τοῦ πονη?οῦ

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Post Reply
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

τοῦ πονη?οῦ

Post by modus.irrealis »

Hi,

I had a question about τοῦ πονη?οῦ in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:13), which I've seen translated as both "the evil one" and "evil." Now I can see how, without any context, the phrase could be taken in either sense (I guess depending on whether one reads it as masculine or neuter), but is there anything in this specific passage that suppports one reading over the other?

Thymio

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »

I have been taught that since this is articular and it is also an abstract adjective that it is to be taken as a substantive. Greek does this quite a bit, especially with the word good... αγαθος it is not uncommon to see ό αγαθος and know that it means, the good (one) or the good (man) cf. with Luke 6:45 it has the good man brings about good (things), Luke 10:42, Luke 12:18, Luke 16:25.

Hmmmmmm... I just noticed that Luke does this a lot, which makes me wonder if this is even better Attic Greek than Koine Greek......anyone, anyone?? (William perhaps??) Maybe someone far more qualified than I can weigh in on this.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

I insist that it means no more than 'anger'. Not *Evil*.

"Lead us not into temptations and deliver us from anger."

Perfect peace of mind.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »

Kasper wrote:I insist that it means no more than 'anger'. Not *Evil*.

"Lead us not into temptations and deliver us from anger."

Perfect peace of mind.
Can you suggest why you insist this??

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

Kasper wrote:I insist that it means no more than 'anger'. Not *Evil*.
I need a bit more than your insistence to be convinced.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

To a degree :wink:. I suppose 'insist' was too strong a word however.

I've previously failed to make the point in the Academy that there is no such thing as pure good or pure evil. I don't really feel the need to go into that again, but the concept of pure evil seems a rather abstract idea to me. Unfortunately I don't have any Greek grammars at hand here at the moment, but all Greek and Latin grammars I've worked through emphasize that the languages did not have a high level of abstraction. 'evil' seems a very abstract concept to me, not something that is actually encountered in real life.

"ponhros" (sorry I don't know how to do the greek alphabet here!) is of course a word much older than the NT. As you are well aware, the Greek Gods had both good and bad qualitities. None were pure good or pure evil. This adds to my thinking that the word never had such strong connotations.

In addition, and this purely a religious view point perhaps ill placed in this forum, I think that if you analyse the whole prayer (perhaps indeed the whole of Jesus' preachings) that all lines relate to an inner peace, not a defence from external forces.

The first part is the introduction, a somewhat traditional calling upon God and naming some of his attributes. (the Iliad is full of them I believe)

Second there is the call for physical assistance: 'daily bread' (sorry I don't literrally know the English translation having been raised in Holland). Of course a certainty of a daily food supply is a great peace of mind.

Third come the requests for mental assistance:
a) forgive us our debts as we forgive those of others. Have you ever held a grudge or ever known that someone (certainly God) had a grudge against you? I think this greatly interferes with your peace of mind.
b) do not lead us into temptations. All sorts of temptations arise that interfere with what you know is morally right or wrong. Giving into temptations will often interfere with your peace of mind.
c) deliver us from 'ponhros'. As I said, I believe this means anger. IF you have selfcontrol and don't get angry and frustrated at all sorts of things you will have a much greater peace of mind.

Fourth comes a declaration of trust in the goodness/greatness of God. Knowing that you are safe for the future because of your trust in God and his power for eternity is once more a great peace of mind.

In summary, I think the whole prayer relates to inner peace but only asks for assistance in doing so. I really don't believe that Jesus preached that we should hide in the corner so taht the 'Evil one' doesn't jump on us. I think it is about seeking help from God to have the inner strength to a be a peaceful, calm and thereby good person, taking responsibility for your own actions. If you sin, ie. transgress your conscience, it's not a matter of the Evil One pushing you this way or that but of giving in the 'bad' traits of human nature, grudges, temptations and anger.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

So you change the definition of the word so that it fits your reasoning.
No can do.
There are all sorts of words for abstract ideas. A very common one is love. I don't think you would suggest to change that one to something like goodwill would you?
(BTW, the Lord's prayer is not meant to create inner peace but it is to show our thankfulness and dependency to God and to ask for what ever it is that we may need to serve him. To have our sins forgiven puts us into a proper relationship with God again. Granted, that causes inner peace, but inner peace is not the goal.)

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

First of all Bert, if I have offended you by my post then my apologies. It is not my intention to offend anyone.
Bert wrote:So you change the definition of the word so that it fits your reasoning.
No can do.
How have I changed the definition? What is the definition of "ponhros"? (and if you say 'evil', can you define that for me too?)
There are all sorts of words for abstract ideas. A very common one is love. I don't think you would suggest to change that one to something like goodwill would you?
Well no. But I think - and I am only stating my opinion here - that love, goodwill, anger, jealousy are things that are commonly experienced. Depending on the definition you attributed to "evil" however, I think this is a much higher level of abstraction and not something that actually exists. Naturally this all depends on the definition of 'evil' again.
(BTW, the Lord's prayer is not meant to create inner peace but it is to show our thankfulness and dependency to God and to ask for what ever it is that we may need to serve him. To have our sins forgiven puts us into a proper relationship with God again. Granted, that causes inner peace, but inner peace is not the goal.)
On this point I cannot but disagree with you. However I have no intention to 'convert' you.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »



Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Bert wrote:
I can't define it as well as Bauer, Thayer or Liddell. If you were to check them out you can see the development of the word from mild to quite strong. Harassed by hard work, hardship, sick, bad, wicked, consious wickedness. Anger is not in there.
Nor Evil :wink:.

However I don't think this really changes my point of view. If we are to be delivered from wickedness, the question remains whose wickedness we are to be delivered from. I suppose there are 3 possible answers:

1) my own;
2) anothers; or
3) wickedness in general, including that of myself and others.

In this light I choose option 3, but base this choice on the peace of mind idea.

In any event, "Evil One" seems odd to me as a translation. Wouldn't 'Satana' have been used? Are there other examples in the gospels of the devil being called o( ponhro/s?
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

Kasper wrote:
Bert wrote:
Anger is not in there.
Nor Evil :wink:.

Well...actually it is.

(Parts deleted to match Kasper's edited posts.)
Last edited by Bert on Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Oops - I must have amended my posts while you were responding :oops: .

Because of the many interpretations of those words as you point out, I removed that part of my post. I didn't think they assisted in clarifying the matter at all.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

Kasper wrote: Are there other examples in the gospels of the devil being called o( ponhro/s?
Some of these my be open to interpretation but some are quite clear.
All are worth taking a look at.
Matthew 5:37, 13:19 and 38, John 17:15. (Also one in Luke but it has the same context as the current topic.)
Other places in the Bible: 1 John 2:13 and 14, 1 John 3:12, 1 John 5:18 and 19, Eph. 6:16.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

I’m most impressed with how quickly you found those Bert!

I must first off admit that you have convinced me that “anger? is not the correct translation. Instead I am taking up “wickedness? as one of the options you provided.

I’m only going into the examples you gave from the gospels for now. If you feel this is unfair or makes the discussion incomplete please say so. I have taken the text from Perseus and translated them myself, so again, if you object to my translation please say so. I acknowledge it is a bit free here and there.


Matthew 5:37,
ε?στω δὲ ο λο?γος υμων ναὶ ναι?, οὺ ου?: τὸ δὲ πε?ισσὸν του?των εκ του πονη?ου εστι?ν.

and may your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, ‘no’ be ‘no’: for [what is] beyond these is out of wickedness.
or
and may your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, ‘no’ be ‘no’: for [what is] beyond these is out of the devil.

- So if you yourself say something other than what you mean, is this your own wickedness or is has the devil taken over your mind?


Matthew 13:19
19] Παντὸς ακου?οντος τὸν λο?γον της βασιλει?ας καὶ μὴ συνιε?ντος, ε??χεται ο πονη?ὸς καὶ α?πα?ζει τὸ εσπα?με?νον εν τη κα?δι?α αυτου: ουτο?ς εστιν ο πα?ὰ τὴν οδὸν σπα?ει?ς

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, wickedness comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

or

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, the devil comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

- Gramattically it makes little sense to say that wickedness comes up and grabs a seed, but the whole line is very abstract. There is of course no actual seed, there is something abstract: faith, or the beginning thereof. Can the devil actually steal your faith? Or can the beginning of faith be surpressed by giving in to temptations that are contrary to your morality, and thereby your faith?


John 17:15

NB: This is preceded by Jesus saying that he is telling his disciples things that are not of the world but from heaven.

15] ουκ ε?ωτω ι?να α??ης αυτοὺς εκ του κο?σμου αλλ' ι?να τη?η?σης αυτοὺς εκ του πονη?ου.

I ask not that you would take them from the universe/world, but that you would keep them from wickedness.

or

I ask not that you would take them from the universe/world, but that you would keep them from the devil.

- I read in this that Jesus says not to use his words for your own purposes. Don’t distort the words to benefit yourself or your cause. History is of course full of examples of this. I fail to see how you would keep any words from the devil.

I would really appreciate your views on these lines.

BTW, I don’t know how you found these examples so quickly, but would you be able to do a similar search for the word ‘satana’ in these texts? I’m just curious whether the use of this word in addition to ‘ponhro\s’ might assist the discussion.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by Paul »

Hi All,

Interesting conversation.

I did some digging on the Web and am hoping that someone who knows Hebrew (Matt?) can shed some light on these data.

One source said that πονη?ός is often used to translate the Hebrew word Image
in the Septuagint.

Another says that it is used to translate these Hebrew words keyed to Strong's Concordance.

00343 ed
00873 biyosh
01681 dibbah
01800 dal
07200 raah
07227 rav
07451 ra
07489 raa
07489 raa hi.
07563 rasha
08441 toevah

Can anyone shed any light on the meanings of these Hebrew words?

Also, as Kasper suggests, it would be interesting to know where and why the NT uses διάβολος or Σατανᾶς rather than ? πονη?ός.

Cordially,

Paul

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »



Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by Paul »

Hi Matt,

Beautiful!

FWIW, I hesitated before invoking your name. I figured you would, at some cost, get to the bottom of it. Thanks again. We are all wiser for your efforts.

I think you are saying that the Eastern tradition is more likely to construe ? πονη?ός as a person, the Western as an abstract quality. I had already thought of the Latin translation of the "Our Father" that Kittel refers to. It doesn't seem quite right to translate τοῦ πονη?οῦ as 'evil'.

I read somewhere that the concept of "the Devil" - as a person - was taught to the Hebrews in Babylon. If so, he comes to the Jewish tradition from the East.

Cordially,

Paul

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »



Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

While I am not that well versed in NT (or OT to be exact) to answer the question, I just wanted to note this:

First of all, I had never considered του πονη?ου as masculine. Perhaps it was even explained to me as a neuter in the endless hours of religious studies (in reality studies on the Orthodox Christian dogma) and I have forgotten about it.

However, does it really make all that much difference? I mean since the abstract meaning of evil (not as in Satanic) existed from the ancient times and since in the Christian faith all evil, wickedness, malicious cunning has its roots in Satan, what is the difference?

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

IreneY wrote: However, does it really make all that much difference? I mean since the abstract meaning of evil (not as in Satanic) existed from the ancient times and since in the Christian faith all evil, wickedness, malicious cunning has its roots in Satan, what is the difference?
I think the difference is; Do we ask to be delivered from the power of the Devil (deliver us from the evil one) or from bad situations, sickness, accidents, losing your job etc.(deliver us from evil)

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

oh! Whoops! I didn't realise it! In this case I'd say "evil" especially since the general meaning of PONHROS has never been that (the second one I mean: sickness etc) and because of the ALLA before this sentence.

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »



Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by Paul »

Kopio wrote:Hmmmmm.....I don't think I'd buy that. I mean, take a look at the Book of Job, which is generally considered to be the oldest book in the TaNaK. A personal Devil is quite evident in that. Same with Isaiah fiftysomething (don't ask me the exact chapter), it seems to point to a personal Devil, as does the Creation narrative. Do you remember where you read it by chance??
I see. When was Job written? Could it not be post-Babylonian captivity?

I am, of course, suggesting Zoroastrian dualism as the ground of a Satan.

I read it in a book by the ever-insightful Denis de Rougemont called "The Devil's Share" (he is best known for "Love in the Western World.") It was a passing remark. But there seems to be plenty of scholarship around that suggests such an origin for the Jewish Satan.

Cordially,

Paul

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »

Paul wrote:I see. When was Job written? Could it not be post-Babylonian captivity?

I am, of course, suggesting Zoroastrian dualism as the ground of a Satan.
Rather than spend a lot of time typing I will simply refer you here and make it easy :)
Paul wrote:I read it in a book by the ever-insightful Denis de Rougemont called "The Devil's Share" (he is best known for "Love in the Western World.") It was a passing remark. But there seems to be plenty of scholarship around that suggests such an origin for the Jewish Satan.
Which doesn't really suprise me at all. I have never read de Rougemont. I know there are so many theories about what was written when though.....some scholars will place any book of the TaNaK at almost any point in the 1st Millenium BC. I know of authors who push the Pentateuch forward to post exhilic times. The problem with that though, is that the Hebrew of the Pentateuch is fairly distinctive and can be pigeon holed down to a very early date. It has to do with a waw that is added as a suffix....something along those lines. It is a very distinctice form that is only found in early Classical Hebrew. I know I studied it in Hebrew several years ago....I could dig my class notes out, but that would take far too much effort.

FWIW.....my neck is still bugging me....I don't get it! I think I might run to the chiropractor today.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

just a side-comment, sort of by the way: KALOS in modern Greek means good

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

IreneY wrote:just a side-comment, sort of by the way: KALOS in modern Greek means good
Is ἀγαθός a modern Greek word as well?
If so, is there much difference?

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY »

Bert wrote: Is ἀγαθός a modern Greek word as well?
If so, is there much difference?

yes, it is. Αγαθός main meaning in modern Greek is he who is of pure heart. Some times it is also used for someone who is naive (different from the naivete of a pure of heart) .

KALOS is more general, as is 'good' really.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »


“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

All of a sudden it occurred to me that, like Greek, Dutch also uses the article with an adjective. English needs a noun but Greek and Dutch don't.
I was wondering how to explain this to you, Kasper, but then I remembered that you are Dutch as well. :)
Matthew 6:13. maar verlos ons van den boze.
I don't think it is possible to explain 'den boze' as 'boze dingen' but a specific well known 'boze something/someone'. (If it is a specific something, I wouldn't know what thing.)
Maybe I am guilty of transferring Dutch grammar to Greek, but the similarity is very real.

Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Hi Bert - the convenience of dutchness.

Indeed you are right about 'van den boze'. I've also heard it translated as 'van het boze'. ('Het' is of course the neuter article, and 'den / de' male or female).

I'm not too sure how important the article is in the current context. For one thing, tou~ can be both neuter and male. We don't know whether we are looking at o( ponhro/s or to ponhro/n.

By coincidence I was reading Exodus 6:6 on the train to work this morning in the Septuaginta. I still don't know how to type in a Greek font, so forgive me for the horror of typing it this way, but it says, inter alia:

r(usomai u(ma~s ek th~s doulei/as.

Of course this is not a substantive use of an adjective. But we all seem to agree that in Greek adjectives can be used substantively by the addition of an article. What this does not automatically mean, is that the substantive of the adjective in the Lord's prayer (or any other text) implies a personification of the quality described by the substantified adjective. I think you will agree that "doulei/as" is not a personification of slavery. Then why would we infer tou~ ponhrou~ in the prayer as a personification of evil and not simply as a description of human qualities?
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »



Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »



Kasper
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Melbourne

Post by Kasper »

Although I've said about all I can say on this topic, I do want to point out that the addition of the word 'thing' is often a helpful tool for translation, but it is no more than that. So to ask 'deliver us from what evil thing?" is deceptive and not proper translation.

The fact that in the excerpt from exodus the dutch bible translates it as 'their slavery' only adds to the ambiguity here. Would you translate tou~ ponhrou~ as 'his evil' or 'the evil' , or not translate the article at all because it is (arguably) only used to indicate that the adjective is used substantively?

I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”

Kopio
Global Moderator
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by Kopio »

Kasper wrote:I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.
Well, it's nice to know that you're halfway there :wink:

I was working through the Gospel of John this weekend, and I came across Jesu sand the parable of the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) Jesus says, "Εγω ειμι ο ποιμην ο καλος" It made me immediately think of this passage....to me, I would translate this (hyper literally mind you) "I am the shepherd, the good one".....BTW, whether or not this is good Greek, or even an accurate translation of it will more than likely never be completely agreed upon in this thread. However, I must say from my (admitedly limited) knowledge of Hebrew....this kind of phrase is very good Hebrew.

Just some more food for thought.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1889
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert »

Kasper wrote:Although I've said about all I can say on this topic, I do want to point out that the addition of the word 'thing' is often a helpful tool for translation, but it is no more than that. So to ask 'deliver us from what evil thing?" is deceptive and not proper translation.
I was not trying to use deception to make you see it my(?) way. (I know you didn't say that I did.) I don't see it as deception but as an unavoidable weakness of translating. Something is lost in translation.
English needs a noun after the adjective. Just like in the example Kopio gave.
Kasper wrote: The fact that in the excerpt from exodus the dutch bible translates it as 'their slavery' only adds to the ambiguity here. Would you translate tou~ ponhrou~ as 'his evil' or 'the evil' , or not translate the article at all because it is (arguably) only used to indicate that the adjective is used substantively?
My point in quoting that was not to suggest that every articular substantive adjective has to be translated with a possesive pronoun, but I wanted to show that the article makes the substantive more definite.
Not any kind of slavery but this particular slavery. Therefore I think that "their slavery" (or "this slavery")is a good translation. However, "his evil (+noun") does not make much sense, but "the evil (+noun") does.
It clearly indicates the definitiveness.
Kasper wrote: I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.
But it was a nice and a helpful discussion.

Post Reply