Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Paul S Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Tue Nov 27 16:23:44 EST 2001
Use of MH Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI Isn’t it rather curious that translators omit the definite article hereand render it as though the construction were anarthrous? Does anybodyknow of a translation yielding “the sinner,” rather than “a sinner”?But, more to the point. What is the justification for such?Paul Dixon
Use of MHConcerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Nov 27 17:53:43 EST 2001
Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI SU as part of a vocative? At 3:23 PM -0600 11/27/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:>Isn’t it rather curious that translators omit the definite article here>and render it as though the construction were anarthrous? Does anybody>know of a translation yielding “the sinner,” rather than “a sinner”?> >But, more to the point. What is the justification for such?hO QEOS, hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWiDoes this really signify anything more in the Greek than making hARTWLWi anattributive to MOI? I don’t think the translators are doing anything morethan expressing the sense of the Greek in idiomatic English. While I canconceive of hILASQHTI MOI hAMARTWLWi ONTI, I can’t quite imagine hILASQHTIMOI hAMARTWLWi.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAISU as part of a vocative?
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Tue Nov 27 20:25:12 EST 2001
SU as part of a vocative? Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi In a message dated 11/27/01 4:46:08 PM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:>At 3:23 PM -0600 11/27/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:>>Isn’t it rather curious that translators omit the definite article here>>and render it as though the construction were anarthrous? Does anybody>>know of a translation yielding “the sinner,” rather than “a sinner”?>> >>But, more to the point. What is the justification for such?> >hO QEOS, hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi> >Does this really signify anything more in the Greek than making hARTWLWi>an>attributive to MOI? I don’t think the translators are doing anything more>than expressing the sense of the Greek in idiomatic English. While I can>conceive of hILASQHTI MOI hAMARTWLWi ONTI, I can’t quite imagine hILASQHTI>MOI hAMARTWLWi.>— Several grammars with which I am familiar deal with the article as used in Luke 18:13 as the article used to denote a class. egs. AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU AUTOU. Lk. 10:7 “A worker is worthy of his wage.” The article is used with a noun that denotes a group of which the prayer is a member. I know of no translation that translates either of these with the English article.Carlton WinberyLouisiana College
SU as part of a vocative?Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Tue Nov 27 20:51:19 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Paul,Your question is pretty much answered in GGBB by Wallaceon page 223 where Wallace classifies the use of the articlein this passage as a “Par Excellence” use. That is, as a member of a class. He does this because it fits well with the spirit of the man’s pray.I think most questions can be answered by referencing Wallace’s book.Harry Jones> In a message dated 11/27/01 4:46:08 PM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> > >At 3:23 PM -0600 11/27/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:> >>Isn’t it rather curious that translators omit the definite article here> >>and render it as though the construction were anarthrous? Does anybody> >>know of a translation yielding “the sinner,” rather than “a sinner”?> >>> >>But, more to the point. What is the justification for such?> >> >hO QEOS, hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi> >> >Does this really signify anything more in the Greek than making hARTWLWi> >an> >attributive to MOI? I don’t think the translators are doing anything more> >than expressing the sense of the Greek in idiomatic English. While I can> >conceive of hILASQHTI MOI hAMARTWLWi ONTI, I can’t quite imagine hILASQHTI> >MOI hAMARTWLWi.> >– > Several grammars with which I am familiar deal with the article as used in> Luke 18:13 as the article used to denote a class. egs. AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU> MISQOU AUTOU. Lk. 10:7 “A worker is worthy of his wage.” The article is used> with a noun that denotes a group of which the prayer is a member. I know of> no translation that translates either of these with the English article.> > Carlton Winbery> Louisiana College
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiLk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Tue Nov 27 22:05:40 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi On Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 07:25 PM, Clwinbery at aol.com wrote:> Several grammars with which I am familiar deal with the article as used > in> Luke 18:13 as the article used to denote a class. egs. AXIOS hO ERGATHS > TOU> MISQOU AUTOU. Lk. 10:7 “A worker is worthy of his wage.” The article is > used> with a noun that denotes a group of which the prayer is a member. I > know of> no translation that translates either of these with the English article.Carlton:I’m not saying they are necessarily correct, but NASB and NAS95 have “the sinner.” Some believe the article was used because the tax collector was comparing himself to the Pharisee–“me, the sinner, as compared to him, the righteous one.” I think the difference between the example of Luke 10.7 and Luke 18.13 is that Luke 10.7 is a general, axiomatic saying, with hO ERGATHS referring to no one in particular. On the other hand, in Luke 18.13 the tax collector is describing himself specifically and personally. And TWi hAMARTWLWi is in apposition to MOI, which also seems to concretize and personalize TWi hAMARTWLWi, rather than describe a category of which the tax collector is an example. Again, I’m not sure that NASB/NAS95 are correct, but I think their translation deserves a look.