Theology for the Masses

As a aspiring seminary student, I need to be able to read in German, English, Latin, Greek (Koine), Hebrew and French. [1]   I can read Greek at an intermediate level; German and Latin at a basic level; and have no idea how to read anything in Hebrew or French.

The Four Knights of Theology: Latin, Greek, German, and English.  I haven’t unlocked the French or Hebrew Knights yet.

To help my fluency in the three I do know, I am going to start translating New Testament texts without using and English translation at all.  I’ll have the Latin, Greek, and German versions out and use my translations of those to correct myself.

As far as vocabulary goes, I figure I will just make chapter vocab lists and work off of those.

1. And if I really want to be competent, I should pick up several others [↩]

If you are looking for a web-based Bible reading service, consider YouVersion.  YouVersion is a site similar to BibleGateway hosted by LifeChurch.tv. The special thing about the site is that is acts as one stop shop for Bible study.  If you are an avid notetaker when you read the Bible, this may be the perfect site for you.

LifeChurch.tv just installed some major updates.  As a occasional user, I can attest that they considerably improve the user experience.  The site is quicker, the organization is better, and the parallel readers feature is pretty useful. 

YouVersion is an interesting tool which could really improve communal reading projects.  Imagine an entire small group or Sunday School class reading through the Gospel of John and entering in their questions, thoughts.  I think such a thing could really improve communication and education.

So I was going to post on Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. Before I begon to think about Matthew’s use I wanted to compare the Hebrew and LXX of Hosea 11, trying to see how similar the two are and which one Matthew was using. When I get to that post I will try to argue for which one I think Matthew is using but what caught my eye is how little of the Hebrew I see in the LXX of Hosea 11. Here is my rendering of Hosea 11:1-11 LXX and tell me if that seems like what you read in the Hebrew (English translations follow the Hebrew so I am not going to reproduce a Hebrew translation this post)?

1 Since Israel was an infant and I loved him and out of Egypt I recalled his children. 2 Just as I recalled them so they left me. They sacrificed to the Baalim and offered incense to the carved idols. 3 I bound the feet of Ephraim and took him upon my arm and they didn’t know that I had healed them. 4 In the destruction of people I strecthed them in the bonds of my love and I will be to them as a person who strikes his cheeks and I will watch over him closely and I will be capable with him. 5 Ephraim settled in Egypt and Assour himself was his king because he didn’t want to return. 6 The sword was weak in his cities and put to rest in his hand. They will eat the fruit of their schemes. 7 The people hang in his residence and God will be angered at his precious possessions and will not raise him up. 8 “Ephraim, what will I do you? Will I shield you? Will I do with you like I did with Adama and Seboim? My heart was changed and my sense of regret was disturbed. 9 I will not do according to the wrath of my anger. I will not leave Ephraim to be wiped away because I am deity and not a man, holy among you. I will not go into a city.” 10 I will go after the Lord; as the lion roars he will roar and even the children of the waters will stand still. 11 They will stand like a bird from Egypt and as a dove from the land of Assyria. I will make them stand in their homes, says the Lord.

It starts out okay but man it kinda goes a weird direction for a little while until the very end when it comes back to more of what the Hebrew says. Ya know, there are dynamic translations and man then there is the LXX, sometimes. The general point is there but I have a hard time figuring out what they were doing with the Hebrew here.

I am working on a paper that explores possible ways to interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.  I have interspersed a few translations from the Greek.  How do they sound?

1 Corinthians 11:3

Θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ὅτι παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ ὁ Χριστός ἐστιν, κεφαλὴ δὲ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνήρ, κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ θεός.

And I want you to know that Christ is the head of all men, and man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Galatians 3:28

οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female is in [Christ Jesus], for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Updated: Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female is among [you all], for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:12

διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

But I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in stillness.

Updated: But I neither permit a woman to teach nor have authority over a man, but to be in stillness.

What could I improve?  the Galatians verse gave me the most trouble, dealing with the reoccurrence of “οὐκ ἔνι.”  I also had trouble knowing what flavor to give αὐθεντεῖν and ἡσυχίᾳ.

I have updated the last two verses after further reflection.  What do you think?

I  heard that a wonderful way to work on your language skills is to work on multiple translations at a time, using them to check one another instead of using a English version as a crutch.  To this end, I am working on Latin, Greek, and German translations of Romans 3:1-9.  Here are my translations of the first three verses.  The first set of lines is an imaginary opponent of Paul’s a rival Jewish teacher in Rome who is instructing the God-fearers there to become full Jews by means of circumcision and following the law to the letter.  Paul has just finished admonishing this Jewish teacher in Romans 2:17-29. [1]

Notes – Verse three gave me problems in each of the translations.  “Τί γάρ” was difficult.  I first translated it “Why for?”  Both Τί and γάρ can mean so many things.  After comparing it with the other versions, I decided to go with a much less common translation of γάρ.  Also, in the opening of verse two gave me trouble.  The Greek particle κατα usually means about or concerning.  However, it is extremely awkward to say “Much concerning every turn!”, which is the literal phrasing.  Quite naturally, the Latin gave me problems because of the lack of punctuation in the Vulgate.  Also, numquam was difficult, because is paired with another negative, non in the sentence.  However, in Latin, unlike English, double negatives act as intensifiers, not negations of negatives.  Therefore, what should be never became ever when paired with not.  Lastly, the word describing the destruction of God’s faith/faithfulness was difficult in each language, whether it was καταργσει, evacuabit, or aufheben.  The Greek is abolish or bringing to naught.  The Latin is be empty, vacant, idle, free from, or unoccupied paired with the prefix e- which adds the flavor of out of, away from, completely, or beyond.  The German can mean a ton of things, ranging anywhere from break, remove, cancel, raise, lift up, suspend, abolish, and even fuss.

