Comments on: Emphatic pronouns and other urban legends

By: WoundedEgo

WoundedEgo — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:36:14 +0000

I recently translated 1 Cor 1:30 because I did not understand it in translation. As I pondered its meaning in the Greek, I noticed that the word “you” was emphasized (because the pronoun was included, even though it was not necessary):

εξ αυτου δε **υμεις εστε** εν χριστω ιησου ος εγενηθη σοφια ημιν απο θεου δικαιοσυνη τε και αγιασμος και απολυτρωσις

This was the key to understanding the verse for me. I checked to whom it was written:

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

So the emphasis on “you” (plural) shows that he was writing to people who were the weak, foolish, base and despised.

So when I translated, wanted to communicate this contextual information that was so helpful, and so subtly communicated in the source text. So I added some info to my translation, in brackets:

“But it is God’s idea and doing that [losers like] yourselves are included in Christ Jesus, whom we have found to be God’s means of bringing us to wisdom, righteousness and also holiness and deliverance.”

I thought the added info added tremendous clarity, and thus by your definition accuracy. But by bracketing the contextual addition, I kept transparency about what the source verbage actually was.

http://betterbibles.com/2010/01/28/accurate-but-not-clear/#comment-16424

By: Pronoun for sale: low milage, comes with accessories « NT Discourse

Pronoun for sale: low milage, comes with accessories « NT Discourse — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:16:44 +0000

[...] a follow-up to an earlier post on emphatic pronouns. I really have nothing to sell. Comments [...]

By: Mike Aubrey

Mike Aubrey — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:06:12 +0000

I don’t think the pronoun can be dropped out of this clause and still have a meaningful clause can it?

Actually, Bert, yes, object pronouns *can* be dropped out if they’re consider cognitively accessible by the speaker.

Here’s an example:

Matt 23:4
δεσμεύουσιν δὲ φορτία βαρέα καὶ ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων
They tie up heavy loads and put _ on men’s shoulders

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:32:22 +0000

Bert, I will tackle this in a follow-up post.

By: Bert de Haan

Bert de Haan — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:41:43 +0000

A question from a small fry. Dr. Runge, I don’t understand your example from Matt. 4:10, κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. I don’t see the purpose of αὐτῷ to be emphasis but object of the verb. It appears to me that the purpose of the whole clause (καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις) is emphasis. I don’t think the pronoun can be dropped out of this clause and still have a meaningful clause can it?
Dr. Mounce has an example just like that. μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. The nature of this pronoun is not the same as the other ones he lists. The others are subjects of the verb so they could be dropped without rendering the clause or sentence meaningless. If Matt 5:3 had something like μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἕξουσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, similar to several of the other beatitudes, his example would have made more sense. I don’t know if Mounce included this example purposely or accidentally as a result of haste maybe.
Both your examples from Luke 2 are demonstrative pronouns but Mounce is speaking of the third person personal pronoun. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either one of you (yet) but I would love some clarification. Thank you.

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:38 +0000

Thanks for the comment. This was a quick post and there is much more to cover. Just read your post on the matter.

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:36:24 +0000

I would add (as I pointed out here) that English, like Greek, allows exclusivity to be inferred, and that in English (like Greek) it has nothing to do with pronouns or other words in the sentence. For example: "First Class customers on Delta get dinner." A reasonable conclusion is that "only first class customers get dinner." -Joel

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:34:39 +0000

JJ, I left a comment over at Daniel and Tonya's blog along the same lines as your thinking. It seems more like a reaction to something than a reasoned argument he had been thinking about for a while. The tone and the blanket claims seemed very out of character for what I have come to expect from his work. Some of my posts have a "story" behind them, and at times may best be left unposted. A revision of such a post was just posted here.

By: On Translating Pragmatics « God Didn't Say That

On Translating Pragmatics « God Didn't Say That — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:30:57 +0000

[...] translate the pragmatic meaning. We just saw an example from Bill Mounce (criticized by me here, by Steve Runge, Mike Aubrey and others). He took the text of the beatitudes and tried to turn their point into a [...]

By: JJ Miller

JJ Miller — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:41:54 +0000

I read Dr. Mounce’s blog entry yesterday with great interest. However, I was left just scratching my head. Not only did it look hurriedly put together, I struggled with what he was 1) claiming for the grammar/usage of the pronouns and 2) the theology itself (which I don’t think is affected greatly by the grammar). His “they and only they” exclusivity left me wanting. I kept asking, “based on what?”

I am certain Dr. Mounce has some deeper thoughts on the issue (things which I am simply not picking up), but I would have to be persuaded by more than this.

Outstanding post! This makes so much sense. Thanks Dr. Runge.