Page 1 of 3

Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

Posted: October 6th, 2020, 7:21 pm
by davidstansfield
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?

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

Posted: October 7th, 2020, 3:27 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
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.

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

Posted: October 7th, 2020, 7:00 pm
by Stirling Bartholomew
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.

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

Posted: October 8th, 2020, 8:51 am
by Barry Hofstetter
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.

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

Posted: October 8th, 2020, 8:51 pm
by davidstansfield
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?

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

Posted: October 9th, 2020, 9:12 am
by Barry Hofstetter
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.

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

Posted: October 9th, 2020, 9:07 pm
by davidstansfield
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.)

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

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

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

Posted: October 10th, 2020, 2:31 pm
by Bill Ross
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.

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

Posted: October 17th, 2020, 7:34 pm
by davidstansfield
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.)