#koine syntax
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text

Oh, ok then. Don't need to worry about that because it's only common in two authors. The two authors who wrote about 50% of the material we're talking about.
#grad school#note that this a book on New Testament syntax specifically not koine greek more broadly
0 notes
Note
Maybe an odd question but do Iliad translations to modern Greek have drastic changes or are they relatively close to the original in the way the text is written? Do they try to follow the poetic measure or are they more loose?
There's a lot of them. Because homeric greek is very weird (weirder than other types of ancient greek like attic or Hellenistic koine), and the syntax and stuff of the language have changed in a lot of ways, there will always be significant changes. Modern greek has a lot of differences from Homeric greek.
Some are very poetic for the purpose of reading pleasure and they take liberties, some try to keep the original measure of the poem at the expense of accuracy, some try to be as faithful translations of the text as possible. There's definitely something for everyone and every purpose though, I think.
13 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi, I am currently learning from Athenaze and Reading Greek books, I am at the very beginning and wondering how Attic and Koine Greek comper in the conjugation and declination of verbs, nouns and adjectives. Is there any difference? Thanks for the answer and sorry for bothering you!
I am very excited so far, I hope I am going to learn to read the classics one day!
No bother at all! Koine Greek ultimately derives from Attic, and so there's a great deal of overlap in vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. The main difference is that Koine, being as it was a second or third language for many non-native speakers throughout the Hellenistic world, is generally simpler than Attic. For example, where Attic is fairly heavy in verbs ending in -μι (τίθημι, ἵστημι, etc.), Koine tends to avoid them, or in some cases to replace them with forms from the same root that are conjugated in -ω. And in the realm of syntax, Koine favors parataxis (parallel clauses), as opposed to the frequent use of hypotaxis (subordinate clauses) in classical Attic. Generally speaking, if you have a firm command of classical Attic, Koine is very straightforward.
Good luck in your studies! If there's anything else I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask.
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
Top 10 Kotlin 2.0 Plugins to Boost Android Development
Kotlin 2.0 has revolutionized the world of Android development with its concise syntax, modern features, and seamless interoperability with Java. As the preferred language for Android app development, Kotlin has made coding more efficient and enjoyable.
One of the most significant advancements in Kotlin 2.0 is the extensive support for plugins that can dramatically enhance the development process.
In this article, we'll explore the top 10 Kotlin 2.0 plugins that every Android developer should consider integrating into their projects to boost productivity, improve code quality, and streamline workflows.
Why Use Kotlin 2.0 Plugins for Android Development?
Benefits of Kotlin 2.0 in Android Development
Kotlin 2.0 brings several benefits to Android development, including:
Concise Code: Kotlin reduces boilerplate code, making the codebase more readable and maintainable.
Null Safety: Built-in null safety features help prevent NullPointerExceptions, a common issue in Java.
Interoperability: Kotlin is fully interoperable with Java, allowing developers to use existing Java libraries and frameworks seamlessly.
Coroutines: Support for coroutines simplifies asynchronous programming, making it easier to write non-blocking code.
How Plugins Enhance Kotlin's Capabilities
Plugins are essential tools that extend Kotlin's functionality, providing developers with powerful features and utilities to streamline their development process.
They can automate repetitive tasks, enforce coding standards, and offer advanced capabilities that are not available out of the box. By integrating the right plugins, developers can significantly enhance their productivity and create robust, high-quality Android applications.
Top 10 Kotlin 2.0 Plugins to Boost Your Android Development
1. Kotlin Android Extensions
Overview
Kotlin Android Extensions is a plugin that simplifies view binding in Android development by eliminating the need for findViewById() calls.
Key Features
Automatic view binding
Support for Parcelable implementations
Reduces boilerplate code
How It Helps in Android Development
This plugin enhances productivity by reducing the amount of code needed to interact with UI elements, making the development process more efficient.
2. Kotlin KTX
Overview
Kotlin KTX is a set of Kotlin extensions designed to make Android development more concise and idiomatic.
Key Features
Extension functions for Android APIs
Simplifies common tasks
Enhances readability and maintainability
How It Helps in Android Development
By providing concise and expressive APIs, Kotlin KTX helps developers write cleaner and more maintainable code, speeding up development time.
3. Detekt
Overview
Detekt is a static code analysis tool for Kotlin that helps developers maintain code quality by detecting code smells, complexity, and style issues.
Key Features
Customizable rule sets
Supports plugins for additional checks
Integrates with CI/CD pipelines
How It Helps in Android Development
Detekt ensures code quality and consistency, making it easier to maintain and scale large codebases.
4. Koin
Overview
Koin is a lightweight dependency injection framework for Kotlin.
Key Features
Simple and easy-to-use DSL
No reflection, fast startup
Supports Android architecture components
How It Helps in Android Development
Koin simplifies dependency management, making the codebase more modular and testable.
5. SQLDelight
Overview
SQLDelight generates typesafe Kotlin APIs from SQL statements.
Key Features
Full SQLite support
Type-safe queries
Integrates with coroutines
How It Helps in Android Development
SQLDelight provides a robust and efficient way to work with databases, ensuring type safety and reducing runtime errors.
6. Moshi
Overview
Moshi is a modern JSON library for Android and Java.
Key Features
Converts JSON to Kotlin data classes
Supports Kotlin's nullable and default parameters
Lightweight and efficient
How It Helps in Android Development
Moshi simplifies JSON parsing, making it easier to handle API responses and data serialization.
7. MockK
Overview
MockK is a mocking library for Kotlin.
Key Features
Full support for Kotlin features
DSL for creating mocks
Support for coroutines and relaxed mocks
How It Helps in Android Development
MockK facilitates unit testing by providing powerful and flexible mocking capabilities.
8. Kotlinx.Serialization
Overview
Kotlinx.Serialization is a Kotlin library for JSON serialization.
Key Features
Multiplatform support
Supports JSON, CBOR, Protobuf
Annotation-based serialization
How It Helps in Android Development
Kotlinx.Serialization provides a straightforward way to serialize and deserialize data, supporting various formats and reducing boilerplate code.
9. Spek
Overview
Spek is a specification framework for Kotlin.
Key Features
Supports behavior-driven development (BDD)
Integrates with JUnit and IntelliJ IDEA
DSL for writing specifications
How It Helps in Android Development
Spek encourages writing clear and maintainable tests, improving the overall quality of the application.
10. Retrofit
Overview
Retrofit is a type-safe HTTP client for Android and Java.
Key Features
Converts HTTP APIs into Kotlin interfaces
Supports coroutines and RxJava
Handles requests and responses efficiently
How It Helps in Android Development
Retrofit simplifies API communication, making it easier to manage network requests and handle responses in a structured way.
How to Integrate Kotlin 2.0 Plugins in Your Android Project
Step-by-Step Guide to Adding Plugins
Open your project in Android Studio.
Navigate to the build.gradle file (app level).
Add the necessary dependencies for the plugins.
Sync your project to download the dependencies.
Configure the plugins as needed in your project settings.
Best Practices for Plugin Integration
Keep dependencies updated to benefit from the latest features and bug fixes.
Use only necessary plugins to avoid bloat and maintain performance.
Regularly review and refactor your plugin configurations to ensure optimal usage.
Maximizing Your Android Development Efficiency with Kotlin 2.0 Plugins
Tips and Tricks
Leverage IDE support: Use IntelliJ IDEA or Android Studio to get the most out of Kotlin's features.
Automate repetitive tasks: Utilize plugins that can automate coding tasks and enforce standards.
Stay informed: Follow Kotlin and Android development communities to stay updated on the latest tools and best practices.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Overloading your project with plugins: Too many plugins can slow down your build times and complicate your setup.
Ignoring updates: Outdated plugins can cause compatibility issues and security vulnerabilities.
Neglecting documentation: Always refer to official documentation for proper setup and usage guidelines.
Conclusion
Incorporating Kotlin 2.0 plugins into your Android development workflow can significantly enhance your productivity, improve code quality, and streamline your development process.
The top 10 plugins discussed in this article offer a range of features that can help you build robust and efficient Android applications. Experiment with these plugins, integrate them into your projects, and experience the benefits they bring to your development journey.
Ready to Enhance Your Android Development?
By leveraging the power of these essential Kotlin 2.0 plugins, you can take your Android development to the next level. Hire best kotlin developers who are expert in these plugins that helps to boost the development cycle faster and surely resultant into the cost-effective solution.
0 notes
Text
Top Kotlin Android Libraries Every Developer Should Use in 2024
In this world of Android development, leveraging the right libraries can significantly enhance productivity and the overall quality of your apps. As Kotlin continues to solidify its position as the preferred language for Android development, numerous libraries have emerged to simplify complex tasks and accelerate development processes. Here’s a look at the top Kotlin Android libraries every developer should use in 2024:
1. Kotlin Coroutines
Kotlin Coroutines have revolutionized asynchronous programming in Android, making it easier to manage background tasks and improve app performance. With coroutines, you can write clean, readable, and maintainable code for handling tasks like network requests, database operations, and animations without the complexity of callbacks or RxJava.
2. Jetpack Compose
Jetpack Compose is Google’s modern toolkit for building native UI. It simplifies UI development by using declarative programming and integrates seamlessly with Kotlin. Compose enables developers to create dynamic, responsive, and beautiful user interfaces with less code, significantly speeding up the development process.
3. Ktor
Ktor is a powerful asynchronous framework for building connected applications. Whether you need to make API calls, handle WebSocket connections, or serve as a backend server, Ktor's flexibility and Kotlin-first approach make it an excellent choice for networking in Android apps.
