Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Home-court Advantage

Muad’Dib and I have been having a little discussion over on his weblog, and I’ve decided to change the venue. I've also decided to change the tone and style so it makes me look better (in my own eyes.) Therefore, I write: I heartily concur with his interpretation of Acts 4-5, and have written up a little to say why. If you like what’s discussed, leave a note explaining why. If you find it too dull, Talmudic, or overly focused on the minutiae, leave a note explaining that too. In other words, I like hearing from everyone who reads my posts. Please let me know that you’re out there reading. Anyway, on with the show.

I agree with Muad’Dib’s assessment of the translation. I love the KJV, and find it, by far, the most pleasant to listen to and to recite. One the one hand, the Ol’ 1611 is fine enough for church meetings and regular discussions, but on the other hand, if we’re analyzing the text, I’d stick with the NRSV. Wait! What’s that? Ah yes, if any of you have read through my Amazon Wishlist, you’ll see that I don’t own a copy of the NRSV. Fine. Chicken Little will do it herself.

In 4:32, exempli gratia, “ought” is an anachronistic hold-over spelling of “aught” (“anything.”) In Middle English the two spellings were perfectly compatible versions of the same word, but in Early Modern English “ought” began to assume powers of obligation and debt and the twain were cloven by the softest laws made: the laws of linguistics. The only reason this text – and the whole of the NT – is not eternally ambiguous is that it is possible to look it up in the original Greek. The word used is a simple ti (no accent), meaning “some” or “any” – an egal word befitting an egal people.

All that work for one little word. Ouch. I guess I don’t have time to analyze ‘υπαρχόντων, ’έλεγεν, or ‘άπαντα (aside from saying that I very much doubt that ‘άπαντα was referring only to “trials, persecutions, a feeling of unity with common problems.” In this context I can’t force myself to think it doesn’t mean “all things” including the ‘υπαρχόντων “possessions” that they will all sell.)

If I had to translate this passage on my own, I’d do it far more literally, just so there’s no confusion as to what words mean, as sometimes happens with the KJV. As a matter of fact, I think I will. My interlineary Greek-English NT is still submerged in one of the manifold black holes innocently disguised as cardboard boxes, currently adorning my living room. Poor décor, indeed. They still infest my domicile. I will empty them yet. “Hear ye! All ye corregated fiends! Your days are numbered! I will strike thee with the rod of my sister-in-laws and thou shalt spill thy bowels each upon their rightful place in mine house!” (Book of Daniel [Webb], Vol. 29, 8:8). But I digress. As I was saying, without my interlineary I’ll have to do it the hard way, with Lexicon and Strong’s Strongest at my side. But, I’ll only focus on the verses I mentioned above (4:32, 34-35). That’ll be more than enough work for me - several hours, I expect - but this conversation is worth the effort.

4:32) The quantity [i.e. the whole group] of those trusting [i.e. those who believed] was one in heart and soul, and not one [of those believing ppl] claimed some/any of the possessions to be his own for him, but, for them [i.e. for the believing ones], all was common.
4:34) For, there was not some/any impoverished among them; for as many as were possessing acquisitions of small-fields or houses – selling [the acquisitions], they were bringing the values of those things having been being sold.
4:35) And they were setting [the values] alongside the feet of the delegates [i.e. the apostles] and it was thoroughly given to each according to some/any need he had

Alright, so it only took me 50 minutes. Don’t laugh, that’s a pretty good speed for me these days, I’m so out of practice. For those who wish to mock me for my slowness of mind, I stand with Billy Madison, who spoke thus:

‘Now, I know a lot of you are saying, “Big deal! Any idiot can [do that]!” Well, it was hard for me, so BACK OFF!”

5 comments:

Muad'Dib said...

Wow, fine work. I thought my History of the English Language class was always more boring than it sounded. I like it when others do the research for me in this regard. It's kind of surprising that you "heartily agree" with my interpretation of the passage. Up until now it seemed you didn't. You were probably just playing the devil's advocate like Wild Man does....I'm getting used to it and actually like it. I always need to question my own assumptions. After reading your post I probably agree that "things" may have had a wider meaning. However, even if they said and treated their "things" as common, they still actually had private property which is the root of liberty here on earth. Well researched!

Sayyadina said...

I'm not sure I keep up with all the many brain functions of you and my husband, but I want you to know that I read your blog and like it. I wish I could do what you do with languages.

WildBound said...

I admit, it's pretty much way over my head. It took you 50 minutes to write this post, I could spend 50 mintues trying to digest and understand a couple sentences. Something about using a big word when a more diminutive one would suffice. =) I have found myself, I admit again, looking up the definitions of words just to understand what's going on. It takes me a very long time. So, the fact that you and Muad'Dib still no what each other is talking about, I find fascinating. However, with practice, maybe I can understand enough to keep up with at least the comments about said posts. You guys rock n' stuff.

Bethany said...

For the record, I check occasionally to read your posts. I wanted to let you know that we are almost half way between St Louis and Ogden when you are driving back and forth, feel free to crash in our guest room anytime.
And congrats on the building of a new litte one.

Canyonsrcool said...

I just finished reading all the posts you and muad'dib have exchanged. I do understand what you guys are talking about, and it's really fun for me to see others who understand things maybe a little better(probably a lot better) than the general member population. A D&C teacher/class I had last semester really helped me to understand consecration better, (well he made it possible I think for the Spirit to teach me at least), and I know it's NOT what most people think it is. Anyway one of these days I'll try and post my learnings on the matter with references and all . . . Yes I do read your posts, and congrats!