The Bible contains hundreds of duplicates. In Doublets in the New Testament, Bruce Moore lists 654 duplicates of different types in the New Testament Alone. Here are some examples of duplicates synonymous with the revised standard version: b. Liberal and generous, for example, do not mean exactly the same thing, nor could their Greek counterparts. So adding the two circles together can be more accurate, effective and normal rhetoric that works in both English and Hebrew, Koine and I suspect many other languages. It is obviously not uncommon for languages to use the repetition of the concept as a stylistic device to add emphasis and/or rhythm. The only point where one could avoid translating duplicates into duplicates would be if they don`t work or if the target language doesn`t usually use them. English does, and if Luther`s German does, I suspect that some ancient root languages spoken on the shores of the North Sea two thousand years ago did. This is clearly not the meaning of “doublet” that Moore uses. Although Moore is free to define his own terminology, it seems to him that it is incumbent upon him to give a precise definition.
As mentioned in the comments above by myself, David Ker, SimonPotamos and Dru, it seems that Moore`s identification of “duplicates” is arbitrary rather than systematic and logical. (b) to continue to consider the pedagogical use of such duplicates. Luther used duplicates with great effect in the Little Catechism to facilitate memorization: these sample sentences are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “duplicate.” The opinions expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. I don`t know Bruce R. Moore (although a simple Google search seems to indicate that he had a connection to SIL). Perhaps you could recite his references or give another reason why we should accept his list without question. At the very least, I wonder if he gave a precise linguistic definition of “doublet.” I also note that Moore appears to have adopted a non-standardized definition of the term “doublet” – see, for example, this Wikipedia article.
The pamphlet, which Bruce R. Moore wrote about duplicates, was published by the Department of International Translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics. I don`t know what degrees or field experience he had before writing the brochure, but I do know that SIL`s academic staff carefully review everything they publish. However, I would not suggest that you accept his list or any other list without asking questions. Various contributors and commentators on this site have talked a lot about reproducing the impact of the original text on its listeners. I will not enter into the validity of this method at this stage. However, in this particular case, removing duplicates when they are present in the original certainly goes beyond the requirements of this method. The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) contain a series of duplicates, which are pieces of text that occur in two different places in the same gospel and may or may not have parallels in one or both other Gospels.
There is no “exact” number of duplicates, as the definition of a duplicate depends on the number of words it deems necessary and/or the differences allowed to form a duplicate. In addition, what may be considered “short duplicates” for some people may be considered by others as repeated favorite phrases (sometimes called “formulas” or something similar), such as “Anyone who has ears to hear, let it be heard” rather than duplicates. Yet there are interesting differences in the number and type of duplicates in each of the Synoptic Gospels, and these differences can provide insight into the order in which the Gospels were written. On the linked pages below, the text of duplicates/formulas is discussed with both individual analyses and tables to highlight synoptic parallels, while for more information on duplicates in general and in particular how duplicates/formulas relate to the synoptic problem, see Introduction to Duplicates. In “Doublets in the New Testament,” Bruce Moore does not list any duplicates in John 7:16, and I agree. In The Better Life Bible, I translated each synonymous duplicate as a unit. For example, in my translation of 1 Timothy 6:18, I expressed the duplicate “liberal and generous” as “generous.” c) I remember the old debate on naturalistic errors raised by G.E. Moore. Moore argued that “good” cannot be defined with other terms without resorting to tautology. Take utilitarianism: utilitarians define “good” as “pleasure.” But it means that when we say “pleasure is good,” we`re just saying “good is good” – that is, we`re not saying anything at all. Moore`s mistake was to confuse semantic and ontological identity, and where he saw ontological identity, he assumed semantic identity.
Ontologically, H2O is identical to water, but semantically they are very different. Therefore, it is not tautological to say that H2O is water or that pleasure is good. Similarly, folding these duplicates (as well as many other assistive techniques) may not always change the final meaning of the text, but something important will still have been lost. Without knowing that many duplicates convey the same meaning, readers often assume that different meanings are intended. To avoid misunderstandings, many English translations express these duplicates as a unit. For example, the contemporary English version translates the larger duplicate into Power and Power (RSV) into 2. Peter 2:11 as more powerful. T, you may want to see my comment on the KJV here: betterbibles.com/2008/11/21/why-the-english-standard-version-esv-should-not-become-the-standard-english-version-by-mark-strauss/#comment-14041 Before I leave this story and move on to Cain and Abel, I just want to make a few brief observations. First of all, the first chapters of Genesis, Genesis 1-3, have been subjected to theological interpretations for centuries, and I hope you are reading some of them. For example, they spawned the doctrine of original sin, which is the idea that, according to Adam, people are, by definition, born into a state of sin. As many ancient interpreters have already observed, the actions of Adam and Eve bring death to mankind.
They do not imply a complete and unrewarded state of sin. In fact, they tell us that people have a moral choice in every age. History is above all etilogical and not prescriptive or normative. We talked about it: these etiological stories are stories that try to explain how or why something is the way it is. That is why, for example, snakes lose their skin. In the epic of Gilgamesh, they were the ones who obtained the plant of eternal youth. It is etiological. The author observes that people move from an innocent childhood to a confident adult life.
The author notes that survival is a difficult undertaking and that the world can sometimes seem severely hostile. The author notes that women desire and are emotionally connected to the very people who set the conditions for their subordination. History explains how these strange living conditions have become as they are, which does not mean that it is the ideal situation or even that it is God`s will for mankind; These are etiological fables, and it is better to read them as such. I have seen that it is claimed that such duplicates are a common phenomenon in ancient Near Eastern literature. It`s not true. There is no such phenomenon. Duplicates are not common in Middle Eastern prose, as there is no Middle Eastern prose in the form of historiography or long fiction before these biblical texts. This is not even common in Middle Eastern poetry. The poetic text that comes closest to the qualities of the biblical text we are discussing here is the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Epic of Gilgamesh is a mixture of several sources. This is a demonstration of composition by combining sources in the ancient Middle East, not a refutation of it! I would also like to point out that your translation is inconsistent, since you are willing to keep the “duplicate” (disjunctive suggestion) apparently for a purely rhetorical effect in John 7:16 (“The counsel I share is God`s counsel, not mine.”) The tables of the discussions highlight the synoptic parallels, the duplicates/formulas being divided into two main groups, depending on whether half of the duplicate/formula in the text is in a non-Markan context (to simplify, they are called duplicates/formulas with double tradition) or not (see also The Making of the Double Tradition): duplicates/formulas are grouped into nine discussion categories, where each category ends with a summary of these duplicates.
The references below are those of the people cited in these discussions. a) How do we know how the original duplicates were heard by their original listeners? How do we even know for sure that a synonymous use was intended? Certainly, the rhetorical effect is at least as important a consideration. In a study of 121 verses containing duplicates in the Hebrew Scriptures (mainly Psalms and Proverbs), translator and counselor Wayne Leman calculated what percentage of these duplicates are transmitted as a unit in several English versions: This talk continues the discussion of Genesis, including the familiar accounts of Cain and Abel, the Flood and the Noahide Alliance. The story of Cain and Abel expresses the idea of God-given holiness of human life and a “universal moral law” that governs the world. Examining the contradictions and duplications in the history of the floods leads to a discussion of the complex composition and authorship of the Pentateuch.