=============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiLk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Tue Nov 27 22:23:22 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi On Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 07:51 PM, Harry W. Jones wrote:> Paul,> > Your question is pretty much answered in GGBB by Wallace> on page 223 where Wallace classifies the use of the article> in this passage as a “Par Excellence” use. That is, as> a member of a class. He does this because it fits well> with the spirit of the man’s pray.Harry:I think you have misunderstood the sense of what Wallace calls “par excellence.” It does not describe a mere member of a class, but someone or something in a class by itself, even though there may be many other persons or objects of the same name. Note what he says under Luke 18.13:”Here the article is either par excellence or simple identification [or, possibly well-known]. If it is simple identification, this tax-collector is recognizing the presence of the Pharisee and is distinguishing himself from him by implying that, as far as he knew, the Pharisee was the righteous one (between the two of them) and he was the sinner. But if the article is par excellence, then the man is declaring that he is the worst of all sinners (from his perspective). This seems to fit well with the spirit of his prayer, for only the Pharisee explicitly makes a comparison with the other person present.”So if the par excellence sense is intended here, the tax collector is not just lumping himself in with other people of the same class, but is identifying himself as standing out as the worst of the class. And, if the par excellence sense is here the correct understanding, the article must be rendered by the English definite article, as in NASB/NAS95.=============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiLk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Paul Schmehl p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 27 23:00:23 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Concerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI According to eSword, a freeware Bible Searchware, the followingtranslations/versions have “the sinner”.LITV – Literal Translation of the Holy BibleYLT – Young’s Literal TranslationDarbyThere are also some alternate renderings:WNT – 1912 Weymouth New Testament – “sinner that I am.”CEV – Contemporary English Version – “I am such a sinner.”ISV – International Standard Version – “the sinner that I am!”Paul Schmehl pauls at utdallas.edup.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.nethttp://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/—– Original Message —–From: “Steven Lo Vullo” <doulos at merr.com>To: “Biblical Greek” < at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:05 PMSubject: [] Re: Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 07:25 PM, Clwinbery at aol.com wrote:> > > Several grammars with which I am familiar deal with the article as used> > in> > Luke 18:13 as the article used to denote a class. egs. AXIOS hO ERGATHS> > TOU> > MISQOU AUTOU. Lk. 10:7 “A worker is worthy of his wage.” The article is> > used> > with a noun that denotes a group of which the prayer is a member. I> > know of> > no translation that translates either of these with the English article.> > Carlton:> > I’m not saying they are necessarily correct, but NASB and NAS95 have> “the sinner.” Some believe the article was used because the tax> collector was comparing himself to the Pharisee–“me, the sinner, as> compared to him, the righteous one.” I think the difference between the> example of Luke 10.7 and Luke 18.13 is that Luke 10.7 is a general,> axiomatic saying, with hO ERGATHS referring to no one in particular. On> the other hand, in Luke 18.13 the tax collector is describing himself> specifically and personally. And TWi hAMARTWLWi is in apposition to MOI,> which also seems to concretize and personalize TWi hAMARTWLWi, rather> than describe a category of which the tax collector is an example.> Again, I’m not sure that NASB/NAS95 are correct, but I think their> translation deserves a look.> =============> > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WI> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: [p.l.schmehl at worldnet.att.net]> To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiConcerning Romans 1: 20 and NOUMENA KATHORATAI
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Wed Nov 28 05:41:55 EST 2001
SU as part of a vocative? SU as part of a vocative? Dear Steven,Wallace of course said that sinner in Lk 18:13 would be in a class by himself but I don’t think that using the definitearticle here would give the right sense of this verse. Betterwould be “a sinner of the worst kind”. It seems to me that “the sinner” should be reserved for the Monadic case that Wallace spoke about in the next section. Of course, I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.Also I believe that any translation that uses the phrase”the sinner” would add or should add to it so as to bring outthis point.Best Regards,Harry Jones> On Tuesday, November 27, 2001, at 07:51 PM, Harry W. Jones wrote:> > > Paul,> >> > Your question is pretty much answered in GGBB by Wallace> > on page 223 where Wallace classifies the use of the article> > in this passage as a “Par Excellence” use. That is, as> > a member of a class. He does this because it fits well> > with the spirit of the man’s pray.> > Harry:> > I think you have misunderstood the sense of what Wallace calls “par > excellence.” It does not describe a mere member of a class, but someone> or something in a class by itself, even though there may be many other > persons or objects of the same name. Note what he says under Luke 18.13:> > “Here the article is either par excellence or simple identification [or,> possibly well-known]. If it is simple identification, this tax-collector> is recognizing the presence of the Pharisee and is distinguishing > himself from him by implying that, as far as he knew, the Pharisee was > the righteous one (between the two of them) and he was the sinner. But > if the article is par excellence, then the man is declaring that he is > the worst of all sinners (from his perspective). This seems to fit well> with the spirit of his prayer, for only the Pharisee explicitly makes a> comparison with the other person present.”> > So if the par excellence sense is intended here, the tax collector is > not just lumping himself in with other people of the same class, but is> identifying himself as standing out as the worst of the class. And, if > the par excellence sense is here the correct understanding, the article> must be rendered by the English definite article, as in NASB/NAS95.> =============> > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WI
SU as part of a vocative?SU as part of a vocative?
