From: James H. Vellenga (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 26 1997 - 08:26:44 EDT
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:40:49 -0400
> From: "Mary A. Moody" <email@example.com>
> I wonder if the intended word play isn't lost if we translate using
> non-offensive language and drop "man" - yes, human nature surely is
> intended. But what about the tying of the "man" of the Pharisees to the man
> of those to whem Jesus did not trust himself and the man whom he knew.
> Person would work in each place, but sounds terribly strained in, "Now
> there was a person of the Pharisees"
> HN DE ANQRWPOS EK TWN FARISAIWN NIKODHMOS
> Any thoughts? How do we preserve the word play and satisfy modern English?
Part of the reason the translation above sounds strained is that
we often use "of" in place of EK. EK more or less denotes origin.
I find it useful to approximate it in English by the cumbersome
phrases "from out of" or "from among". Then for this phrase,
if one says "Now there was a person from among the Pharisees,
Nicodemus by name, ..." the reading is much less strained.
In terms of "dynamic equivalence," and given the context, it would
not be out of place to translate it as "Now there as a man,"
but that doesn't mean that ANQRWPOS necessarily implies "male,"
since the maleness can in this case be extracted from the context.
James H. Vellenga | firstname.lastname@example.org
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-303-5491
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-460-8213
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
"We all work with partial information."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:20 EDT