[B-Greek] Ambiguity

Vasile STANCU stancu at mail.dnttm.ro
Fri Feb 5 15:46:33 EST 2010


I find this to be a beautiful sequence in a conversation which is supposed to clarify some aspects in Nicodemus' perception.

(1) I believe we can easily agree that there are instances in the Greek texts that are available where ἄνωθεν means 'from above' and instances when it means 'again'.

(2) That Jesus meant this word to mean 'from above', is quite clear from the rest of the pericope.

(3) However, Nicodemus understood it to mean 'again', given his reaction.

(4) Which is the most appropriate attitude of the translator in such a case? If the text under consideration were a technical description of a certain practical process, it might be acceptable that the transator should propose something like '... if one is not born from above (in certain contexts, ἄnωθεν may mean 'again')...' Yet, the translator needs to reflect a real conversation, with its 'ambiguous' and partial understandings that are inherent to any process that do not 'recreate', but rather 'represent' something. Consequently, the immediate meaning given to Jesus' word at this stage is correctly rendered by the meaning Nicodemus assigned it.

It is my impression that human communication, without such 'ambiguities', would be very much like the simple and limited language that we get in technical 'user's manuals'.

Vasile



 
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of George F Somsel
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:19 PM
To: Dr. Don Wilkins; Carl Conrad
Cc: B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ambiguity

One of my favorite ambiguities is the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus in Jn 3

3ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
3 APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, "AMHN, AMHN, LEGW SOI, EAN MH TIS GENNHQHi ANWQEN, OU DUNATAI IDEIN THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU."
 
followed by Nick's response
 4λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν [ὁ]Νικόδημος• πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος γεννηθῆναι γέρων ὤν; μὴ δύναται εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ δεύτερον εἰσελθεῖν καὶ γεννηθῆναι; 
 
4 LEGEI PROS AUTON [hO] NIKODHMOS, "PWS DUNATAI ANQRWPOS GENNHQHNAI GERW WN?  MH DUNATAI EIS THN KOILIAN THS MHTROS AUTOU DEUTERON EISELQEIN KAI GENNHQHNAI?"

Obviously Nick means "born again", but this has been put into the mouth of Jesus in translations.  What Jesus seems to have intended was "born from above."  This is indicated by Jesus' response to Nick
 10ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ• σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ταῦτα οὐ γινώσκεις; 
10 APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, "SU EI hO DIDASKALOS TOU ISRAEL KAI TAUTA OU GINWSKEIS?"
 
The two are obviously talking past one another, but "born again" has become engrained in the language of the Church.

 george
gfsomsel 


… search for truth, hear truth, 
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, 
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________ 




________________________________
From: Dr. Don Wilkins <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
To: Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Fri, February 5, 2010 11:55:14 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Ambiguity

No complaints from me, Carl, for what that's worth. I'm touching on  
the subject of ambiguity right now with a basic Greek class at  
church. We've all heard how much more precise ancient Greek is  
compared to English, and while that's true on many fronts, it's just  
as important to know where the Greek is ambiguous. My favorite  
nomination is the circumstantial participle. The Greeks seem to have  
been entirely comfortable with the multiple ways these participles  
can be interpreted in various contexts, while in English it is almost  
automatic to avoid them and use a subordinate clause with an adverb  
instead to clarify the relationship to governing verbs. Another one  
that came up in my class last night was the middle/passive voice. I  
was explaining the voices and how one can determine the voice from  
endings, when a bright young man asked how you tell the difference  
between the middle and passive in the present tense. I confessed that  
one cannot, and that one has to rely on context (marginal "Or" notes  
in many translations testify to the fact). I illustrated with the  
middle/passive imperatives in James 2:16 (which can also be parsed as  
indicatives, about which I said nothing), pointing out that there,  
even the context does not nail down the voices used. I also pointed  
out that while the reflexive concept might be the simplest (or  
simplistic) way to understand the middle voice, it is also unlikely  
in most instances and one has to resort to a lexicon for a probable  
meaning (I know that analysis of the middle voice is dear to your  
heart, Carl). So I think it's a good idea to discuss ambiguity in  
ancient Greek at the beginning of a Greek curriculum. After all, the  
reality of the situation is that all real languages were put together  
by committees consisting of entire peoples and nations, and it's no  
wonder that they all have shortcomings.

Don Wilkins
S.I.R. The Lockman Foundation

On Feb 5, 2010, at 5:37 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Mark Lightman wrote:
>> For what it is worth, Todays Greek Version renders the first
>> hHNIKA with οποτε hOPOTE and the second hHNIKA with
>> οταν hOTAN.  The ABE Modern Greek gives οσακις hOSAKIS
>> for the first, and for the second it gives
>> μολις (which in Modern Greek means something like
>> "as soon as")  All temporal expressions, though
>> maybe as Carl said, "temporal/generalizing."
>>
>> The Modern Greek has no more authority than any other
>> translation, but I mention it only to remind everyone that
>> Ancient Greek is a more ambiguous language than even
>> Modern Greek.
>>
>> I think Donald is correct that while one CAN go
>> see the conditional and or causal force of the
>> hHNIKA's here, one should not.
>
>
> I think Mark's statement about the ambiguity of ancient Greek is
> right on target. I do believe that there are quite a few texts, the
> meaning of the Greek text which is essentially unmistakable. I
> think, however, that there are several that are open to alternative
> interpretations whereof one or more is/are more probable than
> othres -- and I rather think that there are more passages than we  
> readily
> admit that do not provide clear grounds for determining which
> sense is preferable (my apologies to any who find my opinion
> offensive). I think too that we often ask questions about
> what's in an author's mind that go beyond anything that s/he has
> clearly stated. This is not, of course, just a matter of ancient  
> Greek;
> it's true, I believe, of all communication: making oneself clear is
> an enterprise that we sometimes succeed at and sometimes don't.
> It does demand an effort -- if we really care to be understood.
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
> ---
> 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

---
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



      
---
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