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Paul S Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Nov 28 16:07:03 EST 2001
Lk 21:19 Lk 21:19 On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:53:43 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> At 3:23 PM -0600 11/27/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:> > >But, more to the point. What is the justification for such?> > hO QEOS, hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi> > Does this really signify anything more in the Greek than making > hARTWLWi an> attributive to MOI? I don’t think the translators are doing anything > more> than expressing the sense of the Greek in idiomatic English. While I > can> conceive of hILASQHTI MOI hAMARTWLWi ONTI, I can’t quite imagine > hILASQHTI> MOI hAMARTWLWi.Aren’t there plenty of examples of appositional nouns in the Koine Greek? If so, then why should we not expect MOI hAMARTWLWi, if he intended tosay, “to me, a sinner”?How could he have said it in the Greek, if he wanted to say, “to me, thesinner”?Paul Dixon
Lk 21:19Lk 21:19
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Nov 28 16:49:02 EST 2001
Lk 21:19 Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi At 3:07 PM -0600 11/28/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:>On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:53:43 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>> At 3:23 PM -0600 11/27/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:>> >> >But, more to the point. What is the justification for such?>> >> hO QEOS, hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi>> >> Does this really signify anything more in the Greek than making>> hARTWLWi an>> attributive to MOI? I don’t think the translators are doing anything>> more>> than expressing the sense of the Greek in idiomatic English. While I>> can>> conceive of hILASQHTI MOI hAMARTWLWi ONTI, I can’t quite imagine>> hILASQHTI>> MOI hAMARTWLWi.> >Aren’t there plenty of examples of appositional nouns in the Koine Greek?> If so, then why should we not expect MOI hAMARTWLWi, if he intended to>say, “to me, a sinner”?> >How could he have said it in the Greek, if he wanted to say, “to me, the>sinner”?No doubt it WOULD be MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi, Paul. But the problem is not withthe Greek so much as with the English; the Greek uses the article to referto hAMARTWLOS as a class. No doubt you can put it into English as “to me,the sinner”–and Steve LoVullo has shown that some versions do just that.But the point I thought you were making was that it’s wrong to translate itWITHOUT using the English definite article, and I think that’s interpretingthe Greek in terms of English grammar.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Lk 21:19Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Paul S Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed Nov 28 17:34:23 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:49:02 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> At 3:07 PM -0600 11/28/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:> >Aren’t there plenty of examples of appositional nouns in the Koine > Greek?> > If so, then why should we not expect MOI hAMARTWLWi, if he > intended to> >say, “to me, a sinner”?> >> >How could he have said it in the Greek, if he wanted to say, “to > me, the> >sinner”?> > No doubt it WOULD be MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi, Paul. But the problem is > not with> the Greek so much as with the English; the Greek uses the article to > refer> to hAMARTWLOS as a class. No doubt you can put it into English as > “to me,> the sinner”–and Steve LoVullo has shown that some versions do just > that.> But the point I thought you were making was that it’s wrong to > translate it> WITHOUT using the English definite article, and I think that’s > interpreting> the Greek in terms of English grammar.Carl:I confess I have reservations about translating a Greek articularpredicate noun without the English definite article. Is there anyevidence that Greek articular nouns denote anything but definiteness? Ifno, then I question the translation “a sinner” of TWi hAMARTWLWi.Paul Dixon
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiLk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Wed Nov 28 17:53:24 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Lk 21:19 On Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 04:41 AM, Harry W. Jones wrote:> Wallace of course said that sinner in Lk 18:13 would be in> a class by himself but I don’t think that using the definite> article here would give the right sense of this verse. Better> would be “a sinner of the worst kind”. It seems to me that> “the sinner” should be reserved for the Monadic case that> Wallace spoke about in the next section. Of course, I could be> wrong. But I don’t think so.I hate to press the issue, but I would like to make two points about the above:(1) A phrase like “a sinner of the worst kind” would not properly convey the idea of par excellence, since many people could be described as *a* sinner of the worst *kind*. “A sinner of the worst kind” is merely a category in which many people could be included. It doesn’t rule out anyone else from being in a class by him/herself. In order to convey the idea of par excellence, one would have to use a phrase such as “the worst of all sinners.” Only this type of phrase conveys the idea of someone who is the *extreme* of a category, and therefore in a class by him/herself, since only one person can be “the worst of all.” There are other sinners, but “the worst” sinner stands apart by him/herself.(2) I think you have also misunderstood what Wallace means by “monadic.” It is one of a kind, period. Since there are many sinners, a sinner cannot be one of a kind. A sinner is not unique. Note the distinction Wallace makes between par excellence and monadic:”1] The difference between the monadic article and the article *par excellence* is that the monadic article points out a *unique* object, while the article *par excellence* points out the *extreme* of a certain category, thus, the one deserving the name more than any other. The article *par excellence*, therefore, has a superlative idea. For example, ‘the sun’ is monadic because there is only one sun. It is not the best of many suns, but is the only one. In *reality*, it is in a class by itself. But ‘the Lord’ is par excellence because there are many lords. However, the article is used with the word to convey the idea that, according to the speaker’s presented viewpoint, there is only one Lord.”Clearly the tax collector does not think he is the only sinner in existence!=============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiLk 21:19
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Wed Nov 28 23:31:27 EST 2001
Lk 21:19 Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Dear Steven,> On Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 04:41 AM, Harry W. Jones wrote:> > > Wallace of course said that sinner in Lk 18:13 would be in> > a class by himself but I don’t think that using the definite> > article here would give the right sense of this verse. Better> > would be “a sinner of the worst kind”. It seems to me that> > “the sinner” should be reserved for the Monadic case thatI don’t know why I said the Monadic case. I should have said the Par Excellence case. When I see a definite noun I usually thinkof a unique object in that class. But since a definite noun can belong todifferent classifications, I believe additional information is needed toclarifythings for the general reader. I don’t really see anything wrong with”a sinner of the worst kind” but of course that’s me. In any case it looks like almost all translations have gone with the simpleidentificationthat Wallace also mentioned. I have an eight translation NT and they alltranslate the literal “the sinner” as “a sinner”.> > Wallace spoke about in the next section. Of course, I could be> > wrong. But I don’t think so.> > I hate to press the issue, but I would like to make two points about the=20=> > above:> > (1) A phrase like “a sinner of the worst kind” would not properly convey=20=> > the idea of par excellence, since many people could be described as *a*=20=> > sinner of the worst *kind*. “A sinner of the worst kind” is merely a=20> category in which many people could be included. It doesn’t rule out=20> anyone else from being in a class by him/herself. In order to convey the=20=> > idea of par excellence, one would have to use a phrase such as “the=20> worst of all sinners.” Only this type of phrase conveys the idea of=20> someone who is the *extreme* of a category, and therefore in a class by=20=> > him/herself, since only one person can be “the worst of all.” There are=20=> > other sinners, but “the worst” sinner stands apart by him/herself.> > (2) I think you have also misunderstood what Wallace means by “monadic.”=20=> > It is one of a kind, period. Since there are many sinners, a sinner=20> cannot be one of a kind. A sinner is not unique. Note the distinction=20> Wallace makes between par excellence and monadic:> > “1] The difference between the monadic article and the article *par=20> excellence* is that the monadic article points out a *unique* object,=20> while the article *par excellence* points out the *extreme* of a certain=20=> > category, thus, the one deserving the name more than any other. The=20> article *par excellence*, therefore, has a superlative idea. For=20> example, ‘the sun’ is monadic because there is only one sun. It is not=20=> > the best of many suns, but is the only one. In *reality*, it is in a=20> class by itself. But ‘the Lord’ is par excellence because there are many=20=> > lords. However, the article is used with the word to convey the idea=20> that, according to the speaker=92s presented viewpoint, there is only => one=20> Lord.”> > Clearly the tax collector does not think he is the only sinner in=20> existence!> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D> > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WIHarry Jones
