Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex
“Of course one looks for meaning, but one still should translate honestly what is written, and if the meaning is obscure, write a commentary. It would have been fine for a Protestant to translate “in the person of Christ” and then explain in the commentary that the inspired author meant something else. It would be silly but honest. To simply substitute words to fit a preconceived theology is dishonest.”

“Translate honestly what is is written” by whom? Paul? Then what did he write that can be honestly translated? He wrote in Greek, “prosopos”, which literally means, “face”.

What does “in the face of Christ” mean? So they looked at how the word was used by Greeks and realized “prosopos”, “face”, meant in front of the person, the individual named was there in person, witnessing the event. for that reason the translators of works like the AV did not translate “prosopos as “face”.
But what they translate has become archaic in use and a word better giving the meaning of “prosopos” is called for, “presence”.

I gave you a similar example in the word “shambles” which is how the Av translates Paul's “makello”. Yes, but what is a shambles? a wreck? devastation? Should a modern day translator or reader simply accept that which is written?

No! in all cases since “makello”, “shambles”, simply means a butcher shop, a meat market to most of us. (1 Cor. 10:25)

And in neither case is it theology but linguistics and the changing use of English words.

“Today, especially, there is ample apparatus available for the curious reader on the Internet.”

And on the Internet you will scholarly sources quoted like Thayer’s Lexicon (and others) as well Strong's Concordance, both of which I pointed out to you.

” On this issue, for example, one should ask: how did the readers of the passage in the early Church understand it, — did they think St.Paul decides to forgive by himself and calls on Christ to witness it (”in the presence of Christ”), or did they think that St. Paul acts on authority of Christ as if Christ Himself is doing it (”in the person of Christ”? Which interpretation would better agree with other scripture, the relevant scripture being, of course, John 20:21-23?”

Quite so and how do know what meaning was attached to the word “prosopos”, “face” except by the context in which it was used by those early Greek speakers and writers.

An example is Luke's use of “prosopoy” at Acts 5:41 where it is translated as “presence” (AV)

How would Paul's readers and listeners understand the word, “prosopos” when he used it? First literally as “face” but in the context as “presence”.
To take an everyday example in another language of the same practice, “vaya con dios” literally means, “Go with God”, but when used in context of a farewell is usually translated “goodbye” or something similar.

John 20:23.” Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained”.

In 2 Cor. 2:10 Paul was not discussing or referring to his authority to forgive sins but was referring to the Corinthians forgiving a man ousted for immorality who then repents and is accepted back into the congregation. Paul will follow their lead, since they have forgiven him Paul will too.
And why does Paul do this? “..for your sakes” in Christ's presence, face, Christ being there in person.

9,234 posted on 10/07/2010 9:27:17 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9202 | View Replies ]


To: count-your-change

It is possible to translate “prosopos” as “presence” (an example of that is 2 Cor 10:1) and of course the direct meaning is “face”, nearly always synonymous with “person”. But in the case of 2 Cor 2:10 “presence” makes no sense because St. Paul makes a reference to his authority stemming from the authority of Christ. What he is saying is that he absolves the penitent in agreement with the decision of the local church and on authority of Christ. As St. John Chrysostom explain, he absolves him not in order to please the local priests but because that is the right thing to do, in Christ.


9,359 posted on 10/07/2010 5:31:36 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9234 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson