Honzo April 22nd, 2008
I have just discovered the wonders of the BibleWorks Blog. They have all kinds of free addons for the amazing software suite. One of the nice finds is a free module for Smyth’s Greek Grammar. Smyth is the grammar to consult when dealing with classical Greek texts.
Links:
cheapham March 3rd, 2008
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2
Does the Bible, specifically Genesis 1:1-2, support a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)? Would such a doctrine have made sense to ancient Israelites/early Christians? How does Gen. 1:1-2 fit into the schema of it’s contemporary ancient mediterranean understandings of the creation of the world? If something was there, then what was/is it? Further, what is really at stake in the answers to these questions?
I’m currently reading a lot about this in one of my classes and have some thoughts…but I’d like to see what you guys have. Certainly, those familiar with Hebrew could contribute much to our understanding of what the text itself (may) say(s).
Honzo February 23rd, 2008
A while ago Hank did a five part post series on his translation process of John 3:16. I was translating the verse again tonight and came across some questions while I was trying to knock the participle in the side to give it legs.1 I thought I would give ole Hank’s translation another look over for some help in this department.
Here is the verse:
οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (link to zhubert version)
Do you think the ὁ before the participle πιστεύων is indicating that the participle is in the attributive position relative to πᾶς and means that we need to translate the present active participle as a relative clause for πᾶς, clarifying everyone of what group we are talking about (Smyth 2050A) (i.e. everyone who is believing in him)?
Also, the participle is timeless, it either will denote the stage of action (here continuous because it is present) or action relative to the main verb (here at the same time as God giving and loving, because they are both in the aorist) when used in indirect discourse (Smyth 2043). I am thinking it is not in indirect discourse, but I really don’t know what indirect discourse means for Smyth. So, I think that the participle here is only indicating aspect, not time. Therefore, the participle here is indicating that everyone that is continually trusting in Jesus are the members of the world which are being given everlasting life.
I wonder how that impacts the H/C/A/O debate?
What do you all think? I am one week into the Greek participle, so I am pretty green here.
Honzo February 13th, 2008
Should we hold Biblish as sacred? More importantly, do we hold Biblish as sacred? Over at He is Sufficient ElShaddai Edwards takes up this question in response to Kevin P. Edgecomb’s who argued the following in response to John Hobbins talking about the nature of the English used in the CEV and NLT.
Edgecomb argues that “it is the responsibility of the keepers of the tradition of the text” to explain through good exegesis those expressions and phrases that make little sense in the new culture the text finds itself. As such, it is incumbent on translators to keep such phrases as “way of all the earth”, “gathered to his fathers”, and “pearls before swine” in their translations and for pastors and teachers to explain these idioms to the laity.
It is Edwards’ contention that this is foolhardy because it sacrifices the meaning of the text for the artificial divinity of the Hebrew (and I would add the Graeco-Roman) culture. He argues that if the Bible is meant for all nations and all peoples, then why should we translate it “in “sacred language”, set apart from the normal linguistic rules of a receiver’s language?” Edwards concludes his post by claiming the following.
Yet translating the text within the intracultural context of the receiver language doesn’t seem “a dereliction of duty” to me; indeed, it seems an even more sacred presentation of God’s Word that allows the Holy Spirit even more intimacy within those who hear and understand the call and claims of the Cross.
I am inclined to agree with him - and I would include highly theologized terms such as propitiation. The NT was not written in high Greek but instead was written in the common vernacular and should be translated as such.
Honzo August 29th, 2007
As I am putting off readings and a reflection paper for this afternoon, I started to gaze lustfully at The Greek New Testament over at Amazon.com.
I had the following idea for a neat multi-year project. How fun and instructional it would be to do a chronological translation of the Greek New Testament, the whole while consulting commentaries. By chronological translation, I mean translating the texts as they appear in history. So one would start with Paul’s letters and then move on to the Gospels and ending with the Apocalypse of John. It would be the perfect way to not only read the text, but, if you kept good notes, also to build a good book-by-book Biblical Hermeneutic. It would allow one to get a first hand account of a variety of textual issues, such as the synoptic problem, the issue of the pastorals, 2nd Cor being multiple letters stitched together, etc. In addition, it would allow one to get a feel for how Christian thought was expressed in its early years of its development.
Whaddya think?
Update That Greek New Testament is on its way.
Honzo August 27th, 2007
What is more important, the words of a sentence or the overall meaning of the sentence? For instance, what does the below passage mean?
dear John I want a man who knows what love is all about you are generous kind thoughtful people who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior you have ruined me for other men i yearn for you I have no other feelings whatsoever when we’re apart I can be forever happy will you let me be yours Gloria1
Here it is with the proper punctuation:
Dear John,
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no other feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy; will you let me be yours?
Gloria
Oh, I am sorry, here it is now with the proper punctuation:
Dear John,
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men I yearn. For you I have no other feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart I can be forever happy.
