[B-Greek] Hebrews 1:1-2 EN
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Thu Dec 20 05:18:41 EST 2007
On Thursday, December 20, 2007, at 01:05AM, "Alderman, Jim" <jim.alderman at G3TP.com> wrote:
>Thanks to all who have responded to my question.
>
>Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>> ... 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. ...
>
>Yes, this is a translation question and I welcome recommendations for a good translation forum. However, I believe at least some aspects of the question are relevant here and as a mere student of Biblical Greek, I request your indulgence as long as I don't go too far astray.
Try the B-Translation list; information page: http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/list/
Archives at: https://lists.kastanet.org/Lists/Bible-Translation/List.html
As for B-Greek members, we surely range across a variety of translation philosophies, but not many of us, I think, are hung up on a word-for-word translation that doesn't accurately express the sense of the Greek text.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (ret)
>
>For many years Zondervan's Greek and English NT with Nestle's 21st and Rev. Marshall's literal translation, along with H.K. Moulton for parsing, met all of my needs. I was pleased with Marshall's accuracy, especially verb tenses. Recently, a Bible study group I lead began working Hebrews. We start, as always, with "what does it say" and after that is established move to "what does it mean." Marshall translated the EN of EN TOIS PROFHTAIS as "by" and of EN hUIWi as "in." I didn't really notice the difference until I made the sentence tree diagram of the first two verses that I referenced previously.
>It seemed to me that I had found an uncommon instance of Marshall failing to achieve his stated goals of "avoiding interpretation" in favor of a "literal translation." Hence, I posed my question.
>
>Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
>> ... 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. ...
>
>I certainly agree with the last sentence. The superiority of Christ, a new and better covenant and the Melchizedek priesthood over the Levitical, but also with a continuity of examples of faith represent major themes of the book. Even in these two verses, differentiation is made between God speaking EN TOIS PROFHTAIS and EN hUIWi. EN TOIS PROFHTAIS God spoke POLUMERWS KAI POLUTROPWS. In the past it took many prophets over many discreet periods of time to communicate the revelation that each received in numerous ways from God. Surely the composite of all this revelation was still inferior to that which was revealed by the Son. However, I don't believe Hebrews attempts to compare or contrast the instrumental means by which God spoke. He spoke EN TOIS PROFHTAIS by spirit (2 Peter 1:21 ... hUPO PNEUMATOS hAGIOU FEROMENOI ELALHSAN APO QEOU ANQRWPOI). He spoke EN hUIWi by spirit (John 3:34 hON GAR APESTEILEN hO QEOS TA RHMATA TOU QEOU LALEI OU GAR EK METROU DIDWSIN TO PNEUMA). Does not semantics tell us that use of the same preposition in both causes of this parallel construction indicates very similar if not identical instrumentality and that arbitrarily translating the two occurrences of EN with different English prepositions introduces a differentiation that is not supported by the text?
>
>Mark Lightman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>The NIV is notorious for substituting an antecedent for a pronoun in the text; I suppose to enhance the clarity of the translation for the casual reader. Fortunately for said reader, I don't remember finding one of these pronoun substitutions in error. I guess it is not surprising that they have also taken the liberty of adding "his" to Son in verse 2.
>
>
>George F Somsel wrote:
>
>> Consider the case of Mt 2.1
>>
>> ??? ?? ????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????
>> ??? ????????
>>
>> TOU DE IHSOU GENNHQENTOS EN BHQLEEM THS IOUDAIAS EN hHMERAIS hHRWiDOU
>> TOU BASILEWS
>>
>> Here we have the same preposition repeated as in Heb 1.1-2 about which you > ask. Would you understand the first EN in the same manner as the second?
>
>I understand the first EN to involve the locality of place and the second the notion of time while both occurrences of EN in Heb. 1:1-2 are instrumental.
>
>
>James L. Alderman
>Takton Systems, Inc.
>Indianapolis, IN (USA)
>
>Let all things be done decently and in order.
>1 Corinthians 14:40
>
>
>---
>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
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list