Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
davidstansfield
Posts: 18
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by davidstansfield » October 6th, 2020, 7:21 pm

Romans 1:3
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, (concerning the Son of him, the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David according to the flesh,)

Hello,
I have translated the above text as, “the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David”. I think the definite article the is used for precision here. Is the Greek grammar compatible with the meaning of, having come into being out from the (crucified, dead and buried…) seed [singular] of David?
0 x


David R. Stansfield

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1101
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » October 7th, 2020, 3:27 pm

davidstansfield wrote:
October 6th, 2020, 7:21 pm
Romans 1:3
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, (concerning the Son of him, the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David according to the flesh,)

Hello,
I have translated the above text as, “the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David”. I think the definite article the is used for precision here. Is the Greek grammar compatible with the meaning of, having come into being out from the (crucified, dead and buried…) seed [singular] of David?
Your comment on the article caught my attention. Perhaps we can kick-start a discussion on that. The Greek article is probably obligatory here. It should not be translated. Someone else can take it from here.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1101
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » October 7th, 2020, 7:00 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
October 7th, 2020, 3:27 pm
(τοῦ γενομένου) should not be translated (with an English article).
Tyndale translated it "the which" perhaps following Wycliffe. The Ancient Greek Article needs to be understood independent of translation. Translation isn't a path to understanding.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1878
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Barry Hofstetter » October 8th, 2020, 8:51 am

davidstansfield wrote:
October 6th, 2020, 7:21 pm
Romans 1:3
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, (concerning the Son of him, the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David according to the flesh,)

Hello,
I have translated the above text as, “the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David”. I think the definite article the is used for precision here. Is the Greek grammar compatible with the meaning of, having come into being out from the (crucified, dead and buried…) seed [singular] of David?
I think the article here does a kind of double duty: it directly relates γενομένου back to υἱοῦ, and it substantizes γενομένου. Secondly, σπέρματος may be singular, but here it's collective, and refers to the entire line springing from David.
Stirling wrote:The Ancient Greek Article needs to be understood independent of translation. Translation isn't a path to understanding.
I think that's an amen.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

davidstansfield
Posts: 18
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by davidstansfield » October 8th, 2020, 8:51 pm

Thank you,
Please assume the the is included, as I have done.

The remainder of my translation (obviously?) has an important possible interpretative option. To focus on my question,
davidstansfield wrote:
October 6th, 2020, 7:21 pm
Is the Greek grammar compatible with the meaning of, having come into being out from the (crucified, dead and buried…) seed [singular] of David?
0 x
David R. Stansfield

Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 1878
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Barry Hofstetter » October 9th, 2020, 9:12 am

davidstansfield wrote:
October 8th, 2020, 8:51 pm
Thank you,
Please assume the the is included, as I have done.

The remainder of my translation (obviously?) has an important possible interpretative option. To focus on my question,
davidstansfield wrote:
October 6th, 2020, 7:21 pm
Is the Greek grammar compatible with the meaning of, having come into being out from the (crucified, dead and buried…) seed [singular] of David?
I'm trying to make sense out of that. Why do you supply "crucified, dead and buried" in parentheses? Do you mean those words to modify "seed?" If so, there is certainly nothing in the context and less in the Greek to justify supplying such words. i thought I answered this above with my comment on σπέρμα. It's a collective referring to the entire line of David.
0 x
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

davidstansfield
Posts: 18
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by davidstansfield » October 9th, 2020, 9:07 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:12 am
I'm trying to make sense out of that.
Understood, and recognised...
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:12 am
Why do you supply "crucified, dead and buried" in parentheses?
I have provided “crucified, dead and buried” in my comment on the translation, and not in my translation itself (!), to prompt people on this board to consider this history, here...
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:12 am
Do you mean those words to modify "seed?" If so, there is certainly nothing in the context and less in the Greek to justify supplying such words.
As above, I mean to prompt the story.

n.b. Compatible with the (theological) theme of ‘representative Messiahship’, the seed [singular] was crucified, dead and buried. And, raised from the dead...
Barry Hofstetter wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 9:12 am
i thought I answered this above with my comment on σπέρμα. It's a collective referring to the entire line of David.
No, you have not answered my question. (I have noted, “The remainder of my translation (obviously?) has an important possible interpretative option.” And, I have repeated my question.)
0 x
David R. Stansfield

Daniel Semler
Posts: 187
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Daniel Semler » October 9th, 2020, 11:31 pm

Hi David,

Are you trying to translate or commentate ?

The position of your parenthetical suggests modification of, or commentary upon, "seed". If the seed is dead nothing comes out of it. Dispensing with the parenthetical, the English is unnatural, but it can be understood. But might one not just say "... who descended from the line of David ..." and carry the intent perfectly well ?

As to interpretative options, wouldn't it be better to translate it all first, without undue pressure from one interpretative framework or another, and then figure out how it might be interpreted ?

Thx
D
0 x

Bill Ross
Posts: 180
Joined: August 12th, 2012, 6:26 pm

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by Bill Ross » October 10th, 2020, 2:31 pm

Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
October 7th, 2020, 3:27 pm
davidstansfield wrote:
October 6th, 2020, 7:21 pm
Romans 1:3
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, (concerning the Son of him, the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David according to the flesh,)

Hello,
I have translated the above text as, “the having come into being out from the seed [singular] of David”. I think the definite article the is used for precision here. Is the Greek grammar compatible with the meaning of, having come into being out from the (crucified, dead and buried…) seed [singular] of David?
Your comment on the article caught my attention. Perhaps we can kick-start a discussion on that. The Greek article is probably obligatory here. It should not be translated. Someone else can take it from here.
There used to be a magazine called "Sexy Greek Definite Nouns". I subscribed, but I told everyone it was just for the articles!

Nyuk, nyuk.
0 x
What I lack in youth I make up for in immaturity.

davidstansfield
Posts: 18
Joined: August 1st, 2020, 12:50 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Post by davidstansfield » October 17th, 2020, 7:34 pm

Daniel Semler wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 11:31 pm
Are you trying to translate or commentate ?
I am (a beginner) asking whether the Greek grammar (morphology and syntax) is compatible with my translation.
Daniel Semler wrote:
October 9th, 2020, 11:31 pm
The position of your parenthetical suggests modification of, or commentary upon, "seed".
No, I think the opposite. The content of the square brackets, [singular], identifies that σπέρματος is singular. Whereas, the English word for “seed” is ambiguous and can mean plural seeds.
 (The square brackets can be formatted as a footnote.)
0 x
David R. Stansfield

Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”