Re: OUAI = "DAMN"?

From: Jim West (jwest@Highland.Net)
Date: Mon Sep 14 1998 - 10:35:25 EDT

At 02:28 PM 9/14/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Sometimes it is not possible to give an accurate translation without giving
>some background on the culture and theological framework in which a word
>was used. Maybe we can find an equivalent for OUAI in modern English, maybe
>we can't. If not, we may need footnotes.

Well said!! In fact, the whole purpose of commentaries is to make clear
what is unclear in an ancient text to a modern reader! What the JS
translation has done (and I, by the by, am a card carrying member) is
attempt to make commentary unnecessary. Alas, the effort is a failure.

>Some knowledge of the Andrews Sisters may be necessary for an adequate
>understanding of the Bible, e.g. when discussing the Seven Bugle Boys in
>the Revelation.

Absolutely right!!!!! Absolutely!

Though said tongue in cheek, Jon is right on the money here. We must always
keep in mind that it is an ANCIENT document we are dealing with (with regard
to the OT and NT as a collection...) To deny its antiquity is silly,
dangerous, and leads to the greatest of all evils- obscurantism.

Thus, we need to struggle for modern "word" with which the translate the
ancient "woe"- but we must also take the trouble to EXPLAIN it as well- we
must, therefore be, not MERE translators- but commentators as well. Our
task is only half done and therefore badly done if we stop with translation
without comment-ation (not really a word, I know).



Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:00 EDT