Dangit, I had a great long response to some of these issues, but my internet connection messed up and I lost it.

Basically: "Koine" as a genre or type of Greek writing is entirely constructed by modern scholars (ie. it wasn't labeled as such in antiquity). Thus, we need to be VERY careful when using it as a label (especially when "koine" becomes theologized, which often happens). Calling it "common" is honestly somewhat absurd because the ability to read and write would have been incredibly UNcommon in antiquity (at the very very least 90% of the Ancient Near East was illiterate). The mere fact that our NT writers could write and employ at times sophisticated Greco-Roman rhetoric and textual conventions makes them far from common.

That said, when compared to greek writings from men (and they were indeed most likely all men) fairly close in time like Philo before and Origen later...the Greek of the NT is largely much less "sophisticated." Luke-Acts is indeed the exception, which IMO is quite purposeful for the rhetorical strategy the text employs. Anti-Christian polemecists like Celsus and Porphyry never hesitated to bash on the literary level of the NT texts precisely for this reason.

A side note on ethnicity...we can hardly pin down the time or location of our NT writings, let alone the ethnicity of our writers. Source and Form Criticism show us that "semiticisms" can be tied to source documents just as easily as to the author. This is further complicated when one considers Paul (in multiple ways for sure!) who was certainly a Hebrew yet gave no indication of knowledge of the language and was well educated in Greek language and rhetorical techniques. Plus, even if we could pin down the "ethnicity" of our writers...what have we really accomplished?

I'd say we have two generalized options: 1) the majority of the NT writers were indeed well educated and deliberately used less complex Greek (authorial intent?) OR 2) they weren't as educated as other writers from their time and surrounding, and their writings reflect that.



All that aside, I don't see the big deal here. I see bibles like the NRSV and The Message as equally important for very different roles. Why don't we just keep it going the way it is?

"The NT was not written in high Greek but instead was written in the common vernacular and should be translated as such."

I think this is an oversimplification of Koine Greek. Koine Greek has at least three levels of Greek during the Koine era. Revelation, Mark, the Johanine body, and 2 Peter fit the level of Vulgar Koine. This level is most definitely what could be called "vernacular" or "street Greek" only these texts are heavily Semitic. Matthew and Paul (except the Pastorals) would be conversational Greek. This level would be the spoken Greek among the educated people of the day (the type of Greek that Paul would have used in Athens when he discoursed with the Greeks there in Acts 17). Then there is literary Greek which is "a more polished Koine" that "is the language of scholars and litterateurs, of academics and historians" (Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament 21). Hebrews, Luke-Acts, James, the Pastorals, 1 Peter, and Jude all fall under this category.

But there is still a major dispute as to how much Semitic influence there is in the NT as the writers are almost entirely Hebrew. Thus the average "street" person in Corinth or Rome wouldn't have the categories to understand the Hebraicisms, the Hebrew idioms, in the NT documents because of their being so unfamiliar with that culture.

I think that such a statement is too sweeping, though the motivation behind it is good, of a generalization of NT Greek. It doesn't allow for the complexities of Greek found in the NT documents. Luke-Acts was most definitely not written to the average "street" Christian as the grammar would be too complex for the "average Joe" to understand. Indeed, Luke makes this plain when addresses Theophilus as, "most high Theophilus" (κράτιστε  Θεόφιλε; this places Theophilus in a high place in his society and thus he is not the common person on the streets).

I don't want to give the impression that Koine wasn't the dominant language spoken in the Roman world. I know that it was the prominent language during the NT/Apostolic era. However, it is too complex to just say that Koine Greek was "vernacular" because that doesn't communicate the true complexities of the NT language itself.

Propitiation is a good example. I've been chewing on "reconciliation." Somehow these words get in our heads without really thinking about what they mean. Dynamic translations by their nature force the translator to actually unpack meaning without jargon. They're not always successful but I learn a lot from their attempts.

Edgar - I agree with you wholeheartedly! How to do that - that is the 100,000 question. I grant you what you are talking about when it comes to grappling with the text itself - but (despite Hank's awesome plan) this is impractical on a wide-scale basis. For example - my wife Meredith simply does not have the time nor the desire to go through all of that time, energy, and work. And yet she should be afforded access to a clear and understandable gospel that is enculterated so that she is able to access its meaning.

Hank - I hear you, this is not an easy issue at all - if it was, I think there would be an easy and already implemented solution. How do we deal with those words? Perhaps by turning them into phrases that spell out what that word means. Otherwise they become placeholders for pre-formulated theology. I am sure Travis would point out the need to learn more about how the (in this case) Greek words were used in their time and context and then import that into the translation. Another option, and perhaps this is the best and most "scholarly" one, is to footnote the crap out of all of them and/or tranliterate them as well to show that no good english equiv exists. Perhaps that will lend itself to a creation of a new and more accurate and, most importantly, understood term in the minds of the laity (and a uniform one in the minds of the academics/pastors). I don't know the best course - just shooting out ideas.

While I have strong feelings about the CEV and NLT for reasons other than translation (having more to do with reading levels in the West), Biblish is a difficult subject. Take the word propitiation. What word in English means to absorb the wrath of an angry deity? Or to put it another way, what English word can be used to describe a sacrifice offered to make a deity propitious? There are some words that modern English just doesn't translate very well, if at all. How do we deal with those words? Calling propitiation a "sacrifice of atonement" doesn't help things because it isn't very precise. It is a very complex issue that gives me headaches.

I left this comment over at heissufficient.net/.

The Bible needs to be translated to reflect the latest meaning of the the greek text into our current vocabularies. This makes it easy to read and understand.

But if someone is serious about studying the text itself, that someone should study hebrew, greek and latin. That’s what the tough guys do. Tough guys don’t read in English!

Edgar.
p.s. guys being greek for men and women.