Some more translation headaches in Romans

Following on a previous article, three more problematic lexical items which occur repeatedly in Romans are discussed: [foreign font omitted] and [foreign font omitted]. Typical of the old, etymological approach, translators are often inclined to attach too much weight to the preposition [foreign fon...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: du Toit, Andrie B (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Univ. 2010
In: Verbum et ecclesia
Year: 2010, Volume: 31, Issue: 1, Pages: 1-5
Further subjects:B charismata
B translation equivalents
B Gentiles
B Commentaries
B Witnessing
B etymological fallacy
B Bible translations
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Summary:Following on a previous article, three more problematic lexical items which occur repeatedly in Romans are discussed: [foreign font omitted] and [foreign font omitted]. Typical of the old, etymological approach, translators are often inclined to attach too much weight to the preposition [foreign font omitted] in [foreign font omitted] In Romans 8:16, for instance, it would be more appropriate to translate [foreign font omitted] in the sense of ‘affirm’: ‘[t]he Spirit of God affirms to our spirit that we are God’s children’. Despite all objections, rendering [foreign font omitted] as ‘Gentiles/Gentile nations’ still remains the best option. In certain contexts in Romans, it would be advisable to translate [foreign font omitted] as ‘I realise/am convinced’. Thereafter some ad hoc problems in Romans 12:6-8; 14:4 and 15:17 are discussed.
ISSN:2074-7705
Contains:Enthalten in: Verbum et ecclesia
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.4102/ve.v31i1.385