From: Jim West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Apr 03 1998 - 09:09:57 EST
At 11:07 PM 4/3/98 +1000, you wrote:
>But punctuation is used to show how we are to read the original. Not many
>people would want to read a NT that looks like this:
Indeed! ANd the moment we surrender our minds without question to some
editor we cease being scholars and become clones. I did not mean to suggest
(Carl) that punctuation is unnecessary. I merely meant that we should take
it with the proper grain of salt if we wish to do work in this field and not
be led around by the nose.
>While punctuation is interpretive, so is translation. Surely punctuation is
>essential. And some punctuations may reflect the true meaning of the
>original, whereas others may obscure it.
Indeed! But who decides? You, me? Some distant editor who may or may not
have an axe to grind? That was my point.
>My question is whether there is more than one way to see this verse or not.
>Anybody could bung in commas and full stops, or leave them out to show a
>possible meaning. But what is likely to be the author's intended meaning?
Not necessarily- so think for yourself and decide. Who knows, you may be
right while all your forebears have been wrong.
>Also, I am asking, Is there a grammatical reason to put the comma in one
>place or another?
Not here there isn't.
to you as well.
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:21 EDT