.html), a
> case was made for requiring EN to "bear the sense 'by means of' or
> 'through the instrumentality of.' "
>
>
>
> With both occurrences of EN being in the same sentence, both with the
> dative and especially considering the parallel construction, could 
> there
> be any reasonable argument made for translating them differently? In
> other words, I am not concerned with how EN is translated, but that 
> both
> occurrences should be translated the same way - not in general, but 
> only
> in this specific situation.
>





---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



george
gfsomsel

Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.

 - Jan Hus
_________
       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.


More information about the B-Greek mailing list