Lk 21:19Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Thu Nov 29 00:31:39 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Software On Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 10:31 PM, Harry W. Jones wrote:> I don’t know why I said the Monadic case. I should have said the> Par Excellence case. When I see a definite noun I usually think> of a unique object in that class. But since a definite noun can belong > to> different classifications, I believe additional information is needed to> clarify> things for the general reader. I don’t really see anything wrong with> “a sinner of the worst kind” but of course that’s me. In any case it> looks like almost all translations have gone with the simple> identification> that Wallace also mentioned. I have an eight translation NT and they all> translate the literal “the sinner” as “a sinner”.Harry:One of the things I was trying to point out in my previous posts (apparently unsuccessfully) is that you have Wallace exactly backwards. He argues AGAINST the majority of translations, i.e., those that omit the English article in their translation of TWi hAMARTWLWi. He treats this verse under the category of par excellence and translates “O God, be merciful to me, THE sinner” (emphasis mine). The other alternatives he offers are “simple identification,” which also in this case requires the article to be translated (since this takes the tax collector to be comparing himself with the Pharisee), or possibly well-known, which would require the translation of the article as well. In fact, he quotes Robertson approvingly where he criticizes the Canterbury revisers of the KJV for omitting the article here (see p. 208). Here Robertson maintains that omission of the article in translation of TWi hAMARTWLWi is inaccurate. Again, note carefully what Wallace says about TWi hAMARTWLWi in Luke 18.13:”Here the article is either *par excellence* or simple identification [or, *possibly* well-known]. If it is simple identification, this tax-collector is recognizing the presence of the Pharisee and is distinguishing himself from him by implying that, as far as he knew, the Pharisee was THE righteous one (between the two of them) and he was THE sinner. But if the article is *par excellence*, then the man is declaring that he is the worst of all sinners (from his perspective). This seems to fit well with the spirit of his prayer, for only the Pharisee explicitly makes a comparison with the other person present” (p. 223, emphasis his).So what Wallace says “fits well” with the spirit of the man’s prayer is par excellence. That, after all, is why he puts this verse in that category to begin with! And if this is the case, the article must be translated, as Wallace indeed does.=============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiSoftware
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Nov 29 05:24:51 EST 2001
KAI IDOU KAI IDOU Dear Steven,After I had sent my last post post off and after looking over Wallace’sclassifications again I realized that it was “Simple Identification”that I think about when I see a definite noun. That is, according to Wallace’s classifications. But of course I know that Wallace is goingfarther with the “Par Excellence” classification. With the “ParExcellence”classification he is indicating the extreme of a class. That is, thebest or worst case. And I agree that simple identification normallywarrantsthe article. But Wallace is going farther than simple identification. WhatWallace is proposing requires more than simply the article. It requires additional information be added. Now here is something else to thinkabout.If “the sinner” is simple identification then it could simply bedistinguishing the “sinner” from the “righteous” and could be translatedas “a sinner” in this passage. That’s what my eight translation NT does.Well this time I think I finally said what I really mean.Best Regards,Harry Jones> On Wednesday, November 28, 2001, at 10:31 PM, Harry W. Jones wrote:> > > I don’t know why I said the Monadic case. I should have said the> > Par Excellence case. When I see a definite noun I usually think> > of a unique object in that class. But since a definite noun can belong> > to> > different classifications, I believe additional information is needed to> > clarify> > things for the general reader. I don’t really see anything wrong with> > “a sinner of the worst kind” but of course that’s me. In any case it> > looks like almost all translations have gone with the simple> > identification> > that Wallace also mentioned. I have an eight translation NT and they all> > translate the literal “the sinner” as “a sinner”.> > Harry:> > One of the things I was trying to point out in my previous posts > (apparently unsuccessfully) is that you have Wallace exactly backwards.> He argues AGAINST the majority of translations, i.e., those that omit > the English article in their translation of TWi hAMARTWLWi. He treats > this verse under the category of par excellence and translates “O God, > be merciful to me, THE sinner” (emphasis mine). The other alternatives > he offers are “simple identification,” which also in this case requires> the article to be translated (since this takes the tax collector to be > comparing himself with the Pharisee), or possibly well-known, which > would require the translation of the article as well. In fact, he quotes> Robertson approvingly where he criticizes the Canterbury revisers of the> KJV for omitting the article here (see p. 208). Here Robertson maintains> that omission of the article in translation of TWi hAMARTWLWi is > inaccurate. Again, note carefully what Wallace says about TWi hAMARTWLWi> in Luke 18.13:> > “Here the article is either *par excellence* or simple identification > [or, *possibly* well-known]. If it is simple identification, this > tax-collector is recognizing the presence of the Pharisee and is > distinguishing himself from him by implying that, as far as he knew, the> Pharisee was THE righteous one (between the two of them) and he was THE> sinner. But if the article is *par excellence*, then the man is > declaring that he is the worst of all sinners (from his perspective). > This seems to fit well with the spirit of his prayer, for only the > Pharisee explicitly makes a comparison with the other person present” > (p. 223, emphasis his).> > So what Wallace says “fits well” with the spirit of the man’s prayer is> par excellence. That, after all, is why he puts this verse in that > category to begin with! And if this is the case, the article must be > translated, as Wallace indeed does.> =============> > Steven Lo Vullo> Madison, WI
KAI IDOUKAI IDOU
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Nov 29 07:02:45 EST 2001
KAI IDOU Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Dear Steven,After farther thought I really don’t think that Wallace makes a sufficient enough case for the “Par Excellent” classification. I think Wallace is great but not infallible. AlsoI think Robertson was wrong about the article being ignoredin Lk. 18:13. This of course is my opinion. It will surely put meout on a limb but I’ve been there before. In fact, maybe that’s where I live.Best Regards,Harry Jones
KAI IDOULk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 29 07:50:39 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Software (new) At 4:34 PM -0600 11/28/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:49:02 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>> At 3:07 PM -0600 11/28/01, Paul S Dixon wrote:> >> >Aren’t there plenty of examples of appositional nouns in the Koine>> Greek?>> > If so, then why should we not expect MOI hAMARTWLWi, if he>> intended to>> >say, “to me, a sinner”?>> >>> >How could he have said it in the Greek, if he wanted to say, “to>> me, the>> >sinner”?>> >> No doubt it WOULD be MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi, Paul. But the problem is>> not with>> the Greek so much as with the English; the Greek uses the article to>> refer>> to hAMARTWLOS as a class. No doubt you can put it into English as>> “to me,>> the sinner”–and Steve LoVullo has shown that some versions do just>> that.>> But the point I thought you were making was that it’s wrong to>> translate it>> WITHOUT using the English definite article, and I think that’s>> interpreting>> the Greek in terms of English grammar.> >Carl:> >I confess I have reservations about translating a Greek articular>predicate noun without the English definite article. Is there any>evidence that Greek articular nouns denote anything but definiteness? If>no, then I question the translation “a sinner” of TWi hAMARTWLWi.predicate noun? I think I would have called it either appositive to adative indirect object or even attributive to MOI.If you will check any reasonably full grammar (not a primer) of NT KoineGreek, I think you’ll find quite a range of usage for articular nouns.Steve LoVullo has pointed to Wallace’s justification for taking TWihAMARTWLWi as you want to take it; I’ll grant that’s a possibility, but Ithink it is as reasonable to take it as many translators have in fact takenit, as indicating that this tax-collector is a member of the class “sinner.”I will cite Dale Wheeler (from his brief compendium of grammar inAccordance) and let him comment further on this if he chooses:==================ARTICULAR (ARTHROUS) CONSTRUCTIONS:II. With Substantives: Dependent or Modifying Use; Used to Sharpen theIdentity of a Substantive in some way:B. Generic:1) Definition: Distinguishes One Class or Group from Another; Englishnormally uses the Indefinite Article, “a,” “an,” to indicate this idea forSingular Substantives; Supply “as a class”:2) Uses: Matt 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25; 1Tim 3:2Look at these examples.Mt 18:17 EAN DE KAI THS EKKLHSIAS PARAKOUSHi, ESTW SOI hWSPER hO EQNIKOSKAI hO TELWNHS. Would you prefer to translate this, “… let him be to youjust as THE Gentile and THE tax-collector” (assuming that some particularGentile and some particular Tax-collector is meant).Lk 10:7 AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU; this is pretty clearly a principle,generally so understood as a dominical saying. Do you suppose someparticular workman is indicated by the article with ERGATHS?Jn 2:25 KAI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSHi PERI TOU ANQRWPOU; AUTOSGAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi. Would you suppose that some particularhuman being is referred to by TOU ANQRWPOU and TWi ANQRWPWi? More likely, Ithink, ANY person at all, insofar as he’s a human being, is referred to.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiSoftware (new)
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Nov 29 08:42:39 EST 2001
Software (new) perfect tense in I Cor. 7: 15 > Harry:> > One of the things I was trying to point out in my previous posts> (apparently unsuccessfully) is that you have Wallace exactly backwards.> He argues AGAINST the majority of translations, i.e., those that omit> the English article in their translation of TWi hAMARTWLWi. He treats> this verse under the category of par excellence and translates “O God,> be merciful to me, THE sinner” (emphasis mine). The other alternatives> he offers are “simple identification,” which also in this case requires> the article to be translated (since this takes the tax collector to be> comparing himself with the Pharisee), or possibly well-known, which> would require the translation of the article as well. In fact, he quotes> Robertson approvingly where he criticizes the Canterbury revisers of the> KJV for omitting the article here (see p. 208). Here Robertson maintains> that omission of the article in translation of TWi hAMARTWLWi is> inaccurate. Again, note carefully what Wallace says about TWi hAMARTWLWi> in Luke 18.13:> > “Here the article is either *par excellence* or simple identification> [or, *possibly* well-known]. If it is simple identification, this> tax-collector is recognizing the presence of the Pharisee and is> distinguishing himself from him by implying that, as far as he knew, the> Pharisee was THE righteous one (between the two of them) and he was THE> sinner. But if the article is *par excellence*, then the man is> declaring that he is the worst of all sinners (from his perspective).> This seems to fit well with the spirit of his prayer, for only the> Pharisee explicitly makes a comparison with the other person present”> (p. 223, emphasis his).> > So what Wallace says “fits well” with the spirit of the man’s prayer is> par excellence. That, after all, is why he puts this verse in that> category to begin with! And if this is the case, the article must be> translated, as Wallace indeed does.> =============Excuse me for not having a copy of Wallace. My question is: Does herecognize the use of the Greek article which corresponds to a relativepronoun in English? I had a discussion with Moon Ryul-Sung about this backin January on this list.To get a background for Lk 18:13, I tried to search for anarthrous nouns -including pronouns – followed by an article in the same case as opposed tobeing followed by a relative pronoun in the same case. So, I am trying tocompare two constructions which would be something like “X who is Y” and “Xthe Y”.I found lots of anarthrous nominative nouns and pronouns preceding thearticle as inMatt 19:28 hUMEIS hOI AKOLOUQHSANTES MOI you who have followed mebut not a single instance with the relative pronoun instead of the article.For the accusative I found two instances of the relative:John 7:28 hO PEMYAS ME hON hUMEIS OUK OIDATEbut here the relative hON refers to a different person than the ME. (I thinkthis is significant, so keep it in mind.)I found only a couple examples with the accusative article as in:Rom 2:27 KRINEI hH EK FUSEWS AKROBUSTIA TON NOMON TELOUSA SE TON DIAGRAMMATOS KAI PERITOMHS PARABATHN NOMOU the by birth uncircumcised who keepthe law will judge you who are a transgressor of law while having thewritten (law) and circumcisionEph 1:19 EIS hUMAS TOUS PISTEUONTAS to us who believeFor the genitive, I found several examples with the relative where as abovethe relative refers to a different person than the immediately preceding(pro)noun, e.g:Mrk 1:7 ERCETAI hO ISCUROTEPOS MOU OPISW MOU hOU OUK EIMI hIKANOS KUYASLUSAI TON hIMANTAThere were also some examples of the genitive article functioning as Englishrelative, e.g.John 9:18 EFWNHSAN TOUS GONOUS AUTOU TOU ANABLEYANTOS they called theparents of him who had regained sightFor the dative case I found no examples with the relative pronoun butseveral with the article functioning as an English pronoun. e.g.Luk 1:36 KAI hOUTOS MHN hEKTOS ESTIN AUTHi THi KALOUMENHi STEIRAito her who is called barrenLuk 6:24 OUAI hUMIN TOIS PLOUSIOIS woe to you who are richLuk 11:42 OUAI hUMIN TOIS FARISAIOIS woe to you who are PhariseesLuk 12:4 LEGW DE hUMIN TOIS FILOIS MOU I say to you who are my friends?Luk 18:13 hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi have mercy on me who am a sinnerEph 3:8 EMOI TWi ELACISTOTERWi PANTWN hAGIWN EDOQH hH CARIS hAUTHTo me who is/was the least of all the saints was given this graceI have limited the search to anarthrous nouns and pronouns. If I hadincluded arthrous nouns I would have found many more examples. (For this,people may look at the archives for January where I gave examples witharthrous nouns.)My point is that the article can tie a description to a preceding noun orpronoun in what is called a rankshifting relationship. It corresponds to thefunction of the English pronoun and in Greek it seems to replace a pronounin these constructions. The Greek pronoun appears to be limited to caseslike John 7:28 above where the relative pronoun refers to a different personthan the preceding personal pronoun. If and when the article function aswhat we would call a relative pronoun it does not have the normal attributesof the article, and to discuss it in terms of attributes of the article issomewhat misleading IMO.Iver Larsen
Software (new)perfect tense in I Cor. 7: 15
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Paul S Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Thu Nov 29 17:18:53 EST 2001
Matthew 24:40 and 41 Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:50:39 -0600 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:> predicate noun? I think I would have called it either appositive to > a> dative indirect object or even attributive to MOI.I was referring to a noun in the predicate of a sentence versus thesubject of that sentence.> I will cite Dale Wheeler (from his brief compendium of grammar in> Accordance) and let him comment further on this if he chooses:> ==================> ARTICULAR (ARTHROUS) CONSTRUCTIONS:> II. With Substantives: Dependent or Modifying Use; Used to Sharpen > the> Identity of a Substantive in some way:> B. Generic:> 1) Definition: Distinguishes One Class or Group from Another; > English> normally uses the Indefinite Article, “a,” “an,” to indicate this > idea for> Singular Substantives; Supply “as a class”:> 2) Uses: Matt 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25; 1Tim 3:2I question the above definition, especially as related to Lk 18:13. Isthe class of sinners really being distinguished here, or is it theindividual? It seems the contrast in the passage is really between theself-righteous Pharisee and this man, not between two groups of people. It is interesting that Dale does not cite the Lk 18 passage as anexample, or does he?> Look at these examples.> Mt 18:17 EAN DE KAI THS EKKLHSIAS PARAKOUSHi, ESTW SOI hWSPER hO > EQNIKOS> KAI hO TELWNHS. Would you prefer to translate this, “… let him be > to you> just as THE Gentile and THE tax-collector” (assuming that some > particular> Gentile and some particular Tax-collector is meant).The problem I have is simply this. Is there no difference between hWSPERhO EQNIKOS and hWSPER EQNIKOS, and between hWSPER hO TELWNHS and hWSPERTELWNHS? Should we translate them both the same way, giving theimpression there is no difference, or do you think the author had adistinction in mind? If so, then perhaps we should try to retain thatdistinction in our translation.Besides, don’t we do the same in the English language, as the translatorsrecognize elsewhere? Consider Mt 6:2 and 6:5, for examples. 6:2 sayshWSPER hOI hUPOKRITAI, translated consistently as, “as the hypocrites.” And, 6:5, hWS hOI hUPOKRITAI, translated “as the hypocrites.” No, Ihave no problem translating 18:7 as “just as the Gentile and thetax-collector.”> Lk 10:7 AXIOS hO ERGATHS TOU MISQOU; this is pretty clearly a > principle,> generally so understood as a dominical saying. Do you suppose some> particular workman is indicated by the article with ERGATHS?This is not a good example for your argument, since the definiteness ofthe TOU is retained in the translation, “his.”> > Jn 2:25 KAI OU CREIAN EICEN hINA TIS MARTURHSHi PERI TOU ANQRWPOU; > AUTOS> GAR EGINWSKEN TI HN EN TWi ANQRWPWi. Would you suppose that some > particular> human being is referred to by TOU ANQRWPOU and TWi ANQRWPWi? More > likely, I> think, ANY person at all, insofar as he’s a human being, is referred > to.Nor does this argument for the case. The meaning may best be retained bythe translation, “in the human heart,” or “in the heart of man.” I appreciate the interaction, Carl. As usual, you and others on theGreek list, are a helpful source, especially when studying a passage tobe preached the following Sunday.Paul Dixon
Matthew 24:40 and 41Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Harry W. Jones hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Nov 29 17:42:50 EST 2001
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi Matthew 24:40 and 41 Dear Iver,<<Excuse me for not having a copy of Wallace. My question is: Does herecognize the use of the Greek article which corresponds to a relativepronoun in English? I had a discussion with Moon Ryul-Sung about this backin January on this list.>>Yes he does. On page 213 of the first chapter on articles he says underthe title “Relative Pronoun”.”Sometimes the article is equivalent to a relative pronoun in *force*.This is especially true when it is repeated after a noun before aphrase(e.g.,a gen. phrase).” He then gives 1 Cor. 1:18 as an example. Healsogives Luke 7:32, Acts 15:1, Phil. 3:9 and Jas.2:7 as illustrations as wellas a number of references too well.Best Regards,Harry Jones
Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWiMatthew 24:40 and 41