[B-Greek] re my wooden interlinear translations
dan-bgreek at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 4 16:11:05 EST 2005
re my wooden interlinear translations
Dr Conrad wrote: Dan, you've made perfectly clear that you intend to persist
with this "interlinear" mode of transliteration despite the fact that
several respondents have called attention to its inaccurate representation
of the sense of the Greek. So here "immerse" for "BAPTIZW" has been
faulted by several respondents as inaccurate certainy for the second verb
form here (BAPTISEI), and while you might think "a Holy Spirit" accurately
represents the Greek text PNEUMATI hAGIWi, what you're deriving from the
Greek is pidgin- English rather than an equivalent of what the Greek text
says. What's wrong with this "interlinear" style of "translation" is that
it's based on an assumption that the "forest" of a sequence of discourse
is no less and no more than but exactly equal to the sum of the "trees" of
words inside that sequence. I think that's been stated in different ways
in several of the responses to your idiosyncratic renderings of Marcan
texts, but I felt it was worth reiterating "yet once more again," despite
the fact that you've made it obvious that you intend to go on doing it
DG: Dr Conrad and others have criticized the way I translate many times. As
you can deduce, there is a night and day difference between the grammar in
my posts verses the grammar in my translations. I am very cognizant of the
fact that my translations sound like pidgin English and that the grammar is
tortured. I know my translations sound idiosyncratic. And I know it rubs
many of you the wrong way - it's not a proper translation - it's frustrating
to read - I should know better - and all that. I thought that the comment
of the "forest of trees being equal to the sum of the trees" was a very
accurate description of my translations. I just want you all to know that is
the way I read the Greek text. I read it in painfully literal way - and I
do it on purpose - for a purpose. And the reason is not to get people mad at
me. And the reason is not to make fun of the text. And (kai) the reason is
not to insult your intelligence. I do it to emulate Marks style, which
appears on the surface, at times, to be grotesque. I do it because I am
writing a book on Mark - that views the imagery of the text as a form of
stagecraft one would see in a Greek play. The scenes are simple and so are
the props. You have characters and choruses. The descriptions are minimal.
The dialogue is easy to remember. My commentaries on the text are going to
be from a metaphorical viewpoint in the style of Friedrich Weinreb who wrote
Roots of the Bible. The grotesque grammar is not to be corrected. The
translation is to be as wooden as I can render it. That's where the
"carpentry" begins. That's what joining this list is all about. I don't want
any mistakes in my translation. I want my translations to look like raw
lumber - and out of that lumber I will build the commentary on the "play."
It's all about visual stagecraft puns.
So, in closing, I just want to let you all know I am not mad or upset. I'm
not interested in defending my translations, my take on the text, my
incorrect grammar, winning anyone over to my point of view, or anything like
that. I just want to ask some simple questions about how to literally
translate the text. I thought that doing it through the buffer of a standard
English bible translation might be the best policy to keep everyone happy.
>From: "Tim Lewis" <tim_lewis at dodo.com.au>
>To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Translating Mark 1:4
>Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:37:43 +1100
>EGENETO IWANNHS [hO] BAPTIZWN EN THi ERHMWi KAI KHRUSSWN BAPTISMA METANOIAS
>EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN.
>I began teaching NT Greek to six students recently and told them that
>EGENETO here is likely being used with BAPTIZWN as a periphrastic
>Is this unlikely? Until becoming aware of Mark's periphrastic uses (cf.
>similarly his fondness for imperfects) I had taken EGENETO more so as "it
>was John" or "John came/appeared" but even in such a translation one ends
>up virtually with an imperfect "John was baptizing/washing..."
>Even if we keep the hO (making hO BAPTIZWN substantive) we have KHRUSSWN as
>a present which seems better to me as taken with EGENETO as periphrastic,
>otherwise "it was John the Baptist in the wilderness (who) is
>proclaiming..." seems strange.
>Am I missing something? Can one use EGENETO + present participle without
>I recognise that we usually find EIMI rather than GINOMAI for such a
>Greek Tutor, Whitley College,
>Melbourne College of Divinity,
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:55:52 -0600
>From: "Dan Gleason" <dan-bgreek at hotmail.com>
>Subject: [B-Greek] Translating Mark 1:4
>To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <BAY111-F950D03237C559DDC273AE95610 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>Translating Mark 1:4
>EGEVETO IWANNHS hO BAPTIZWN EV THi ERHMUi
>John became the-one immersing in the Wilderness ...
>KAI KHRUSSWN BAPTISMA METAVOIAS
>and preaching an-Immersion of-Repentance ...
>EIS AFESIN HAMARTIWV
>into a-forgiveness of-Sins.
>Re what the greek text says
>Are there any errors in this translation?
>(re BAPTIZWN and BAPTISMA = immersion; or other words)
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
More information about the B-Greek