4. Room
Room is part of the Android Jetpack suite and provides an abstraction layer over SQLite, making database management more intuitive. With Room, you can create and manage your app’s database with ease, leveraging Kotlin’s syntax and features to ensure type-safety and efficiency in data operations.
5. Retrofit
Retrofit remains a staple for API interaction in Android apps. This type-safe HTTP client for Android and Java works seamlessly with Kotlin, allowing you to handle RESTful web services effortlessly. With features like built-in converters and support for coroutines, Retrofit simplifies network communication and data parsing.
6. Dagger/Hilt
Dependency Injection (DI) is crucial for creating modular, testable, and maintainable code. Dagger, along with Hilt (a newer, simplified DI framework built on Dagger), helps manage dependencies efficiently. Hilt's tight integration with Android and Kotlin reduces boilerplate code and facilitates easy dependency management.
7. Coil
Coil (Coroutine Image Loader) is an image loading library for Android that is optimized for Kotlin. It leverages Kotlin coroutines, making it lightweight, fast, and easy to use. Coil simplifies image loading and caching, ensuring smooth performance and minimal memory usage in your apps.
8. Moshi
Moshi is a modern JSON library for Android and Java that makes parsing JSON into Kotlin data classes straightforward. With built-in support for Kotlin and integration with Retrofit, Moshi handles serialization and deserialization efficiently, ensuring your app can process JSON data reliably.
9. Koin
Koin is a pragmatic, lightweight dependency injection framework for Kotlin developers. It is designed to be simple to set up and use, with a straightforward DSL to define dependencies. Koin’s ease of use and minimal setup make it an attractive choice for Kotlin-based Android projects.
10. Flow
Part of Kotlin’s coroutines library, Flow is designed for handling streams of data asynchronously. It is particularly useful for managing data that updates over time, such as live data streams from a database or network. Flow provides powerful operators to transform and handle data streams with ease.
Ready to master these libraries and elevate your Android development skills? Enroll in the "Android Development with Kotlin Course for Beginners" by SkillIQ today and take the first step towards becoming a proficient Android developer.
Staying updated with the latest libraries is essential for modern Android development. These Kotlin libraries not only streamline the development process but also enhance the performance and scalability of your applications.
Enroll now and take the next step toward a brighter future!
Contact us on: +91 7600 7800 67
Email us at: [email protected]
#Kotlin Android#Kotlin Training#Kotlin Course#Kotlin Training in Ahmedabad#Android Development Course#and Android Kotlin Course Training
0 notes
Text

Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Critique of Underhanded Methods
By Author Eli Kittim
The reason I’m posting a brief excerpt of my recent exchange with Mr. Marcelo Souza, an apparent priest and member of the *Koine Greek Study Group* on Facebook, is to respond to his libel in order to show that he was guilty of mishandling and misrepresenting my position. In fact, he touted himself as being a grammatical pundit, but in a rather dishonest manner he never actually gave the readers a satisfactory and robust *answer* to the Original Post’s (OP) question, but only pretended to do so using a red herring fallacy.
Here’s how it all began . . .
——-
Koine Greek Study Group *OP*
The OP was posted by Joe Hawley:
Have a question for all of you here. In
Matthew 28:1, the Greek word for "sabbath"
is pluralized, but it is translated singular in
every translation I can find. The one
exception I have found is with an old
interlinear I have around the house. Even
A.T. Robertson's commentary set on the
Greek text failed to say anything about it. I
am stumped. Any ideas? Thank you.
Joe’s basic dilemma is that although the Greek word for “Sabbath” (σαββάτων) is pluralized, nevertheless it’s translated in singular form in almost every translation he can find. So, he’s wondering, why is that so? Excellent question!
The OP reference is to the Greek text of Mt. 28.1:
Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
Translation (NRSV):
“After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.”
This, then, is the text under investigation. I will now post the most important comments that fellow discussants made on this thread.
——-
Eric S Weiss (commenter)
ICC on Matthew:
καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον. Compare 15:14 (εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται) and Lk 14:5 (εἰς φρέαρ πεσεῖται). The plural, ‘sabbaths’, is to be accounted for by the Aramaic šabbětā˒, which is an emphatic singular.
Joe Hawley (the Original Poster) replied:
Not sure if I follow you. ... Not sure how the Aramaic figures in with this. Thank you for your response.
Marcelo Souza:
Joe Hawley it’s just usage. Remember Sabbath is a Hebrew word that comes into Greek (and other languages) transliterated. When that happens, it often acquires its own usage.
[what does that have to do with Greek syntax?]
Even the LXX already used Σαββάτων for a Sabbath, e.g., Num. 15:32
[Not so. That’s a form of underhanded exegesis. In the Greek LXX, it is plural (σαββάτων). It is only the English LXX translation that renders it Sabbath due to dynamic equivalence translations that will be discussed later. What is more, Souza doesn’t even give us the grammatical rule for the LXX’s usage]
32 Καὶ ἦσαν οἱ υἱοὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ εὗρον ἄνδρα συλλέγοντα ξύλα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων
Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.
וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּמִּדְבָּר; וַיִּמְצְאוּ, אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים--בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת.
(B’yom ha shabat)
——-
Let’s pause the conversation for a second for some well-needed commentary. Based on his post, Marcelo Souza seems ignorant of Greek syntax, as he attributes the translation of Sabbath in the singular simply to a Hebrew usage. He completely ignores Greek grammar by appealing to Hebrew to make his case, even posting Num. 15.32 in Hebrew. Good grief! That’s why Souza’s use of the *English* version of Num. 15.32 LXX τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων as the syntactical basis of the singular form in Mt. 28.1 is erroneous. Why? Because unlike Mt. 28.1, Num. 15.32 LXX employs the genitive plural article τῶν (i.e. τῶν σαββάτων), which should be translated as “of the Sabbaths” (plural), whereas Mt.28.1 has the conjunction δὲ σαββάτων instead. So, the LXX-NT comparison is unwarranted, not only because of the *different words* that precede the term “Sabbath” in both texts but also because Souza is not using the original Greek LXX but rather its English translation. That’s arguing in a circle. In other words, instead of comparing the Greek NT against the Greek LXX, he’s comparing the Greek NT against English translations of the Greek LXX. For example, he doesn’t mention the genitive plural article τῶν, which turns σαββάτων into plural, in the Greek LXX but rather the fact that the English translations of the LXX render it in the singular as “Sabbath.” His entire eisegesis is a sham! It’s like mixing apples and oranges. Besides, he never even gave us the grammatical rule why the Septuagint translates τῶν σαββάτων in the plural form or how that is related to the singular form in Mt. 28.1. Instead, he leaves us guessing as to why that is so by pretending to have answered it.
In fact, throughout the entire thread, none of the discussants gave a sufficient grammatical reason why the pluralized Greek word for “sabbath” is nevertheless translated in the singular and not in the plural form in Mt. 28.1. As you will see, I’m the only one who did that. Weiss tried to answer the question by saying that it is due to the Aramaic šabbětā, which is irrelevant because he’s trying to argue Greek syntax from a foreign language, even if it does involve a transliteration. And then Souza followed suit and tried to do the same by way of a dubious attribution to the Hebrew usage (as a transliteration). However, whether the term “Sabbath” was originally a Hebrew word or not is completely irrelevant to the OP’s discussion. It’s the Greek syntax that’s all-important. The Hebraic etymology is irrelevant as to whether “Sabbath” is in singular or plural form in the Greek. So, the notion of using Hebrew etymology to understand and even justify Greek syntax is a fallacy; it’s completely bogus and misinformed!
I suspect this is probably due to the fact that Marcelo Souza is not a native Greek speaker and doesn’t seem to understand the grammatical depths, nuances, and complexities of the Greek language. This was exemplified later in the conversation by his sleight of hand performance in which he maintained that he conclusively answered the OP, when in fact he didn’t. He even pats himself on the back as if having been congratulated by the inquirer. It reminds me of Americans who study NT Greek for a few years at a Seminary and then become haughty and conceited, deluding themselves that they really understand Koine Greek in all its sophistication, when in fact all they have learned is a few basic rules of grammar, at best. They can’t even order a glass of wine in a Greek restaurant. And just as their pretentious western Erasmian pronunciation is fake and invalid, so are most of their grammatical and syntactic evaluations.
——-
I’m the only one who actually posted the correct answer to the OP, arguing from the Greek, not from Aramaic or Hebrew, as Weiss and, especially, Souza erroneously did. And I explicitly mentioned that to Souza. In reference to the Greek text in Mt. 28.1, I wrote:
“In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author [Matthew] does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.”
Bingo! That’s the correct answer!
——-
Back to the Conversation . . .
This is how the Debate Began Between Me and Marcelo Souza
After a few discussants posted their commentaries on this particular post in the Koine Greek Study Group, I made a comment that “the term σαββάτων in Mt. 28.1 is Not Plural [i.e. it’s not translated in the plural]; it’s a Declension.” And I interpreted Souza’s under-mentioned reply to mean that σαββάτων (being a genitive plural) BY ITSELF can answer the OP’s question. Thus began our heated exchange. . .
Marcelo Souza:
The word is a genitive plural [he seems to imply that this is the answer to the OP. Otherwise why mention such an obvious fact?].
Eli Kittim:
No it isn’t [meaning, the answer to the OP]. That’s a mistranslation [meaning, you can’t use the genitive plural form ALONE as the basis for translation].
[When I replied “no it isn’t,” it was a shorthand for saying that the genitive plural FORM of the noun σαββάτων BY ITSELF (in and of itself) is NOT the *REASON* why it’s translated in singular rather than in plural form in Mt. 28.1. Rather, it is because it lacks the genitive plural *article* τῶν! In other words, the presence or absence of the preceding article τῶν determines whether σαββάτων should be translated as singular or plural, not on the basis of its genitive plural form alone, or on the Hebraic grounds that Souza suggested earlier. And this is correct. As I explicitly stated later, I obviously did not deny that σαββάτων per se is a genitive plural. How could I? That would be patently ridiculous. That’s where the miscommunication began. And based on his misunderstanding of what I meant, he concocted a whole smearing campaign, slandering me and accusing me of being ignorant of Greek syntax, and its relation to translation, and hurling derogatory and condescending comments and insults].
——-
The exchange continued as follows . . .
Marcelo Souza:
Eli Kittim I think you’re confused as to what grammar is. It’s a genitive plural and that’s not a matter of translation. So you are incorrect . . .
[It is a matter of translation because translation closely follows the grammar & syntax of the original language].
Eli Kittim:
In the first-mentioned sabbath, the author does NOT use the genitive plural τῶν, as in τῶν σαββάτων. That’s why all credible translations translate it in the singular form.
Marcelo Souza:
We even gave an example from the LXX, with the corresponding Hebrew.
So maybe you don't know the difference between syntax and translation [there go the insults], and you don't know what a genitive plural is [more insults . . . ] and you think that if one says it's a genitive plural, it needs to be translated in the plural [talk about presumption].
He went on to say:
So you deny it's a genitive plural because you don't know what that is . . .
Eli Kittim (my response):
Marcelo Souza It’s a miscommunication. You’re completely misrepresenting me with misperceived ideas of what you think I meant or what you assume I know, etc. . . . I NEVER DENIED THAT σαββάτων PER SE IS A GENITIVE PLURAL [emphasis added]. . . . I was referring to the fact that there is no genitive plural article τῶν before or prior to the word, and why the term would not normally be translated in the plural as Sabbaths. Incidentally, your deviation into Hebrew is completely irrelevant in this particular case because Matthew is writing in New Testament Greek, not translating Hebrew into Greek.
Our exchange ended shortly thereafter. . .
——-
Biblical Greek Exegesis: How dynamic equivalence has corrupted the translation of the expression τῶν σαββάτων in the New Testament
The dynamic (thought for thought) method of translation translates the idiomatic expression τῶν σαββάτων in singular form. But that is not a faithful translation. By contrast, literal translations (i.e. formal equivalence) render it as “of the weeks” or “of the Sabbaths.” For example, Mark 16.2 τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων should read “on the first day of the weeks” (cf. A Faithful Version [formal equivalence]) or “in the morning of the first of the sabbaths” (YLT [formal equivalence]).
Notice that in Mark 16.2 the phrase τῶν σαββάτων is preceded by the dative singular adjective μιᾷ (first). The parsing in Mark 16.2 is as follows:
τῇ (on the) Article - dative singular
μιᾷ (first) Adjective - dative singular
τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural
σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural
In other words, the action occurs during one of the Sabbaths or on the first day of the Sabbaths. Why is “Sabbaths” plural and not singular (in translation)? Because it is preceded by the genitive plural article τῶν. Had it been preceded by the genitive singular article τοῦ, then “Sabbath” would have been translated in singular form. That is the raison d'être for the expression’s singular form in the Mt. 28.1 translation. And that is the correct answer to the Original Post! In other words, the translation of “sabbath” in singular form obviously has nothing to do with the genitive plural form of σαββάτων PER SE or with its attribute as a Greek transliteration of Hebrew, as Souza erroneously suggests.
Similarly, in Luke 4.16, the expression ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων should be translated “on the day of the Sabbaths” (Berean Literal Bible [word for word translation]). The parsing of Luke 4.16 is thusly:
ἐν (on) Preposition
τῇ (the) Article - Dative Singular
ἡμέρᾳ (day) Noun - Dative Singular
τῶν (of the) Article - genitive plural
σαββάτων (weeks) Noun - genitive plural
Acts 13.14 τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων is a similar case that corroborates the aforementioned exegesis. Thus, in these cases, the most faithful translation seems to be “on the day of the Sabbaths.” The genitive plural article τῶν cannot be used to refer to a single Sabbath. That would have been the case if it were the genitive singular article τοῦ (i.e. τοῦ σαββάτου)!
(see e.g. the following concordance https://biblehub.com/greek/sabbatou_4521.htm).
——-
#biblical Greek exegesis#koine greek#syntax#grammar#red herring#Matthew 28:1#σαββάτων#Sabbath#koine grammar#koine syntax#septuagint#lxx#genitive plural#dynamic Equivalence#formal Equivalence#biblical translations#Mark 16:2#Luke 4:16#Acts 13:14#New Testament Greek#biblical greek#critical study#debate#Eli of kittim Bible exegesis group#eli kittim#the little book of revelation#bible study#Ελληνιστ��κή Κοινή#Hellenistic Greek#facebook groups
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
what was in the water in fourth century athens that made the prose so nasty
#juice of fuck up your syntax i guess#thucydides is actually not bad its those fourth century athenians. theyll do it to you.#once we get to full-on koine greek it's okay again#mine
65 notes
·
View notes
Text
Tumblr, I need your help!
My best friend is a disabled veteran, with traumatic brain injuries, seizures, and memory issues. That often means it’s hard for him to maintain an interest because it gets frustrating to always feel like you can’t keep up with anything.
He’s developed a recent interest in Koine Greek, specifically the New Testament Greek but it’s branching off into him trying his best to teach himself syntax and vocabulary in general. I can help with the “What does genitive mean?” but I have zero knowledge of Greek itself.
So I’m reaching out to offer a paid position for a knowledgeable tutor in Koine Greek, who can host regular virtual sessions and will have the patience to repeat lessons as necessary. I know most language learning needs to go A -> AB -> ABC -> ABCD, but the ideal tutor would be willing to go A -> AB -> A -> AB -> ABC as needed by the student.
He has been working SO HARD, listening to children’s songs to remember the alphabet, taking copious notes so he doesn’t lose anything he’s gained, and I would be willing to pay someone just to help him achieve this goal.
It’s more of a scholarly pursuit to understand various Biblical languages rather than some religious quest, but he’s also down for conversations about religion in the abstract as well.
If you can help, or have a lead, please DM me here or email breakaribecca @ gmail dot com.
#linguistics#language#langblr#studyblr#online tutoring#koine greek#koine#greek#greek language#new testament#hiring#paid position
13 notes
·
View notes
Text
What is the Language of Greece?

How Many Languages are Spoken in Greece? How many languages are spoken in Greece? Greek, of course, but how many other ones? Greek is one of the earliest written languages globally, with the first scripts dating from the 13th century BC. The official language of Greece is Modern Greek, also known as Demotic or Hellenic, which originated from the ancient Greek language in the ninth century B.C. Around 365,000 Greek speakers live in the United States, owing to waves of immigration during the 20th centuries. Its history was, for the most part, a minor affair for much of the 19th Century. There were local changes in the shapes of the letters and their values from one city to another throughout the era from the 8th to the 5th century BCE. The modern Greeks have also borrowed words from other languages spoken in their country over the years – Italian, French, Turkish, and Albanian are just a few examples of this influence. Greek Language Greek is a language of Ancient Greece, and its modern form, Demotic Greek, evolved from Koine and Byzantine Greek. It is an independent branch of Indo-European and one of seven main languages that make up a branch known as Hellenic or Greco-Roman within the Western Indo-European family. Non-official varieties of Hellenic languages exist as well. The earliest surviving written examples are Mycenaean Greek in Linear B from c. 1450 BC to 1100 BC (Late Bronze Age). Its alphabet has been continuously used since then. During classical antiquity, Greek was a widely spoken lingua franca in many parts of Europe and the Mediterranean world. It would eventually become one of only two official languages of today's European Union. It shares some linguistic features with many other European languages, including Germanic languages. The 'Modern Greek' language, i.e., the standard Greek dialect, is spoken by 99.5 percent of the population, or 11100000 people. That makes up around 51% of the Greek population. The official language of Greece Standard Modern Greek is officially used as the standard language in the country. Turkish speakers also make up a large part of Greece's Muslim minority. Modern Greek comes from the Greek Middle Ages and has many regional dialects. Today the language exists as a diglossia form with the native system and archaic forms of writing. The language has a 5-vowel system and a combined 24-letter alphabet. The syntax, morphology, and phonology of the Greek language show how it has preserved its integrity. The innovative tendencies have evolved throughout the language's attestation, from ancient forms to the modern linguistic style. Greek is an Indo-European language that is mainly spoken in Greece. In Greece, Ladino, often known as the Judeo-Spanish language, is spoken by between 2,000 and 8,000 people. Development and historical importance of the Greek language In general, even among vacationers and tourists, Greek is always spoken as the language in Greece. However, the official language is Modern Greek, further developing the ancient Greek language. Strictly speaking, the Greek language, which belongs to the Indo-European language family, has gone through several stages of development. Proto-Greek, Mycenaean, and Ancient Greek were the languages of pre-Christian Greece. With the Koine language, there was a further development towards late antique Greek via Middle Greek to Modern Greek, which has dominated the language in Greece since the year 600. The largest city in Greece is the lovely Athens. Due to the exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece, just a limited number of these Western Thrace Turks survived. Read to get more information about What is Balkan? The Greek ancient language also occupies a high position in world literature. Famous philosophers, thinkers, and writers such as Homer, Socrates, and Aristotle wrote their writings in Greek, and the Bible texts of the New Testament were also first translated into Greek. Greek was considered the world language in ancient times. In the 6th century, the seeds of this native language were sown in Ancient Greek. But, Ancient Greek is now a dead language. Foreign Languages Spoken in Greece The official language of Greece is Greek, which is spoken by virtually all citizens. As with most European countries, many people speak at least one other language – usually English. In fact, according to a recent study by Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union), over 90% of the entire population of Greeks claim to be able to hold a conversation in English. The language has a rich history, colonial history, and fascinating history encompassing various civilizations and societies. Other Commonly Spoken Languages In Greece English is widely spoken in some regions of Greece, especially in popular tourist areas like Athens. It’s also the primary language taught in schools across all levels. Other common language spoken in Greece include Turkish, Arabic, Spanish, and German. Native speaker of Bulgarian account for 30 000; living in Western Thrace. It's the polar opposite of the typical Seychelles image of beaches and palm trees, as well as living away from the world's noise. The old Doric dialect is descended from the Tsakonian dialect. Furthermore, mountain shepherds in Northern Greece speak the archaic dialect of Sarakatsanika. Because it was the most widespread dialect, it is covered in Ancient Greek curricula. It is studied in Ancient Greek courses because it was the most common dialect. The Jewish dialect spoken by Romaniotes is known as Yevanic Greek. Furthermore, elder Caucasus Greeks who settled in Central Macedonia, Salonika, and Kilkis use Russian as a second language. Around 500,000 people speak Pontic Greek Around 500,000 people speak Pontic Greek, spoken in Pontus and by Caucasus Greeks in the South Caucasus area. Furthermore, Greek Muslims outside of Athens, Crete, and Ottoman-era Cretans speak this dialect. The Macedonian Slavic dialect is spoken by many individuals who identify as Bulgarians, Macedonians, or Greeks. It is also spoken as a primary or secondary language with deep roots in Greek Macedonia and northern Greece. It occupies the corner of Independence Avenue and Francis Rachel Street. Nearby, there's the extravagant balconied facade of the Domus. Mahé is under 20 square kilometers in size, and walking around the perimeter of the city's narrow grid of streets would take less than ten minutes. Old-school timber commerce buildings in fading colors share street frontage with a glass-walled casino on Albert Street. Furthermore, more than one million Greeks are of Albanian descent, whether by immigration, marriage, or ancestry. Many of them claim to possess an Ethnic Macedonian national identity, describing their language as Macedonian. According to the 2001 census, the Albanian language is the most widely spoken Minority language in Greece, with roughly 450,000 Albanian immigrants. The Cypriot dialect is spoken by around 1.2 million people. Greek Cypriots speak Cypriot Greek; there are approximately 659,115 in Cyprus, many of whom have settled in numerous Greek cities, major cities, and capital cities. Over 1.20 million people speak it in other world areas, including Australia, Canada, and the Americas. There are around 40000 Macedonian speakers in Greece who claim to be direct ancestors of Alexander the Great, who was a Macedonian Greek. FAQ'S The official language of Greece is Greek, which is spoken by the great majority of the country's 10.7 million inhabitants. Macedonian and Albanian are spoken in the center, and sou, Turkish, Arumanian, and Bulgarian are the other languages spoken.The majority of Greece's population speaks Greek, the country's official and predominant language. English is the most widely spoken foreign language in Greece, and it is also taught in schools. In Albanian, Greek is also the de facto provincial language. It now exists as Modern Greek, with multiple dialects in various nations. Greek is also one of the world's oldest Indo-European languages, having endured 34 centuries, and it is the official language of Cyprus, alongside Turkish. Today, more than 15-25 million people speak Greek, and 99.5 percent of the population in Greece converses in it.Although Greek is the official language of Greece and Athens, English is commonly spoken as well, so you should have no trouble getting around the city. In Greece, English is widely spoken, particularly in the city's most touristic areas.No, it is not rude to speak English in Greece. Read the full article
1 note
·
View note
Photo

Happy Septuagint Day, Here’s Some Data! — Koine Greek I recently ran a syntax query for places where conjunctions begin the apodosis of a conditional construction.
0 notes
Text
Exactly why are we making other translations beyond the King James Version of 1611? The King James Version has been the primary translation of the Christian community for 400 years (1611-2011). There is no doubt that this Bible alone has affected the lives of hundreds of millions and has influenced the principles in Bible translation for the past four centuries.
Before we delve into what makes for a good translation, let us pause to consider the translation policy of the KJV translation committee. We can hardly talk about the KJV without looking at the translator William Tyndale (1494-1536), the man who published the first printed New Testament from the original language of Greek. In the face of much persecution, William Tyndale of England followed with his English translation of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament text, completing this while in exile on the continent of Europe in 1525.
Tyndale respected and treasured the Bible. However, in his days, the religious leaders insisted on keeping it in Latin, a language that had been dead for centuries. Therefore, with the purpose of making it available to his fellow citizens, Tyndale was determined to translate the Bible into English. While the idea of Bible translation being against the law may be unfamiliar to the modern mind, this was not the case in Tyndale’s day. He was educated at Oxford University and became an esteemed instructor at The Cambridge University. Because of his desire to bring the common man the Bible in English, he had to flee from his academic career, escaping the Continent. His life became one of a fugitive, but he managed to complete the New Testament and some of the Old Testament, before he was finally arrested, imprisoned for heresy, and strangled at the stake, with his body being burned afterward.
Tyndale’s work sparked a widespread translation project that produced a new revision every couple of years, or so it seemed. The Coverdale Bible of 1536, the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Taverner’s Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560 (went through 140 editions), the Edmund Becke’s Bible of 1549, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the Rheims-Douay Bible of 1610. The King James Version is a revision of all these translations, as they too were of their predecessor, the Tyndale translation. The KJV translation committee was ordered to use the Bishop’s Bible as their foundation text and was not to alter it unless Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Cranmer or the Great Bible, and the Geneva agreed, and then they were to assume that reading. Thus, the King James Version is unquestionably 90 percent William Tyndale’s translation.
There is no other translation, which possesses more literary beauty than the King James Version. However, there are several reasons as to why there was a need to revise the King James Version. The first reason is its textual basis, which is from the period of 1611. The Greek text behind the KJV New Testament is what is known as the Textus Receptus, a corrupt Greek text produced by a scholar in the 16th-century, Desiderius Erasmus. Concerning this text, Dr. Bruce Metzger wrote that it was “a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no Greek witnesses.” (Metzger 2003, 106) While most of the corruptions are considered insignificant, others are significant, such as 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:7; John 7:53-8:11; and Mark 16:9-20. However, we cannot lay the blame at the feet of the translation committee of the KJV, for they did not have the textual evidence that we possess today.
The second reason is that it comes from the 17th-century and contains many archaic words that either obscure the meaning or mislead its reader: “howbeit.” “thee,” “thy,” “thou,” “thine,” and “shambles.” An example of misleading can be found in the word “let,” which meant to “stop,” “hinder” or “restrain” in 1611, but today means “to allow” or “to permit.” Therefore, when the KJV says that Paul ‘let the great apostasy come into the church,’ it is completely misleading to the modern mind. In 1611 “let” meant that he ‘restrained or prevented the apostasy.’ (2 Thess. 2:7) The KJV at Mark 6:20 inform us “Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him.” Actually, the Greek behind “observed him” means that Herod “kept him safe.”
The third reason is that the KJV contains translation errors. However, like the first reason, it is not the fault of the translators, as Hebrew and Greek were just resurfacing as subjects of serious study after the Dark Ages. The discovery of papyrus writings in Egypt, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has helped us better to understand the common (Koine) Greek of the first century C.E. These discoveries have shown that everyday words were not understood as well as had been thought. The KJV at Matthew 5:22 informs the reader “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council …” The ESV renders it, “whoever insults his brother will be liable (a term of abuse) to the council …” Scholar Walter C. Kaiser has said, “the actual insult mentioned by Jesus is the word ‘Raca’ as it stands in the KJV. The precise meaning of ‘Raca’ is disputed; it is probably an Aramaic word meaning something like ‘imbecile,’ but was plainly regarded as a deadly insult.”
The translators that have come after the King James Version can draw much direction in what makes a worthy translation by considering the principles of translation that were followed in the production of the world’s most influential Bible. The translators endeavored to discover the corresponding English word for the actual original language word of Hebrew and Greek.
According to Alister McGrath, the translators felt obligated to . . .
Ensure that every word in the original was rendered by an English equivalent;
Make it clear when they added any words to make the sense clearer, or to lead to better English . . .
Follow the basic word order of the original wherever possible.[1]
A Worthy Translation is an Accurate Translation
If asked what the number one priority in translation is, most translators would argue that the biggest responsibility is accuracy. However, if this conversation were between a translator of a literal or verbal corresponding (word-for-word) mindset and one of the thought-for-thought (sense-for-sense, meaning-based) mindset, the next question would be, ‘what do you mean by accuracy?’ The thought-for-thought translator would most certainly say, ‘to render the Biblical meaning of the original language text as accurately as possible into English.’ The literal side would return with, ‘to render the words and style of the original language text into a corresponding English equivalent word or phrase as accurately as possible.’ The dynamic equivalent translator is attempting to re-express what they believe the original language text meant into English, removing the need of interpretive reading for the modern-day Bible student; the literal translator wants to re-express what the original language text says into a corresponding English equivalent, leaving it up to the reader, to determine the meaning for himself.[2]
How does the Bible reader know what the Bible means if they do not know what it says? If the reader is given what a translator has determined the meaning as, and not what it says, how does the reader determine its meaning as being accurate? Are they not shortchanging the reader from the right of having access to the very words of God; but instead, feeding them a regurgitated interpretation of what another thinks it means?
