From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Sat Jan 03 1998 - 15:17:41 EST
Mark Joseph wrote:
<<<Rolf Furuli wrote:
>it is the theology of the translators that will
>decide how John 1:1 is translated, and this is legitimate because neither
>grammar nor syntax is decisive.
This goes back to my original post on reading the NT as Koine Greek
document. While I greatly respect Rolf's knowledge, I'm finding it very
difficult to believe that what he says here is correct. When I speak
English (my native tongue) with someone, I know what they mean, even if
they make some sort of convoluted, technical, or philosophical statement.
Why should it not, a priori, be likely (or certain) that some native
speaker of Koine would have known if John 1:1c *means* "The word was
God," "the word was a god," or "the word was divine"? And if they could,
why can't we (my point about understanding French or Czech without
parsing)? I really can't imagine a first century Greek-speaking Jew in
Palestine reading this line and wondering to himself, "huh, I wonder what
this means...hmm, the word QEOS is anarthrous and precopulative...I
better read the rest of this book to see how John uses this
construction..."
While it is possible to make an ambiguous statement (plays on words,
etc.) or to note a lack of clarity on the author's part, these are
exceptions, especially in the context of an entire book. So, all I can
say in response to Rolf's original assertion, the one that kicked off
this whole game of grammatical football:
>>In any Bible translation the
>>theology of the translators will and must play an important role, and there
>>are passages where neither lexicon, grammar or syntax is decisive and where
>>theology must be the primary basis for the translation.
is: "case not proved."
PS: I meant to dispute each of the three examples he brought up to show
that there are passages where neither lexicon, grammar or syntax is
decisive and where theology must be the primary basis for the
translation, but somehow never got around to it.>>>>
Dear Mark,
What I primarily have been discussing, is the translation of the Bible into
modern languages such as English and Czech. Do you deny that there are
passages translated into these languages where theology is the primary
criterion?
If that is the case, please tell us what is the correct translation of Heb
1:8, and show how lexicon and/or grammar and/or syntax is decisive for this
translation.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
What is the only co
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT