Romans 1:3. Own translation. Grammar check

[Jason Hare]

Translation isn't a path to understanding.

Right. It would be a better attack strategy to sit down with a teaching grammar and work through it. One can try to do inductive study on his own, simply comparing the Greek to the English and trying to understand what's going and draw conclusions from what he thinks he sees, or he could go through a decent study curriculum and really learn the features of the language. I think the better strategy is the latter, especially when your inductive study has no teacher to guide it or textual commentary to point out what you're inevitably going to miss.

[Jason Hare]

But might one not just say "... who descended from the line of David ..." and carry the intent perfectly well ?

Spacing before punctuation... I resist the temptation to modify the post.

What if Paul intended a double entendre in the minds of his readers that would be missed by rending ἐκ σπέρματος as "descended from"? σπέρμα can, after all, be a bodily production.

[Daniel Semler]

But might one not just say "... who descended from the line of David ..." and carry the intent perfectly well ?

Spacing before punctuation... I resist the temptation to modify the post.

What if Paul intended a double entendre in the minds of his readers that would be missed by rending ἐκ σπέρματος as "descended from"? σπέρμα can, after all, be a bodily production.

I've never really like the nestled ?. I looked into it once and it appears it was at one time done the way I have it though I have no recollection now of where I got it.

As to the translation, I am not seeing the distinction you are trying to make. "descended from" is qualified by κατὰ σάρκα. Could state the two meanings you see as possible here ?

Thanx
D

[Stephen Carlson]

Are you trying to translate or commentate ?

I am (a beginner) asking whether the Greek grammar (morphology and syntax) is compatible with my translation.

The problem is, you haven't really supplied a "translation" at all but rather a series of word-for-word glosses strung together as if that constituted a translation. It's not, because it's not grammatical in English (*"the having come" is not valid English). The first and necessary criterion for a translation is that it must make sense in the target language. Yours does not, however. Since we know that the Greek text makes sense according to Greek grammar makes sense but your "translation" does not, I must conclude that, no, the Greek grammar is not compatible with your translation.

I encourage you to take a class in Greek before attempting further translations.

[Jonathan Robie]

You are asking a question about a translation. We don't do that here. Do you have a particular question about morphology or syntax found in this verse? If so, please ask it as a question about the Greek text, not a question about the translation.

See this policy:

Even basic questions about the meaning of the Greek text are welcome in the Beginner's Forum, and there's no shame in mistakes. Beginners will be gently pushed toward learning these structures over time, pointed to textbooks and other aids that will help them, and coached in how to see these structures in a text. Learning a language is all about learning the structure signals, so we will try to help you learn what these signals are and how to recognize them in a text.

Even in the Beginner's forum, general questions or opinions about doctrine or the meaning of the English text are not welcome. Sometimes we may encourage beginners to postpone questions that are over their head at their current level of understanding.

[davidstansfield]

(I am stepping through the discussion, and conscious of subsequent issues to address…)

Your comment on the article caught my attention. Perhaps we can kick-start a discussion on that.

Thank you.
However, my comment on the article was intended to guide discussion away from it. Simply, upon consideration of the wider argument, I think the article has a purpose, here. And therefore, to please assume it.

The Greek article is probably obligatory here. It should not be translated. Someone else can take it from here.

I drew on John D. Harvey’s Romans, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, here: “The adjectival participle τοῦ γενομένου (gen. sg. masc. of aor. mid. ptc. of dep. γίνομαι, “be, exist, come into being”) modifies υἱοῦ. The repetition of the article is common with the attributive participle (cf. R 778) and places emphasis on it (cf. BDF §270).”

I am also advised that the τοῦ here shows that whatever follows the article is modifying the original noun. And that, a clunky way to translate it, such as in a learning exercise for beginners, is e.g., concerning the Son of him, by which I mean the one having come into being out from the seed of David…
In the Greek, the article is repeated to show that it is a modification of τοῦ υἱοῦ…

Is this what you mean by, ‘obligatory’? (That in Greek, it’s necessary to include the article to show that the genitive participle γενομένου is still modifying the previous noun?)

I do not conclude that it should not be translated, in this case.

[Jonathan Robie]

David, I think it might be helpful for you to start by reading this.

The Article as Structure Signal

Have you considered the phrase ὁ Ἰησοῦς? We don't translate that "the Jesus", we translate "Jesus". English and Greek work differently. This is not any old person named Ἰησοῦς, this is the Jesus. But we wouldn't say it that way in English.

Also, note that υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, always has the article in the New Testament - τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. We never see υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ without that article. This is God's Son.

Most of the time, when you are referring to a son, you are referring to a specific son. I think that's what Stirling meant when he said it is obligatory. But sometimes you can have υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ without the article, it just as a different meaning, it is not referring to a specific son. We see an example of that in Baruch 2:

τοῦ φαγεῖν ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον σάρκας υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον σάρκας θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ,

Also note how the two articles are used to coordinate:

περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα

That's also a little different from English. Note how English translations convey it.

[davidstansfield]

If the seed is dead nothing comes out of it.

Thank you. However, your perspective, “If the seed is dead nothing comes out of it”, does not preclude my grammar check.
I think the theme of resurrection is present in Rom 1:3, already.
Consider e.g., the parallel with John 12:24.

[davidstansfield]

The problem is, you haven't really supplied a "translation" at all but rather a series of word-for-word glosses strung together as if that constituted a translation. It's not, because it's not grammatical in English (*"the having come" is not valid English). The first and necessary criterion for a translation is that it must make sense in the target language. Yours does not, however. Since we know that the Greek text makes sense according to Greek grammar makes sense but your "translation" does not, I must conclude that, no, the Greek grammar is not compatible with your translation.

I encourage you to take a class in Greek before attempting further translations.

Thank you. I am particularly interested in the meaning. (And, on this thread, to hear that the Greek grammar does not support the meaning I perceive.)

Of English grammar, I am comfortable with e.g. ‘the (Son) having come into being…’. Without, I think that many English readers could deduce meaning, and with, an improvement...

The meaning I perceive is substantial and reasonable: of representative Messiahship, and resurrection.

[davidstansfield]

You are asking a question about a translation. We don't do that here. Do you have a particular question about morphology or syntax found in this verse? If so, please ask it as a question about the Greek text, not a question about the translation.

See this policy:

Even basic questions about the meaning of the Greek text are welcome in the Beginner's Forum, and there's no shame in mistakes. Beginners will be gently pushed toward learning these structures over time, pointed to textbooks and other aids that will help them, and coached in how to see these structures in a text. Learning a language is all about learning the structure signals, so we will try to help you learn what these signals are and how to recognize them in a text.

Even in the Beginner's forum, general questions or opinions about doctrine or the meaning of the English text are not welcome. Sometimes we may encourage beginners to postpone questions that are over their head at their current level of understanding.

Thank you, I appreciate your clarification of the forum rules. This helps.

I think I have now learned how to better articulate my question(s), (a) according to the Greek text specifically, and (b) according to the grammar rules. And so, to ask the appropriate pointed questions.