TIP OF THE DAY 49: Ambiguity: Prepositions, semantic roles, translations, and Rashi

link to next post TIP OF THE DAY 50: Ambiguity: Example of ambiguity and commentaries on the issue - Logos Forums

Since the forum change has been delayed, I've started adding these posts to the previous tip list. See L/V 10 Tip of the Day 

QUESTION: How do prepositional phrases contribute to ambiguity in the New Testament?

ANSWER: From Perplexity

Based on the search results, prepositional phrases contribute to ambiguity in the New Testament in several key ways:

1. Flexible attachment: Prepositional phrases can often be attached to different parts of a sentence, leading to ambiguity in meaning. For example, in Acts 11:22, the phrase "to the ears" could modify either "came" or "the church", leading to different interpretations .

2. Multiple possible meanings: Many Greek prepositions can have multiple meanings depending on context. For instance, the preposition "eis" can mean "into" spatially, but also "for" in a logical/purposive sense.

3. Lack of punctuation: Ancient Greek manuscripts lacked punctuation, allowing for different ways of grouping words and phrases. This could alter the meaning significantly, as in John 1:1-2 where different punctuation could support or refute Arian theology.

4. Circumstantial participles: These Greek grammatical constructions are inherently imprecise in conveying ideas like time, manner, cause, etc. A famous example is in Matthew 28:19, where "going" could mean either "as you go" or be a separate command "go!"

5. Case usage: The case used with a preposition can change its meaning. For example, "ek" + genitive means "out of", while "eis" + accusative means "into".

6. Idiomatic expressions: Some prepositional phrases are used idiomatically, making their meaning difficult to determine from the individual words.

7. Cultural/historical context: Understanding the intended meaning sometimes requires knowledge of the cultural or historical context in which the phrase was used.

8. Translation challenges: Translators must often choose between preserving ambiguity or clarifying meaning, which can lead to different interpretations in various translations.

These ambiguities highlight the importance of careful analysis and consideration of context when interpreting New Testament texts. They also demonstrate why multiple translations and scholarly debate can exist around certain passages.[1]

QUESTION: How do different translations handle syntactic ambiguities in the New Testament?

ANSWER: From Perplexity

Based on the search results and the query, here are some key points about how different translations handle syntactic ambiguities in the New Testament:

1. Translation comparison is a useful tool for identifying potential ambiguities. When multiple English translations say different things, it often indicates an ambiguity in the original Greek text.
2. Translations sometimes take different approaches:

• Some may choose one interpretation and translate accordingly
• Others may try to preserve the ambiguity in English
• Some may include alternate readings in footnotes
• Luke 18:11 - The phrase "πρὸς ἑαυτὸν" could modify either "standing" or "praying", leading to different translations.
• Romans 5:1 - The verb could be indicative ("we have peace") or subjunctive ("let us have peace"), which translations handle differently.
• 1 Corinthians 6:4 - Can be read as a statement, question, or command, leading to different translations.
• 2 Corinthians 10:7 - Translated variously as a statement, question, or exhortation.
• Matthew 8:7 - Usually translated as a statement, but some scholars argue it should be a question.
• Context and overall meaning
• Grammatical analysis
• Textual variants
• Theological considerations

1. Specific examples of ambiguities that translations handle differently:

1. Factors that influence translation choices:

1. Some translations aim to be more literal, preserving ambiguities where possible, while others prioritize clarity in English, even if it means resolving ambiguities.
2. Commentaries often discuss these ambiguities and the reasoning behind different translation choices.

In summary, syntactic ambiguities in the Greek New Testament often lead to variations in English translations, with different versions taking different approaches to handling these uncertainties.

QUESTION: Building on point 6 above on commentaries, how do I use commentaries in a “What’s bothering Rashi?” manner?

Skill: Using classic commentaries.

WEB: see Jewish Resources: What's Bothering Rashi? This is also available in printed form but not yet in Logos. For Rashi in Logos/Verbum:

• Levy, Sarah, and Steven Levy. The JPS Rashi Discussion Torah Commentary. JPS Study Bible Series. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2017.

