Lk 18:13; TWi hAMARTWLWi
Harry W. Jones
hjbluebird at aol.com
Thu Nov 29 05:24:51 EST 2001
After I had sent my last post post off and after looking over Wallace's
classifications 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 going
farther with the "Par Excellence" classification. With the "Par
classification he is indicating the extreme of a class. That is, the
best or worst case. And I agree that simple identification normally
the article. But Wallace is going farther than simple identification. What
Wallace is proposing requires more than simply the article. It requires
additional information be added. Now here is something else to think
If "the sinner" is simple identification then it could simply be
distinguishing the "sinner" from the "righteous" and could be translated
as "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.
> 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".
> 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
More information about the B-Greek