Did you not admit on CARM that you have never studied Latin? That we may criticize a translator at one point does not mean that he fails at all points. Jerome’s translation methodology is so literal for the NT that retroverting it to the Greek he used is fairly easy. Do you have any other examples of his “unrealiability?”
Barry,
I think that one example is sufficient.
I searched up all of the verses where πρὸς σὲ is used in the GNT:
Matthew 14:28 , 25:39, Mark 9:17 , Luke 1:19, 7:7, 7:20,12:58,17:4,John 17:11,17:13,21:22,21:23,Acts 10:33,11:4,21:37,23:18,23:30,1 Timothy 3:14 ,Titus 3:12,
It just isn’t ever an idiom for “at you home/abode/place.” I wager that the same is true in the entire corpus of [standard] koine literature.
I took so-and-so from the LSJ gloss rather than looking up the usage. To correct that, here is Aristophanes:
τίς ἔστ’ ἀνήρ σοι;
τὸν ἐμὸν ἄνδρα πυνθάνει;
τὸν δεῖνα γιγνώσκεις, τὸν ἐκ Κοθωκιδῶν;
τὸν δεῖνα; ποῖον;
ἔσθ’ ὁ δεῖν’, ὃς καί ποτε
τὸν δεῖνα τὸν τοῦ δεῖνα—
ληρεῖν μοι δοκεῖς.
If so-and-so is dismissed as a fudge, then I’d suggest that τὸν δεῖνα would make a lot more sense if the particulars of the Mark story were part of this story:
καὶ ἀπαντήσει ὑμῖν ἄνθρωπος κεράμιον ὕδατος βαστάζων ἀκολουθήσατε αὐτῷ καὶ ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃ εἴπατε τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ
Wouldn’t that random οἰκοδεσπότης be reasonably referred to by Jesus as ὁ δεῖνα? Either this information would have been in the Matthew story at some point and was lost in transmission, or Matthew was thinking of it when he wrote down the story (and thought that he written something that he hadn’t, Goodacre’s “editorial fatigue”).
Joel, it was ad quemdam I called fudge, not so-and-so, which I approved. It suits that classic Aristoph passage well. Your two competing suggestions—transmissional defectiveness, or the writer’s thinking he’d written something he hadn’t—at least serve to show up the difficulty of προς τον δεινα here. I won’t echo Kleisthenes’ ληρειν μοι δοκεις.
Barry, Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I should have told you I know what quidam and ὁ δεῖνα mean.
And perhaps you should have been warned about Isaac Newton, who has a certain notoriety on this board. You may care to look at earlier threads. Standard practice here now is to ignore him, for to engage with him is folly. It was foolish of me to post here, which I only did for jeidsath’s sake.
I apologize if I created the impression that I thought you didn’t know what they meant. Such was not my intent. I was simply supplying the lexical information for visual comparison, toward suggesting that quidam was an adequate if not exactly precise rendering of δεῖνα. And yes, well aware of the above mentioned individuals notoriety.
Mk> : καὶ ἀπαντήσει ὑμῖν ἄνθρωπος κεράμιον ὕδατος βαστάζων ἀκολουθήσατε αὐτῷ καὶ ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃ
Mt> : πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα
I don’t think the man carrying the pitcher of water and the unnamed acquaintance (τὸν δεῖνα) are the same individual. Otherwise Mark 14:14 would have written αὐτῷ rather than τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ (bold below):
καὶ ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃ εἴπατε > τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ > ὅτι Ὁ Διδάσκαλος λέγει Ποῦ ἐστιν τὸ κατάλυμά μου, ὅπου τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου φάγω;
Isaac – Yes, I agree.
I found the following to be humorous (but at the same time sad) about what passes for scholarship in some circles these days.. Concerning Matthew 26:18 this is what was written by a poster ( who shall only be identified as “J”) :
I love that Spanish, like English, does not have a preposition with the meaning. Therefore, whereas in French, it says chez toi (“at your house”), in Spanish it literally says en tu casa (“at your house”). That’s what has to be done in English, too. In German, it says bei dir (“at your house”). Portuguese, like Spanish and English, lacks the preposition and says na sua casa (“at your house”). I assume that Italian da te is like French chez toi (and Greek πρὸς σέ).
Alas.
I’m afraid that’s the closing bell for this thread.