tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8478227.post1852479896998476377..comments2023-07-23T11:18:06.500-07:00Comments on In the Corner with Matt: Submission, Jim West, and LinguisticsJ. Matthew Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02599013442666547304noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8478227.post-83485807017315005242008-01-17T15:16:00.000-08:002008-01-17T15:16:00.000-08:00Chris,Thanks for your comments.I guess the distinc...Chris,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments.<BR/><BR/>I guess the distinction that I am trying to draw out between exegesis and application might not be a tight as I would have liked it to be. When I originally wrote this post I was putting the task of translation on the "objective" side with exegesis, not on the "subjective" side with application.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I don't imagine that the author of Ephesians had in mind the notion of cooperation when he chose upatasso. As Jim points out, this word "means" "to stand under." Thus, to translate it as something else is not letting this ancient text say what it wants to say.<BR/><BR/>However, when you take Ephesians 5 as a whole then perhaps you could describe what the author was getting at by saying that both spouses cooperate with one another. That's a very different enterprise from changing the semantic range of a particular word to soften its impact!<BR/><BR/>I hope that brings some clarity.J. Matthew Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02599013442666547304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8478227.post-55300981535413175282008-01-17T09:55:00.000-08:002008-01-17T09:55:00.000-08:00Matt,I'll try to interact with your series of post...Matt,<BR/><BR/>I'll try to interact with your series of posts as best I can. Since I am teaching a course on Ephesians right now, I am particularly interested in the discussion.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if it is a problem on my end or yours, but there is a lot of awkward spacing and characters when the Greek font is used in your post. I hope I understand it every time. Also note, for some reason, a few letters are not appearing in my response as I type (e.g., the 24th letter of the alphabet does not appear on my end). Maybe it will show up on your end. Computers!?!<BR/><BR/>In this post, I have little to say with regards to the text of Ephesians. I do, however, wonder whether you've failed to understand Jim and the task of translation by insisting on the dichotomous relationship of exegesis and application. This could open up a whole other conversation, but I question whether these two things can be kept apart. To the issue at hand, if I understand Jim correctly, he offers a possible translation of hypotasso. Where does translation fit into your dichotomy? Is it the task of exegesis or application? I would say it relies on both (if I agree that they are two separate tasks in the first place). As you know, all translations are interpretations (akin to your application?). It is not clear to me what point you are making against Jim, other than his suggestion of "cooperation" was not built on careful exegesis. It might be a bit presumptuous to assume that Jim has not done the "careful work of faithful exegesis" in cooperation with (no pun intended) "the equally hard task of applying this text to today's world" in recommending "cooperation" for hypotasso. You charge us to put exegesis first. Fair enough. But translation is not exegesis alone. What if in after doing careful exegsis one concludes the best translation for "today's world" is "cooperation."<BR/><BR/>In the end, I think your post is less about Ephesians and more about hermeneutics (i.e., primacy of "objective" exegesis; secondary role of application; etc.).<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the forum for discussing these things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com