<$BlogRSDURL$>

Sunday, November 14, 2004

CARMJW35401 - Bowman misrepresents BeDuhn on John 8:58 

(CARMJW35401) - Bowman misrepresents BeDuhn on John 8:58

Dear Rob,
You had asked me:

Do you agree with BeDuhn that the NWT rendering is also "fractured syntax" and not acceptable English?

And yet what Jason BeDuhn really said is:


Jason's Post 17#WORD_ORDER


The NW translation differs from those preferred by you only in its rendering of the verbal tense. It agrees with them in the inversion of normal English word order, and I have criticized it alongside of them for that. In your post 3, you denied that the word order found in most English translations of this verse was, in my words, 'fractured or broken syntax.' You argued that English has flexibility to put dependent clauses before main clauses, and this does not constitute 'fractured' syntax. I clarified that my characterization referred to both the word order and the disharmony of verbal tenses between the main and dependent clauses, and that these two aberrations together merited that characterization. You subsequently (your post 5) acknowledged that that was my meaning.
[Editor's note: The NWT reverses the word order, placeing "I have been" at the end of John 8:58 which is something BeDuhn criticizes, however to merit the characterization of "fractured or broken syntax," in his view as stated here, it would also need to translate EGW EIMI as "I am."]


Your Post #5 to which Jason refers quotes you saying:

I recognize that you did fault traditional versions at John 8:58 for the cumulative effect that you perceived in their “inverted word order” combined with their rendering of EIMI with “am.”

Rob,
It is really better to get these things out in the open. If you would like to apologize here I will blog that as well. Perhaps you merely forgot what you and Jason had said. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to clear this up.

Just me,
Jessica


Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?