A word-for-word corresponding equivalent translator expects the reader to ascertain the meaning of the words that were used by studying and researching the text; with helps of course: word-study dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries, and the use of exegetical principles, as well as by the Christian person who is carrying out a Bible study with them. Many sense-for-sense translators actually believe that the reader is too ignorant and too lazy to ascertain the meaning by study and reaching within those helps, so they provide it for them. If the reader has the meaning already in front of him by way of the translator, he has no way of getting back to what the texts say, to determine if the meaning is, in fact, correct. All translators know that there is theological bias in all of us, and we will at times, bend things to have it our way. Looking at the worst-case situation first, some translators violate grammar and syntax to get a theologically important verse to read according to their doctrinal position, and we are to trust them to give us a translation already interpreted for us?
1 John 2:5, 15; 3:17; 4:9; 5:3 (New American Standard Bible)
in him the love of God has truly been perfected
If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him
how does the love of God abide in him
By this the love of God was manifested in us
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments
1 John 2:5, 15; 3:17; 4:9; 5:3 (New International Version)
love for God is truly made complete
If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them
how can the love of God be in that person
This is how God showed his love among us
this is love for God: to keep his commands
1 John 2:5, 15; 3:17; 4:9; 5:3 (New Living Translation)
. . . obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him
when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father
how can God’s love be in that person
God showed how much he loved us
Loving God means keeping his commandments
“Love of God” and “love of the Father,” what did the apostle John mean when he penned those words? Was he referring to the love that God has for us, or to our love for God, or the love that comes from God and is expressed through us to others? B. F. Westcott understood this to mean “the love that God has made known,” while F. F. Bruce came to an opposite conclusion: as meaning “our love for God.”[3] The reader of John’s epistle would have had to determine what John meant by the words that he used. Today’s reader should be given the same opportunity and responsibility; he must determine what was meant by the corresponding English words in a literal translation. The sense-for-sense dynamic equivalent translations have come to opposite conclusions, meaning that both cannot be right. Therefore, it is best that the reader be given what was said, and carry the responsibility of determining what was meant by what was said.
Romans 8:35-39 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 But in all these things we are more than conquerors through the one having loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:35-39 The Message (MSG)
31-39 So, what do you think? With God on our side like this, how can we lose? If God didn’t hesitate to put everything on the line for us, embracing our condition and exposing himself to the worst by sending his own Son, is there anything else he wouldn’t gladly and freely do for us? And who would dare tangle with God by messing with one of God’s chosen? Who would dare even to point a finger? The One who died for us—who was raised to life for us!—is in the presence of God at this very moment sticking up for us. Do you think anyone is going to be able to drive a wedge between us and Christ’s love for us? There is no way! Not trouble, not hard times, not hatred, not hunger, not homelessness, not bullying threats, not backstabbing, not even the worst sins listed in Scripture:
They kill us in cold blood because they hate you. We’re sitting ducks; they pick us off one by one.
None of this fazes us because Jesus loves us. I’m absolutely convinced that nothing—nothing living or dead, angelic or demonic, today or tomorrow, high or low, thinkable or unthinkable—absolutely nothing can get between us and God’s love because of the way that Jesus our Master has embraced us.
Eugene Peterson in The Message is simply adding to God’s Word to support his theological position. There is not one single verse in the entire Bible that says nothing can separate us from Christ. However, there are verses that say there is nothing that can separate Christ from us. Think about it (1) blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin, and it will certainly separate us from Christ. (2) Why does Scripture, speaking to those who are saved believers, warn us against “drifting away,” “begging off,” “turning away,” “falling away,” “drawing away,” becoming sluggish,” “becoming hardened by the deceptive power of sin,” “tiring out,” or “shrinking back to destruction,” if it were not possible for something to separate us from Christ. (3) Why do the New Testament writers warn us of “false teachers,” “divisions,” “stumbling other Christians,” “temptation,” “false prophets,” or even “Satan the Devil,” if these things are incapable of separating us from Christ? Again, we can be separated from Christ, but there is nothing that can separate Christ from us.
Words and Meaning
The Dynamic Equivalent translator believes that somehow meaning exists apart from words. When asked in an interview for Christianity Today Magazine, “What do you consider your most important contribution to Bible translation?” Eugene A. Nida responded, “To help people be willing to say what the text means, not what the words are, but what the text means.” The interviewer goes on to ask, “How did you develop your ideas about Bible translation 50 years ago?” Nida replied:
When I was at the University of California, Los Angeles, our professors would never let us translate literally. They said, “We want to know the meaning. We don’t want to know just the words.” I found that a number of the Greek classics had been translated very meaningfully, much better than the Bible had been translated. I thought it a tragedy to have the Scriptures in a form that most people misinterpret. Why should the Bible be so much more poorly translated than secular texts? I studied linguistics, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and I decided that we’ve got to approach the Scripture as though it is the message and try to give its meaning, not just to repeat the words.[4]
What Nida left out of this discussion is that the goal of every literal translator is to convey the meaning of the Biblical language into the English language. The difference is that they believe this is best accomplished by giving the reader what was said, while Nida and his followers believe that the translator has to go beyond what was said into the realms of translating what is meant by what was said, because “they [you the reader] don’t understand the text,” so says Nida.
Does the translator seek to render into English what was said in the original language as correspondingly as possible? Take note that an accurate translation is not one that is going beyond the English equivalent, in search of rendering the meaning of those words, but is one that seeks to render the words of the original language text into the English equivalent (corresponding) word or phrase as accurately as possible. A translation is certainly inaccurate if the English edition does not correspond to the original, like a mirror reflection, in any of the following ways:
if all of the original words are not accounted for by an English equivalent;
if the translation has added to or taken away from the original in any way (this does not negate the fact that words may need to be added to complete the sense in the English translation);
Finally, if the meaning that the reader could derive by the corresponding English words has been affected, changed, in any way by an interpretive method.[5]
Roughly, six months after John started preaching, Jesus comes to him at the Jordan. Jesus asks John to baptize him. At once John is in opposition to such an idea: “I have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Yet, despite John’s objection, Jesus insists:
Matt 3:15 (NU)[6]
having answered, but the Jesus said to him, “allow now thusly for fitting it is to us to fulfill all rightness” Then he allowed him.
Matt 3:15 (LEB)
But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it now, for in this way it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permitted him.
Matt 3:15 (CEV)
Jesus answered, “For now this is how it should be, because we must do all that God wants us to do.” Then John agreed.
The reader of the Lexham English Bible, RSV, ESV, NASB, and UASV will be reading the very words of God as they correspond in English: “to fulfill all righteousness.” The reader of the Contemporary English Version will get the interpretation of God’s words as, “do all that God wants us to do,” which the TEV renders as “do all that God requires.” The TEV’s interpretation is similar to a number of other dynamic equivalent translations (NEB, NLT, and NIRV). The literal translators give us the corresponding English words of what the Bible says, while the dynamic equivalent translators interpret those very words to mean “obedience,” as understood by these translation committees.
What is meant by “permit it now,” by “for in this way,” by “it is right”, or by “for us to fulfill all righteousness”? It is up to each reader of the Bible, to determine what is meant by these words. It is not the job of the translator to interpret what was said, but to give the reader what was said, for interpretation. Just looking at one of the phrases, what is meant by “to fulfill all righteousness”? Is it referring to the doing of all that God asks or requires, in other words, obedience? Does it mean that John and Jesus were righteous individuals? Does it mean, by baptism that Jesus would be entering a path of a right relationship with his Father, a symbol of presenting himself to doing the will of his Father? Again, it is up to the reader to make the determination as to what was meant by the words that Jesus used. Sadly, the reader of the CEV, TEV, and other dynamic equivalent translations do not have that choice, because a committee has made the choice for them.
A Worthy Translation Must Be Clear
The Dynamic Equivalent translators have given a high priority to the quality of being clear in their translation(s). In the process of expressing these worthy goals, they also infer that only the translation philosophy of dynamic equivalence can do this, and to be literal, is to be unclear. In addition, they further infer that the literal translation is willing to sacrifice being clear for the sake of “word worship.” These inferences could not be further from the truth. From the first printed translation of William Tyndale (1536) to the present, the goal of literal translations has been to be clear.
KJV 1611: Make it clear when they added any words to make the sense clearer, or to lead to better English syntax …
NKJV: “… an English text that is both accurate and readable.”
NASB: “… a clear and accurate rendering of divinely-revealed truth.”
ESV: “… to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity.”
The dynamic equivalent camp would make the argument that to be clear is to be immediately understandable. When they ask if the translation communicates the meaning that the author intended, they are focused on there being absolutely no barriers between the reader and the translation:
Idioms:[7] a land that is “flowing with milk and honey” (ESV) “live in that rich and fertile land” of the (TEV) Deuteronomy 6:3
Similes:[8] “the corpse of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face of the field” (ESV) “Her body will be left to rot on that piece of land.” (NIRV) “Jezebel’s body will be as waste on the field” (NLV)
Metaphors:[9] “the eyes of Jehovah are in every place.” (ASV) “The Lord’s eyes see everything” (NCV) Proverbs 15:3
Technical Terms: “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.” (NASB) “What is the use of the Law? It was given later to show that we sin. But it was only supposed to last until the coming of that descendant who was given the promise. In fact, angels gave the Law to Moses, and he gave it to the people.” (CEV) Galatians 3:19
Vocabulary Level: KJV Reading Level (12th) NASB Reading Level (11th) ESV Reading Level (8th) GNT Reading Level (6th) CEV Reading Level (5th) NIRV Reading Level (3rd)
Religious Vocabulary: “to give his life as a ransom for many” (ESV) “will give his life to rescue many people” (CEV) Matthew 20:28
For the thought-for-thought translator, “being clear,” means that nothing in the words of their translation is to be difficult to understand. They hold to this concept, even in the face of the Apostle Peter’s words about the Apostle Paul’s letters: “there are some things in them that are hard to understand.” (2 Pet 3:16) Why did Peter find Paul’s letters hard to understand? The 27 books of the New Testament were written on different levels. However, one could argue for the most part; they are not literary, and they are not common as a whole, more in the middle. For instance, Paul wrote at times in a literary Koine, as is true of Luke as well. Peter, Mark, and John, on the other hand, wrote on a much lower level. Regardless of this, idioms were still idioms, similes were still similes, metaphors were still metaphors, technical terms were still used, as well as higher levels of vocabulary, and religious terms. Moreover, the King James Version is at a 12th-grade reading level, and it was used for centuries. Are we to believe that our modern world is less intelligent than that of the 17th to the 19th centuries?
Being clear to the Dynamic Equivalent translator also means being transparent (able to see through). In other words, they are simplifying and removing on all levels, to allow today’s reader to see through time, and fully grasp what was meant [as per the translator’s interpretation], by the words of the original writer to the original reader, as though they were there. This is a fallacy in thinking, as we just learned from Peter, who did not readily understand Paul’s letters, even though he was an apostle of the Christian congregation at that time, let alone the lay congregation member of the first-century. Therefore, obviously, it is too much to assume that all the early readers of the Greek New Testament readily understood the text, just because they readily understood the Greek of the day.
For the literal translator, they too see being clear as being transparent (able to see through). However, they work to bring the text to the reader, not the reader to the text. They wish to make the original text transparent to today’s reader, by using words that correspond to the original. However, it is much more than bringing the original language words of Hebrew and Greek to the modern reader in a corresponding English word. The Bible is full of idioms like “flowing with milk and honey.” The simplest figure of speech is the simile (“you are the light of the world”). Though simple, it is very effective. The Bible is rich with metaphors, like “he is like a tree planted by streams of water.” The world of the Bible is filled with whole other cultures that span 4,000 years of time, covering a variety of homes, foods and meals, clothing, home life, marriage, health, education, cities, and towns or a nomadic lifestyle, and ways of spending time.
We will look at some scriptural examples, with the purpose of seeing if any of the following three principles are violated,
If all of the original words are not accounted for by an English equivalent;
If the translation has added to or taken away from the original in any way;
Finally, if the meaning that the reader could derive by the corresponding English words has been affected, changed, in any way by an interpretive method.
Literal Translation Dynamic Equivalent Corresponding English Interpretation of Words Psalm 34:5 (UASV)
5 Those who look to him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed.
Psalm 34:5 (CEV)
5 Keep your eyes on the LORD! You will shine like the sun and never blush with shame.
Psalm 63:11 (UASV)
11 But the king will rejoice in God; everyone who swears by him will exult, for the mouth of those speaking lies will be stopped.
Psalm 63:11 (CEV)
11 Because of you, our God, the king will celebrate with your faithful followers, but liars will be silent.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (UASV)
8 Let your garments be always white, and let not oil be lacking on your head.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (NLT)
8 Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne!
Romans 1:5 (UASV)
5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the nations on behalf of his name,
Romans 1:5 (NCV)
5 Through Christ, God gave me the special work of an apostle, which was to lead people of all nations to believe and obey. I do this work for him.
A Worthy Translation is Consistent
Consistency is of the highest importance when it comes to finding a worthy translation. True the translation does not want to take this principle to the extreme but is has been almost completely removed from the Dynamic Equivalent sense-for-sense translations, and should be considered more in your literal translations as well.
As has been well observed, “There must be consistency in the translation of technical words with a rather sharply fixed content of meaning, not allowing translation to blur the distinctions carried by different words in the original. In the New Testament, there is a distinction between ‘Hades’ and ‘Gehenna.’ The former is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Sheol,’ the world of the dead; the latter is the final place of punishment for the wicked.”—Why So Many Bibles, American Bible Society.
(Interlinear) United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, 1993
Matt 5:22: will be liable to the fire of Gehenna
Matt 10:28: can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna
Matt 11:23: will be brought down to Hades
Matt 16:18: and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it
How do the modern translations perform in reflecting the original language words of Gehenna and Hades? Do they use more than one English word to translate Hades? Do they translate both Gehenna and Hades as “hell”? Those that are consistent are the NIV, NASB, ASV and the HCSB. They translate both Gehenna (5:22; 10:28), as hell, and both Hades (11:23; 16:18), like Hades. Those that are inconsistent are the ESV, translating both Gehenna (5:22; 10:28), as hell, but rendering only 11:23 as Hades, with 16:18 being rendered as hell. The NLT goes even further by translating both Gehenna (5:22; 10:28), as hell, but rendering only 11:23 as ‘the place of the dead,’ with 16:18 being rendered as hell. Ironically, the forthcoming new translation UASV did the best in this exercise. They translate both Gehenna (5:22; 10:28), as Gehenna, and both Hades (11:23; 16:18), like Hades.
Another example of inconsistency can be found in the translation of doulos,[10] a purchased slave, diakonos,[11] a servant or minister. The Bible refers to Christians as slaves, as they were bought with the price of Jesus Christ’s blood; making them slaves of the heavenly Father and his Son, both being the master over these purchased slaves. A slave of Christ is not to be confused with hired servants, who may choose to quit when they please. The ESV, NASB, NIV, ASV, RSV, TEV CEV all shy away from using the word “slave” as a reference to Christians. However, who are we to set aside the choice of words by the inspired Bible writers, who chose “slave” over “servant.” Among the few that have not sidestepped this tough decision are the NLT, UASV, and HSCB. (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 7:23) Either we choose a translation that reflects what was written or a diluted version of what was written, or worse still, we chose an interpretation of what was written.
Repeated Units
Repeated units are one marker or signal that help the exegete (interpreter, us), to determine a book’s theme, by recognizing its boundaries and layers between the constituent parts of the whole.
Matthew 5:21-22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
21 “You have heard that it was said to … 22 But I say to you that
Matthew 5:27-28 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’[12] 28 but I say to you that …
Matthew 5:31-32 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality,[13] ….
Matthew 5:33-34 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’[14] 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Matthew 5:38-39 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’[15] 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Matthew 5:43-44 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[16] and hate your enemy.’[17] 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Matthew 7:28 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
28 And it happened when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astounded[18] at his teaching;
Matthew 11:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
11 When Jesus had finished giving instructions to his twelve disciples, he set out from there to teach and preach in their cities.
Matthew 13:53 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there.
Matthew 19:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan;
Matthew 26:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
26 Now when Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples:
These markers are far more likely to be lost in the Dynamic Equivalent, sense-for-sense translations, and far less likely to be lost in your literal translations. If lost in translation, their usefulness in helping to determine a book’s theme is lost with them. Therefore, you can either use a consistent literal translation or learn to read Hebrew and Greek.
A Worthy Translation is Faithful
What exactly do we mean by faithful, and faithful to what or whom? By faithful, we mean unwavering to the original, to the author himself. However, there are times when translation committees choose to be unfaithful to the original text. Obviously, theological bias should not affect its rendering.
Romans 9:5 (RSV) Romans 9:5 (NLT)
5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
5 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
Romans 9:5: The Revised Standard Version takes ho on [“the one who is”] as the opening of a separate, stand-alone sentence or clause that is independent of Christ, which is referring to God (the Father) and pronouncing a blessing upon him for the provisions he made. Here and in Ps 67:19 in the LXX[19] the predicate eulogetos [blessed”] occurs after the subject Theos [“God”]. Textual scholar, Bruce M. Metzger made the following point:
On the other hand, in the opinion of others of the Committee, none of these considerations seemed to be decisive, particularly since nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho khristos [“the Christ”] as Theos [“God”]. In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed forever.[20]
A detailed study of the construction in Romans 9:5 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 332-438. On pp. 345, 346 and 432 he says:
“But here ho on [“the one who is”] is separated from ho khristos [“the Christ”] by to kata sarka [“according to the flesh”], which in reading must be followed by a pause,—a pause which is lengthened by the special emphasis given to the kata sarka [“according to the flesh”] by the to [“the”]; and the sentence which precedes is complete in itself grammatically, and requires nothing further logically; for it was only as to the flesh that Christ was from the Jews. On the other hand, as we have seen (p. 334), the enumeration of blessings which immediately precedes, crowned by the inestimable blessing of the advent of Christ, naturally suggests an ascription of praise and thanksgiving to God as the Being who rules over all; while a doxology is also suggested by the Amen [“Amen”] at the end of the sentence. From every point of view, therefore, the doxological construction seems easy and natural. . . . The naturalness of a pause after sarka [“flesh”] is further indicated by the fact that we find a point after this word in all our oldest MSS. that testify in the case,—namely, A, B, C, L, . . . I can now name, besides the uncials A, B, C, L, . . . at least twenty-six cursives which have a stop after sarka [“flesh”], the same in general which they have after aionas [“forever”] or Amen [“Amen”].”
Therefore, Romans 9:5 in the Revised Standard Version is correct in its ascribing praise and thanksgiving to God (the Father).
The problem is compounded by the fact that there is practically no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts and we must decide for ourselves whether it is better to put a comma or a full stop after “flesh”; the former ascribes deity to Christ, the latter makes for a doxology to the Father. The grammatical arguments almost all favor the first position, but most recent scholars accept the second on the grounds that Paul nowhere else says explicitly that Christ is God; he may come near it, but, they say, he always stops short of it.[21]
Acts 20:28 (RSV) Acts 20:28 (NLT)
28 Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
28 So guard yourselves and God’s people. Feed and shepherd God’s flock, his church, purchased with his own blood, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders.
Acts 20:28:[22] The RSV reads that the church was purchased with “the blood of his [God’s] own Son.” On the other hand, the NLT reads that the church was purchased with “God’s . . . own blood.” Before we can begin determining which of these two renderings is correct, it should be noted that we have two textual problems within this verse. As we are a publication for the lay reader, we will cover the issues, but if any wishes a more technical answer, see A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.), by Bruce M. Metzger (1993), or the New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Philip W. Comfort (2008).
Acts 20:28a has three different readings within the Greek New Testament manuscripts: variant (1) “the church of God,” variant (2) “the church of the Lord,” and variant (3) “the church of the Lord and God.” Variant 1 has the better manuscript support and is the choice of the Textus Receptus of 1551, Westcott and Hort text of 1881, the text of Nestle-Aland and the Greek New Testament of the United Bible Society of 1993. The expression “the church of the Lord” is found nowhere in the New Testament. “the church of God” is found eleven times, all by the Apostle Paul, and Luke, the writer of Acts, who was Paul’s traveling companion.
The textual criticism principle of what reading led to the other will be discussed in two parts. There is no doubt that variant 3 is simply a conflation (combination of variant 1 and variant 2). If “the church of the Lord” is the original reading, it could be that a copyist familiar with Paul made the change to “the church of God.” On the other hand, if “the church of God” is the original reading, there is the slight chance that a copyist was influenced by the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), and changed it to “the church of the Lord.”
However, our other principle of textual criticism, ‘the more difficult reading is to be preferred’ (more difficult to understand), seems to be most helpful. This principle is also related to ‘the reading that led to the other,’ as the copyist would have moved to an easier reading. The reason being is that it was the tendency of scribes to make difficult readings easier to understand. There is no doubt that “the church of God” is the most difficult reading. Why? The following clause, which will be dealt with shortly could have been taken as “which he purchased with his own blood.” This would almost certainly cause pause for any copyist, asking himself, ‘does God have blood?’ Thus, the original was “the church of God,” which was changed to “the church of the Lord,” because the idea of saying ‘God had blood’ would have been repugnant. All things being considered (internal and external evidence), the correct reading is “the church of God.”
Acts 20:28b has two different readings within the Greek New Testament Manuscripts:
[literally, the Greek reads “which he purchased with the blood of his own”] “which he [God] purchased with the blood of his own [Son]” or “which he [God] purchased with his own blood” and,
[literally, the Greek reads “which he purchased with the own blood”] “which he purchased with his own blood”
Variant one has the best manuscript evidence by far, and there is no question that it is the original reading. Therefore, we will not use space debating the two but will spend our time determining how it should be understood. Textual scholar Bruce Metzger had this to say,
This absolute use of ho idios [“his Own”] is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment referring to near relatives. It is possible, therefore, that “his Own” (ho idios) was a title that early Christians gave to Jesus, comparable to “the Beloved”; compare Ro 8:32, where Paul refers to God “who did not spare tou idiou huiou [“his own Son”] in a context that clearly alludes to Gn 22:16, where the Septuagint has agapetou huiou [“beloved Son”].
It may well be, as Lake and Cadbury point out, that after the special meaning of ho idios [“his Own”] (discussed in the previous comment) had dropped out of Christian usage, tou idiou [“of his own”] of this passage was misunderstood as a qualification of haimatos (“his own blood”). “This misunderstanding led to two changes in the text: tou haimatos tou idiou [“the blood of his own”] was changed to tou idiou haimatos [“his own blood”] (influenced by Heb. ix. 12?), which is neater but perverts the sense, and Theou [“God”] was changed to kuriou [“Lord”] by the Western revisers, who doubtless shrank from the implied phrase ‘the blood of God.’”[23]
In the end, we must draw the conclusion from all of the evidence; the Revised Standard Version has followed the evidence, with its rendering: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” On the other hand, it seems that the New Living Translation publisher or committee has allowed theological bias, once again, to blind them from the evidence, as their rendering makes clear: “So guard yourselves and God’s people. Feed and shepherd God’s flock, his church, purchased with his own blood, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders. Dr. Robert H. Stein said in a lecture at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, ‘God does not need our help [in translation]. Simply render it as it should be, whether it supports your position or not.’
Another translation that is no longer being used, but can illustrate a lack of faithfulness to the original is Moffatt’s New Translation of the Bible. Repeatedly he arranges chapters and verses in a way to suit himself in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures. Particularly in what he does with the book of Isaiah is open to censure, rearranging the chapters and verses to suit himself. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, going back, as it does, about a thousand years earlier than the accepted Masoretic text, leaves Dr. Moffatt without any justification whatsoever for such rearranging of Isaiah. This makes it difficult to find certain Bible texts.
A Worthy Translation is Helpful
It is perfectly acceptable to insert words into the translation to complete the sense in the English text. However, this should be done sparingly and very cautiously as one could intentionally or unintentionally misinform the reader. An example of this is found in the Today’s English Version, attempting to make what they felt was implied, explicit. At 1 John 3:2 they have replaced “he” with “Christ.” However, this has misinformed their readers, as God is the one referred to here not Jesus Christ. The context of verse 1 and the first part of verse 2 make this clear.
The Bible reader today has a plethora of English translations to choose from and should search for the one that is beneficial to personal study, Bible research, as well as religious services. Numerous translations convey the very word of God (ESV, NASB, ASV, HCSB, and UASV) On the other hand; there are numerous translations that have become very popular because they are easy to read, sound very modern, and are immediately understandable. One must ask themselves, though, if their understanding is, in fact, the correct understanding. However, as we saw from the above examples, the DE also contain many errors by taking too many liberties in their translation principles. Accuracy, dependability, and being clear are best reflected in literal translations, as they are giving the reader what was said, not what one person or a committee feels the author meant by what was said. Any serious Bible student should be interested in getting the Word of God, as opposed to an interpretation of those words. If we want an interpretation, we should buy a commentary. In fact, this is exactly what the Dynamic Equivalent translations are, mini-commentaries.
We are not suggesting that our readers should not possess a Dynamic Equivalent. What we recommend is that for a study of God’s Word, use two or three very good literal translations, and two or three very good dynamic equivalents as a sort of quick commentary on Scripture. As to the literal translations, we would recommend the English Standard Version, 2001 (ESV), The Updated New American Standard Bible, 1995 (NASB), the American Standard Version, 1901 (ASV), the Holman Christian Standard Bible, 2003 (HCSB), as well as the forthcoming Updated American Standard Version, 2016 (UASV). As to the dynamic equivalent, we recommend the New Living Translation, 2007 (NLT), the Good News Translation, 1992 (GNT), and the Contemporary English Version, 1995 (CEV). We would also recommend two translations that are between the dynamic equivalent and the literal translation: The New International Version, 2011 (NIV) and the New English Translation, 2010 (NET).
[1] McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture. New York: Anchor, 2002, p. 250.
[2] “The translator must re-express the meaning of the original message as exactly as possible in the language to which he is translating.” (Barnwell 1975, 23) “a translation that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text in a translation, but not in such a rigid way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor language.” (Ryken 2002, 19)
[3] B. F. Westcott, Epistles of St. John, 48-49; F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970, 51-2.
[4] Nida, Eugene A. “Meaning-full Translations.” Christianity Today, October 07, 2002: 46-49.
[5] These three means of inaccuracy are qualified by the phrase, ‘as far as possible.’ Certainly, there will be exceptions to the rule.
[6] Nestle-Aland 27th edition and United Bible Societies 4th edition Greek Interlinear
[7] An idiom is a fixed distinctive expression whose meaning cannot be deduced from the combined meanings of its actual words: “May I get a cup of mud please?” Of course, “mud” is not a cup of wet dirt, but rather a cup of coffee.
[8] A simile is a figure of speech that draws a comparison between two different things, especially a phrase containing the word “like” or “as,” e.g. “as white as a sheet.”
[9] A metaphor is an implicit comparison: the use to describe somebody or something of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of a vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it, e.g. saying that somebody is a snake.
[10] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 260.
[11] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 632.
[12] Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:17
[13] Sexual Immorality: (Heb. zanah; Gr. porneia) A general term for immoral sexual acts of any kind: such as adultery, prostitution, sexual relations between people not married to each other, homosexuality, and bestiality.–Num. 25:1; Deut. 22:21; Matt. 5:32; 1 Cor. 5:1.
[14] A quotation from Lev. 19:12
[15] A quotation from Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20
[16] A quotation from Lev. 19:18
[17] A twisting of Deut. 23:3–6
[18] Astounded: (Gr. ekplēssō) This is one who is extremely astounded or amazed, so much so that they lose their mental self-control, as they are overwhelmed emotionally.–Matt. 7:28; Mark 1:22; 7:37; Lu 2:48; 4:32; 9:43; Ac 13:12.
[19] Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament)
[20] Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 461-62.
[21] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 349.
[22] * J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: “Before leaving ἴδιος [idios] something should be said about the use of ὁ ἴδιος [ho idios] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 111 131, Ac 423 2423. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 2028 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’”
[23] Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 427.
The Making of a Worthy Translation Exactly why are we making other translations beyond the King James Version of 1611? The King James Version has been the primary translation of the Christian community for 400 years (1611-2011).
0 notes
Photo
Forthcoming: Analyzing Meaning by Paul Kroeger — Koine Greek Long time readers know that the authors are big fans of Paul Kroeger’s introductory textbooks to grammar and syntax.
