Clayton Stirling Bartholomew said: > Keep in mind that to function as a semantic priority aficionado you > must be able to read the text. People who are not able to read are > going to need to work with one text until they can read it before they > can function as an SPA. This can be done by a second year student but > it means you must stay in one text for a while until you master it. If you are saying that a person MUST be able to read the Greek text in order to apply one of various methodologies consistent with being a semantic priority aficionado (SPA), then I disagree with the point you are making here. However, I do believe you've surfaced, rather succinctly, two viewpoints which need to be discussed. And, in fact, the understanding of them will, IMO, significantly enhance one's ability to understand the original author's intent. Specific to my disagreement, though, is my belief, and this comes from my own experience, that within language, by the very nature of language, the meaning captured by the large constituents is the most prominent. While this appears to be a truism, even tautological, the effects of the original semantic prominence can not be hidden through translation. In practice--that is, when utilizing a translation--one must lean more toward the SPA end of the spectrum and away from the FLFA (Formal Language Feature Aficionado) end. That is to say that one can't rely as heavily on the details, because the details will not perfectly capture those of the original[1]. However, the larger picture, or the larger semantic constituents, or the original intent (take your pick) will be captured. The larger the unit one is dealing with the more easily it is captured in the translation. That's the hypothesis I've been working under for a few years now. For example, take a translation of the book of James. Exegetes have had a real hard time with that book; it appears like a somewhat loosely knit brain dump of various 1st century Christian issues. However, when one sits down and reads the book several times in one sitting--in any language--certain recurring features are easily noticeable. It turns out, IMO, that the book is about how one is to live with two groups of people: those who will do whatever to get ahead; and those who are in the way of that first group--in short, the oppressor and the oppressed. This explains, BTW, why a pericope in chapter 1 dealing with `rich and poor' is stuck between two pericopes dealing with PEIRASMOS. What James is saying is "Oppression by those in power has good results, but God is not maneuvered by it, nor does He brings it about." Thinking of PEIRASMOS in terms of `oppression' yields the happy result of relieving the `testing' vis-a-vis `tempting' tension between verse 2 and verse 13 that has plagued the interpreter. The whole letter follows this same thread. Now, what am I saying? I came to this viewpoint regarding James by reading a translation. The NIV, no less! A translation which hasn't exactly nailed the details. And I suggest, Clayton, that this should make you happy. :-) Why? Since SPA's would expect that the prominent features of the original would naturally, almost mechanically , come over in the translation process (Wayne Leman should be able to testify to how much I respect translators, so I'm not disparaging their work by saying `mechanically'. I am stressing, however, the author's original intent adheres to the text even through a translation[2]). A mistake is made by many exegetes, however. That mistake is treating a translation, such as the NIV, in the way a FLFA would. That won't work. That's what exegetes have done with the letter by James and they have therefore missed the cohesiveness of the entire book. I would suggest that translations could be positioned on an SPA <--> FLFA spectrum by using span-bars. The original Greek text would span the entire spectrum. Other translations, highly Dynamic Equivalent translations, would have a small span and be appropriately positioned on the SPA end. I think, Clayton, this is what your above paragraph really ought to be saying: being able to read the Greek text enables the reader to bounce around the entire SPA-FLFA spectrum. That, obviously, has great benefits. However, your paragraph above rules out the SPA benefits one can obtain from translations. And that is going too far. Thanks!! Clayton for an excellent topic. I think you've moved from Molotov to fireworks. Lastly, to all: I don't want to turn this into a translation-oriented topic, which would not be appropriate for B-Greek; however, I did want to illustrate my point by using translation as my platform. --- [1] This is probably one of the primary motivating factors behind students taking Greek in the first place. Paradoxically, this mitigates against the benefits of the SPA. [2] I suppose one could try hard enough to supplant the meaning of the large constituents, but it would take a significant amount of work. --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu