Comments on: Deictics and directionality in the gospels-II

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:56:07 +0000

John, I think a good case can be made in the gospels that some of what have been characterized discrepancies can be reasonably–perhaps even better–explained as differences in the evangelist’s communication objectives. If all goes well, this theme will be the focus of my conference papers this November. Deictics don’t solve everything, but it provides greater understanding of the nature of the differences, perhaps even why the change was made. Hopefully I’ll know more in a year or two.

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:35:32 +0000

Okay, I’m paddling VERY hard trying to keep up with you, Steve (from a layman’s point of view). I LOVE this stuff though because it carries such profound implications for biblical interpretation. I’m wondering how many discrepancies in the Bible can be cleared up by careful consideration of things like deictics.

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:11:09 +0000

Carl, I am talking about the data retrieved from a report about how the term was rendered by the ESV translators. It represents a broader sense of usage than I would obtain from a lexicon entry alone. It essentially pulls together in a report what would otherwise be done in a concordance search. It does not decide the issue for me, it simply gathers information. I did the same in LXX using the LXX-BHS reverse interlinear. It allows me to see the Hebrew understood to align to the Greek translation. This is imperfect at best, as LXX sometimes appears to manifest a different source reading.

Without a reverse-interlinear, I would need to look up every occurrence, read the context of both the original and the translation, the isolate the corresponding elements. For the number of occurrences of a verb of motion like ἀπερχομαι, this information would not be worth the effort for a quick thumbnail in a blog post.

Like they say at the NRA, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Notwithstanding the fact that guns may be the implement used, I view data as being neutral, but it surely can be abused. I abhor lexica for much the same reasons as you likely despise the technology–it can do the thinking for you if you let it. In the end it is up to us what we do with it, right?

By: Carl Conrad

Carl Conrad — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:52:45 +0000

This is perhaps a tangential issue, but what you say of “translation information for the GNT (based on the ESV reverse-interlinear data)” bothers me. It means that somebody else has decided the issue for you about what the word means. This is a primary reason why I abhor the reverse-interlinear standards adopted by Logos.

By: Steve Runge

Steve Runge — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:23:52 +0000

Thanks for the input, Peter. There seem to be many variables in play, but your comment highlights one I was missing. I get the sense that register may be another, in the Mark’s usage seems somewhat out of step at points, and other times not. I will start paying closer attention to such issues from here on. Thanks again.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:27:10 +0000

At least in the NT compounds of poreuomai are rare. Compounds of erchomai are much more common, and are often traditionally rendered in English with compounds of "go". Given this, I can't help wondering if the typical movement towards deictic function of erchomai is lost or cancelled in compounds. Indeed it seems rather like the etymological fallacy to expect that the compounds have the same deictic specifics as the simple verb. (I note that in Russian simple verbs often have specific meaning components which are lost in their compounds.) So if you think they do, I think you need to make a positive case for this, rather than assume it in the lack of clear evidence to the contrary.