But this is my favorite approach to similarly structures commentaries and an approach to classic commentaries that is well worth knowing. Andrew of St. Victor and Nicholas of Lyra are often mentioned as influenced by Rashi. For Nicholas of Lyra see:

• Nicholas of Lyra. “Postills on Genesis (Genesis 42–46).” In The Book of Genesis, edited by Joy A. Schroeder, H. Lawrence Bond, Philip D. W. Krey, Ian Christopher Levy, and Thomas Ryan, translated by Joy A. Schroeder, 190–221. The Bible in Medieval Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015.
• Nicholas of Lyra. “Literal Postill on Jeremiah.” In The Book of Jeremiah, edited by Joy A. Schroeder, H. Lawrence Bond, Philip D. W. Krey, Ian Christopher Levy, and Thomas Ryan, translated by Joy A. Schroeder, 209–259. The Bible in Medieval Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.
• Levy, Ian Christopher, Philip D. W. Krey, Thomas Ryan, and H. Lawrence Bond, eds. The Letter to the Romans. Translated by Ian Christopher Levy, Philip D. W. Krey, and Thomas Ryan. The Bible in Medieval Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013. Nicholas of Lyra for chapters 9-11,13,15-16.
• Lyra, Nicholas of. “Galatians 4.” In The Letter to the Galatians, edited by Ian Christopher Levy. The Bible in Medieval Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI;Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2011.
• Burr, David, H. Lawrence Bond, Ian Christopher Levy, Philip D. W. Krey, and Thomas Ryan, eds. The Book of Revelation. Translated by David Burr. The Bible in Medieval Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2019.

ANSWER: From Perplexity

The "What's Bothering Rashi?" method is an approach to studying Rashi's commentary on the Torah that aims to uncover the implicit questions or difficulties that motivated Rashi's explanations. Here are the key aspects of this method:

Core Principle

Rashi's commentary is built on a "question and answer" principle. Each of Rashi's comments is meant to address a specific difficulty or question arising from the biblical text, even though Rashi rarely explicitly states what that question is.

Key Features

1. Implicit Questions: Rashi almost never directly states the question he is addressing. The student's task is to discover the implicit question behind each comment.

2. Text-Based: Rashi's commentary is based almost exclusively on the Torah text itself. Students must closely examine the words of the Torah to understand what prompted Rashi's remarks.

3. Concise and Precise: Rashi's comments are brief and carefully worded. Every word choice and grammatical construction is significant and must be analyzed closely.

4. Simple Explanations: While uncovering Rashi's reasoning may require complex thinking, his explanations themselves are usually straightforward and avoid convoluted reasoning.

Methodology

To apply the "What's Bothering Rashi?" method:

1. Read the Torah Text: Carefully read the relevant Torah passage.

2. Examine Rashi's Comment: Read Rashi's commentary on that passage.

3. Question Rashi: Ask yourself why Rashi needed to comment at all, why he chose a particular explanation, or why he offers multiple explanations.

4. Identify the Problem: Try to determine what textual difficulty or potential misunderstanding Rashi is addressing.

5. Analyze the Solution: Examine how Rashi's comment resolves the identified problem.

Challenges

1. No Introduction: Rashi did not provide an introduction explaining his methodology, which can make it challenging to understand his approach.

2. Apparent Inconsistencies: Rashi sometimes appears to deviate from his stated goal of explaining the plain meaning of the text, incorporating midrashic interpretations.

3. Selective Commentary: Rashi does not comment on every verse or address every apparent difficulty, which can make it hard to discern his overall strategy.

Importance

The "What's Bothering Rashi?" method is crucial for truly understanding Rashi's commentary. It transforms the study of Rashi from passive reading to active engagement with the text, encouraging students to think critically and deeply about both the Torah and Rashi's interpretations.

By uncovering the implicit questions behind Rashi's comments, students gain insight not only into the specific explanations Rashi offers, but also into his overall approach to Torah interpretation and the types of textual issues he found most significant. [2]:

QUESTION Provide examples of semantic role ambiguity.

ANSWER: From Perplexity

Based on the search results and the query, I can provide examples of semantic role ambiguities in the New Testament. While the search results don't provide a comprehensive list of 5 clear examples, I can offer some instances where semantic roles contribute to ambiguity:

1. Ephesians 1:22

-            "καὶ αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ"

-            Ambiguity: The semantic roles of "αὐτὸν" (him), "κεφαλὴν" (head), and "τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ" (the church) in relation to the verb "ἔδωκεν" (gave) are debated. It's unclear whether Christ is the Patient given to the church (Recipient) or the Agent appointed as head over all things for the church (Benefactive).