Here are how the Greek is translated in the NRSV:

JT: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?

Paul:  Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.  What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

Not too bad.

1. Note, this is only directed at a single person, in contrast to the whole of the gentiles immediately preceding 2:17. [↩]

Strauss presented a particularly interesting paper at ETS this year entitled “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version.” (for a page with all 13 parts, click here) I am currently reading through it.  He is claiming that the ESV is not ready for prime time for a variety of reasons, saying:

So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the “Bible of the future”—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of “Biblish.” Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV; NASB; NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”

  He makes his claims, not to bash the ESV, but to encourage people to improve it.  You can find Bill Mounce’s responce to his paper here.

I was checking out Romans 3:9 today for a school project, and I noticed that most of the translations speak of “being under the power of sin.”  However, all I see is “ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν εἶαι” or “being under sin.”  Does anyone know the justification of NRSV, ESV, NLT and others adding “power”?  [1]

1. note: the NASV and the NET leave it out – yeah for them! [↩]

I came across a wonderful Christian satire site, Tom in the Box News, today.   The Better Bible’s Blog turned me on to it today, aleting me to the plight of some poor missionaries who are having a hard time translating “thees” and “thous”.  Here is a sample of their wonderfulness.

Dr. Simmons lamented along a similar theme, saying, "Our struggle is how to get the language of the King James Version into Luyana. We want these folks to be able to read the pure, undistorted Word of God. We do have plans in the future to teach them English so they can read the Authorized Version for themselves. However, in the mean time we want to get the KJV translated into Luyana. Unfortunately, we can’t seem to get words like thee, thou, ye, hitherto, and goads to translate into Luyana with any meaning for these people. It just doesn’t work. I don’t know what we are going to do. Some well-meaning friends from back in the USA suggested that we use the original Hebrew and Greek to help us, but we certainly don’t want to introduce any false teaching into this tribe. We’re stuck."

Here is some more from Man Can’t Figure Out KJV – Rejects Christianity:

As Jim listened intently, the teacher began to expound on how the KJV is the only true bible because it contains the all-important phrase, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” The teacher looked straight at Jim and said, “This is why we must study the KJV only. All other versions will lead you astray. We may not know what Jesus meant when he said this, but we sure know it is true. Beware the other versions.”

Should you translate ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as “the kingdom of God” or “the rule of God?” I favor rendering it as “the kingdom of God,” but technically, I think you can do it either way.  If you have an interest in this topic, or know Greek, I encourage you to read what Hank has to say and contribute to the convo over there.

Jews or Judeans? There has been some debate as to whether or not the use of the term “Jews” is an appropriate translation of Ἰουδαῖοι.  There are  a slew of posts on this topic over at ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ on this topic. See Judean and Syrian, and Being a ‘Jew’ or a ‘Judean’.  Elsewhere you can find John H. Elliott’s article on Jesus the “Israelite” and Was there such a thing as ancient “Judaism”?: Steve Mason’s recent article on “Judeans” (Ioudaioi) in antiquity.  Me?  It depends on the context and who is writing.  I think that most of the time "Judeans" should be used in the gospels, but in other sources, such as Paul’s letters, "Jews" should prob be used.

I need some help.  I am having some trouble translating Hebrews 4:13.

Rise of the New Living Translation

Rick Mansfield seems to think so.  He takes a look at the New Living Version and how it might take the mantle of “Universal Bible Translation” from the NIV.  He also touches on how the major improvements from the 96 to the 04 and 07 versions have radically improved the quality of the NLT.  I recommend give this article a quick read.  It will help you appreciate the merits of the translation and give a broader understanding of the state of Bible translation today.

This week’s "Point; Counterpoint" comes from Jim West and Richard A. Rhodes on Bible translation. West makes the contention that translations should be "woody" and goes so far as to say, "[they] are better because they maintain the proper distance between ourselves and the Biblical authors." Rhodes strongly disagrees with this sentiment in his reaction against West’s position. He maintains that:

"The stuff of the Bible that is of interest are those things about human nature. The differences in the worlds and worldviews is irrelevant, beyond the fact that knowing something about them helps us to better understand the motivations and reactions of the people."

I encourage you to check out both articles. I can sympathize with West’s sentiment. He is correct that the totality of the "biblical" experience is far removed from us and that it takes a lot of work in order to approach that world. However, I think this can be done and modern translations can be filtered through this necessary legwork to produce a meaningful translation for people who aren’t biblical scholars. 

For me it all boils down to a simple question: What question am I asking of the text?  If I am trying to figure out historical circumstances or do a detailed grammatical analysis of the relation of two clauses, I’ll go to the Greek and supplement that with a very literal translation like the NASB or the NRSV.  If I am seeking to teach laypersons about a saying of Jesus in Sunday school for instance, I’ll go with a translation that tries to place the text into terms and syntax that is the most understandable, thus I’ll probably use the NLV or the ESV.  Not everyone asks the same questions of a text and due to this, we should not expect for there to be one “best” translation for all situations everywhere.  Each and every translation is an interpretation, whether one likes it or not. 

Further reading:

Scholarly Legends by Rhodes

Why Modern Translations of the Bible Bungle It by West

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:

• BibleWorks Blog
• Post on Smyth’s Greek Grammar with links to database file
• Instructions on creating and adding a resource in BibleWorks

“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).

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.

1. Sorry to everyone that is not being taught Greek by Dr. DesRosiers for the inside joke. [↩]