Will you let me be?
Yours,
Gloria
Words are not the primary vessels of meaning; it is the sentence itself, although the sentence relies on the words for its meaning.
Honzo August 22nd, 2007
As I was studying me some Attic Greek tonight I was reminded of Hank’s retranslation of John 3:16. Hank did an excellent 5-part series on this verse and went through the translation process step-by-step. I would recommend reading reading through each of the five parts (one two three four five) to get a feel for the translation process.
His translation reads as follows:
“Thus in this manner God loved the world that he gave his one and only Son so that everyone that is believing in him will never perish but have life forever.”
I especially like two of his changes/emphases. First, Hank rightly translates the “so” in the phrase “For God so loved the world…” as “in this manner.” It describes how the love of God was shown to the world. God showed his love through a selfless sacrificial act.
The second aspect that I appreciated was Hank’s emphasis on the middle voice of ἀπόληται, or to perish. The emphasis on the middle voice demonstrates that the perishing was a result of our own actions. Restated, we perish ourselves. It demonstrates that although we have shot our selves in the foot, God action of love for us is his providing a way into eternal life despite our shooting of our own foot.
The only thing I would really change about his translation is restoring the subjunctive forms of “will never perish” and “have” in the last two clauses. The verbs are in the subjunctive form, which describe possible worlds, not actualized ones. Those that believe, by their believing enter into this possible world where they do not perish and instead have eternal life. This world is make possible by God’s giving of his son, Jesus.
My changes would read as follows:
“Thus in this manner God loved the world that he gave his one and only Son so that everyone that is believing in him might never perish but might have life forever.”
Honzo July 6th, 2007
I hate to leave such good conversations for a few days, especially when there is so much left to talk about. Meredith and I are heading out in a few hours to visit my sister Rachel and her husband Casey.
I leave you with an article about one of my interests, translation philosophy.
Form, Function, and the “Literal Meaning” Fallacy in Bible Translation by Mark Strauss
I have not gotten all the way through it, but I have liked it so far. If you have some spare time this weekend, I would recommend giving it a look over.
The problem comes when translation decisions are affected by the perceived need to retain form. The result is often barely-comprehensible (or incomprehensible) English rather than a natural rendering which communicates to contemporary readers with the same clarity that the Greek or Hebrew communicated to the original readers. Awkward and obscure English translations often result from seeking to translate idioms word-for-word, without carefully considering the meaning. Consider Matthew 5:2:
NKJV: Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
RSV/ESV: And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
NASB: And opening His mouth He began to teach them, saying,
NIV/TNIV: and he began to teach them, saying:
TEV: and he began to teach them
NLT: This is what he taught them:The Greek idiom uses two phrases anoigo¯ to stoma (”open the mouth”) + didasko¯, (”teach”) to express a single action. Opening the mouth and teaching are not two consecutive actions, but one act of speaking (cf. Acts 8:35; 10:34; Rev. 13:6). In English we would never say, “The professor opened his mouth and taught the class.” This is a Greek idiom, not an English one.
Honzo May 31st, 2007
This Lamp has a great discussion on how to translate perhaps the most important word in the New Testament, πιστεύω/pisteuo. It’s a lengthy read, but well worth your while.
THIS LAMP :: Has Faith: John 3:16 in the NEB/REB–Good Translation or Not?
Well, the problem is with our English word. It has two different meanings. Believe can mean to accept something as true. But believe can also mean to hold an opinion. When John speaks of those who believe in Jesus in John 3:16, is he speaking of the same kind of belief when we say, “I believe it will rain tomorrow”? Of course not. Such belief has to be more than opinion. It also has to be more than mental assent. James foresees this as a problem when he writes,
“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” (James 2:19 TNIV)
Believe may simply not be an adequate word for πιστεύω in English. It’s awkward, but the Amplified Bible gets the meaning across fairly well with “..so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish…” The parenthetical definition for believes in–”trusts in, clings to, relies on”–gets it right. But the Amplified Bible is not really suitable for any kind of use in a group setting (I don’t really even recommend the Amplified Bible in general), so how can πιστεύω in John 3:16 best be rendered?
Honzo March 8th, 2007
At the Better Bibles Blog, Wyane looks at the Hebrew use of double verbs and its residuals in our translations.
In Biblical Hebrew quotes are typically introduced with two verbs, the first one which is semantically rich tells us what kind of speaking is occurring, such as loud speaking, beginning of speaking, rebuking, calling, etc. Then the second verb simply means ’says’. The Hebrew conjunction vav usually intervenes between the two verbs….
…
Gen. 18:29
Again he spoke to him and said (ESV)
Again he spoke to him (NRSV)…
…Some people would consider it a virtue for an English Bible version to have both verbs of the Semitic prequote formula literally translated to English. Others would consider it a lack of translation equivalence since English does not normally use two verbs of saying as Hebrew does.
Bad Behavior has blocked 797 access attempts in the last 7 days.