2. Matthew 28:19

-            "πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη"

-            Ambiguity: The participle "πορευθέντες" (going) could be interpreted as a separate Agent ("Go!") or as describing the circumstances of the main verb (Manner: "As you go").

3. Romans 5:1

-            "Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν"

-            Ambiguity: Depending on the verb form (ἔχωμεν or ἔχομεν), the semantic role of "εἰρήνην" (peace) changes from a possible Theme of an exhortation to a statement of fact.

4. Luke 18:11

-            "ὁ Φαρισαῖος σταθεὶς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ταῦτα προσηύχετο"

-            Ambiguity: The phrase "πρὸς ἑαυτὸν" could be associated with either "σταθεὶς" (standing) as a Location, or "προσηύχετο" (prayed) as a Recipient, changing its semantic role in the sentence.

5. John 1:1

-            "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."

-            Ambiguity: The semantic roles of "ὁ λόγος" (the Word) and "θεὸς" (God) in relation to each other are debated, potentially as Theme or Attribute, leading to different theological interpretations.

6. Galatians 5:6

-            "πίστις δι' ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη"

-            Ambiguity: Faith could be the Agent or the Patient of "working through love".

7. Romans 7:5

-            "τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου ἐνηργεῖτο ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν"

-            Ambiguity: The law could be the Instrument or the Cause of sinful passions working.

8. 2 Corinthians 1:6

-            "εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας τῆς ἐνεργουμένης"

-            Ambiguity: Comfort could be the Agent or the Patient of "working".

9. Ephesians 3:20

-            "κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἡμῖν"

-            Ambiguity: Power could be the Agent or the Patient of "working in us".

10. Colossians 1:29

-            "κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐνεργουμένην ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν δυνάμει"

-            Ambiguity: Energy could be the Agent or the Instrument "working in me".

11. 1 Thessalonians 2:13

-            "λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν"

-            Ambiguity: The word of God could be the Agent or the Patient "working in you".

12. James 5:16

-            "πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη"

-            Ambiguity: Prayer could be the Agent or the Patient of "working".

13. Matthew 14:2

-            "διὰ τοῦτο αἱ δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷ"

-            Ambiguity: Powers could be the Agent or the Cause of "working in him".

14. Philippians 2:13

-            "ὁ θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν"

-            Ambiguity: God could be the Agent or the Cause of "working in you".

15. 2 Thessalonians 2:7

-            "τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας"

-            Ambiguity: The mystery could be the Agent or the Patient of "working".

These examples demonstrate various semantic role ambiguities involving the verb ἐνεργέω (energeō) and its related forms, showing how the roles of Agent, Patient, Cause, and Instrument can be unclear in certain contexts.[3]

[1] https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5598 and https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/on-words-meaning-inspiration-and-translation-a-brief-response-to-bill-mounce/ and https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2023/03/17/a-closer-look-at-word-for-word-bible-translation/ and https://deeperstudy.com/greek-prepositions-a-tool-for-deeper-bible-understanding/ and https://www.logos.com/grow/bsm-inspired-ambiguities-new-testament-greek/ and https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-augustine-on-complex-passages/ and https://www.wordsofworth.com/2020/05/03/prepositional-phrases-with-providential-promise/ and https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/169942435/Complete_thesis.pdf and https://www.dline.info/jcl/fulltext/v9n2/jclv9n2_2.pdf

[2] https://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/bonchek/intro.htm and https://booksnthoughts.com/the-generally-unknown-mystery-of-rashis-commentary/ and https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/476620/jewish/Rashis-Method-of-Biblical-Commentary.htm and https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashi-on-the-torah-what-kind-of-commentary-is-it and https://aish.com/48918387/

[3] https://betterbibles.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/semantics-put-to-work-on-galatians-56/ and https://www.logos.com/grow/bsm-inspired-ambiguities-new-testament-greek/ and https://www.logos.com/product/45458/semantic-roles-and-case-frames-dataset-sblgnt-edition and https://pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/EG595/HO-Srs-and-GRs.pdf and https://koine-greek.com/2009/04/16/verbs-semantic-roles-and-exegesis/