0 notes
Text
The debate as to where one should be in the spectrum of literal versus dynamic equivalent, i.e., their translation philosophy has been going on since the first translation of the Hebrew (Aramaic) into Greek, i.e., the Septuagint (280-150 B.C.E.). However, if we were to look to the first printed English translation of 1526 by William Tyndale, we would find a literal translation philosophy that ran for almost four-hundred-years. It was not until the 20th century that we find the wholesale overthrow of the literal translation philosophy. For every literal English translation that we have today, there are dozens of dynamic equivalent translations. Just to name a few, we have the Contemporary Version, the Good News Translation, the Easy to Read Version, the New Life Version, the New Living Translation, God’s Word, the New Century Version, the New International Reader’s Version, and the like. Below, we will offer a deeper discussion of these translation philosophies than we had in the previous chapter, which had simply served as an introduction to the subject.
Interlinear Study Tool
The interlinear Bible page is set up with the left column where you will find the original language text, with the English word-for-word lexical gloss beneath each original language word; generally, the right column contains an English translation like the ESV, NASB, or the NIV. The interlinear translation in the left column and the modern-day English translation in the right column are parallel to each other. This allows the student to make immediate comparisons between the translation and the interlinear, helping one to determine the accuracy of the translation.
The New Greek-English Interlinear NT by Tyndale Publishing
The interlinear and the English equivalent in the left column are not generated by taking the English word(s) from the translation on the right and then placing them under the original language text. Whether we are dealing with Hebrew or Greek as our original language text, each word will have two or more English equivalents. What factors go into the choice of which word will go under the original language word? One factor is the period in which the book was written. As the New Testament was penned in the first century, during the era of Koine Greek, as opposed to classical Greek of centuries past, and then there is the context of what comes before and after the word under consideration.
Therefore, the translator will use his training in the original language, or a lexicon to determine if he is working with a noun, verb, the definite article, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, participle, and the like. Further, say he is looking at the verb, it must be determined what mood it is in (indicative, subjunctive, imperative, etc.), what tense (present, future, aorist, etc.), what voice (active, middle, passive, etc.), and so forth. In addition, the English words under the original language text are generated from grammatical form, the alterations to the root, which affect its role within the sentence, for which he will look to the Hebrew or Greek grammar reference.
The best lexicon is the 3rd edition Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (BDAG) ten years in the making, this extensive revision of Bauer, the standard authority worldwide, features new entries, 15,000 additional references from ancient literature, clearer type, and extended definitions rather than one-word synonyms. Providing a more panoramic view of the world and language of the New Testament, it becomes the new indispensable guide for translators. The second best lexicon is the Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement, 1996: Ninth Revised Edition – Edited By H.G. Liddell, R. Scott by H.G. Liddell & R. Scott. Each word is given in root form along with important variations, and an excellent representation of examples from classical, Koine and Attic Greek sources follows. This lexicon is appropriate for all classical Greek and general biblical studies. By far the best traditional Hebrew lexicon currently available is The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) (vols. 1-5; trans. M. E. J. Richardson; Brill, 1994-2000). However, the price is beyond most students and scholars. A more affordable edition, which I highly recommend, is available, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Unabridged 2-Volume Study Edition) (2 vols. trans. M. E. J. Richardson; Brill, 2002).
There are numerous lexicons on the market, which would be fine tools for the Bible student. Many scholars would concur that Biblical lexicons have four main weaknesses:
They are geared toward the translations of the 20th century, as opposed to new translations.
They primarily contain only information from the Bible itself, as opposed to possessing information from Greek literature overall.
They are too narrow as to the words of say the New Testament, attempting to harmonize a word and its meaning. The problem with this agenda is that a word can have numerous meanings, some being quite different, depending on its context, even by the same author.
Most Biblical lexicons have not escaped the etymological fallacy, determining the meaning of a word based on its origin and past meaning(s). Another aspect being that the meaning of a word is based on the internal structure of the word. A common English example of the latter is “butterfly.” The separate part of “butter” and “fly” do not define “butterfly.” Another example is “ladybird.”
[1]
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘It is necessary for you to be born again.’[2]
As you can see the interlinear translation reads very rough, as it is following the Greek sentence structure. The Updated American Standard Version rearranges the words according to English grammar and syntax. Do not be surprised that at times words may need to be left out of the English translation, as they are unnecessary. For example, The Greek language sometimes likes to put the definite article “the” before personal name, so in the Greek, you may have “the Jesus said.” In the English, it would be appropriate to drop the definite article. At other times, it may be appropriate to add words to complete the sense in the English translation. For example, at John 4:26, Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “I, the one speaking to you, am he.” *The word “he” is not in the Greek text but is implied, so it is added to complete the sense. Please see the image on the next page.
The Greek New Testament, (Interlinear)
Here in John chapter 4, you have Jesus being spoken to by a Samaritan woman. She is inquiring about the coming Messiah, and Jesus does something with the Samaritan woman that he has not done even with his disciples, He discloses who he really is, “I am the one [i.e., the Messiah]. The ESV, like the other translations that we have considered, is aware that there is an implied predicate pronoun in the sentence “I am [he] the one speaking to you.”
Literal Translation
Once the interlinear level has taken place, it is now time to adjust our English lexical glosses into sentences. Each word will possess its own grammatical indicator. As the translator begins to construct his English sentence, he will adjust according to the context of the words surrounding his focus. As you will see shortly, in the examples below, the translator must transition the words from the Greek order, to correct English grammar and syntax. This is a delicate balance faced by the literal translation team. As they must determine how close they will cling to the Hebrew or Greek word order in their English translation. The reader will find that the KJV, ASV, NASB, ESV and the UASV will allow a little roughness for the reader, for them an acceptable sacrifice as they believe that meaning is conveyed by the word order at times. An overly simplified example might be Christ Jesus as opposed to Jesus Christ, with the former focusing on the office (“Christ” anointed one), while the latter focuses on the person.
Even though it is impossible to follow the word order of the original in an English translation, the translator will attempt to stay as close as possible to the effective and persuasive use that the style of the original language permits. In other words, what is stated in the original language is rendered into the English, as well as the way that it is said, as far as possible? This is why the literal translation is known as a “formal equivalence.” As a literal translation, it “is designed so as to reveal as much of the original form as possible. (Ray 1982, p. 47)
It should be noted that this writer favors the literal translation over the dynamic equivalent, and especially the paraphrase. The literal translation gives us what God said, there is no concealing this by going beyond into the realms of what a translator interprets these words as saying. It should be understood that God’s Word to man is not meant to be read like a John Grisham novel. It is meant to be meditated on, pondered over, and absorbed quite slowly; using many tools and helps along the way. There is a reason for this, it being that the Bible is a sifter of hearts. It separates out those who really want to know and understand God’s Word (based on their evident demonstration of buying out the opportune time for study and research), from those who have no real motivation, no interest, just going through life. Even though, literal translation method needs to be done in a balanced manner, and should not be taken too far.
There are times when a literal word-for-word translation is not in the best interest of the reader and could convey a meaning contrary to the original.
As we have established throughout this book, but have not stated directly, no two languages are exactly equivalent in grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure.
Ephesians 4:14 Updated American Standard Version (UASV
14 So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of teaching, by the trickery [lit., dice playing] of men, by craftiness with regard to the scheming of deceit;
The Greek word kybeia that is usually rendered “craftiness” or “trickery,” is literally “dice-playing,” which refers to the practice of cheating others when playing dice. If it was rendered literally, “carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery dice-playing of men,” the meaning would be lost. Therefore, the meaning of what the original author meant by his use of the Greek word kybeia, must be the translator’s choice.
Romans 12:11 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
11 Do not be slothful in zeal,[3] be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
When Paul wrote the Romans, he used the Greek word zeontes, which literally means, “boil,” “seethe,” or “fiery hot.” Some serious Bible students may notice the thought of “boiling in spirit,” as being “fervent in spirit or better “aglow with the spirit,” or “keep your spiritual fervor.” Therefore, for the sake of making sense, it is best to take the literal “boiling in spirit,” determine what is meant by the author’s use of the Greek word zeontes, “keep your spiritual fervor”, and render it thus.
Matthew 5:3 New International Version, ©2011 (NIV)
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:3 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
3“Blessed are those who [are poor in spirit] recognize they are spiritually helpless. The kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
This one is a tough call. The phrase “poor in spirit” carries so much history, and has been written as to what it means, for almost 2,000 years that, even the dynamic equivalent translations are unwilling to translate its meaning, not its words. Personally, this writer is in favor of the literal translation of “poor in spirit.” Those who claim to be literal translators should not back away because “poor in spirit” is ambiguous, and there is a variety of interpretations. The above dynamic equivalent translation, God’s Word, has come closest to what was meant. Actually, “poor” is even somewhat of an interpretation, because the Greek word ptochos means “beggar.” Therefore, “poor in spirit” is an interpretation of “beggar in spirit.” The extended interpretation is that the “beggar/poor in spirit” is aware of his or her spiritual needs as if a beggar or the poor would be aware of their physical needs.
As we have also established in this chapter a word’s meaning can be different, depending on the context that it was used.
2 Samuel 8:3 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
3 Then David struck down Hadadezer, the son of Rehob king of Zobah, as he went to restore his authority [lit. hand] at the River.
1 Kings 10:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
13 King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all her desire which she requested, besides what he gave her according to his royal bounty [li. hand]. Then she turned and went to her own land, she together with her servants.
Proverbs 18:21 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
21 Death and life are in the power [lit. hand] of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.
The English word “hand” has no meaning outside of its context. It could mean, “end of the arm,” “pointer on a clock,” “card players,” “round in a card game,” “part in doing something,” “round of applause,” “member of a ship’s crew,” or “worker.” The Hebrew word “yad,” which means “hand,” has many meanings as well, depending on the context, as it can mean “control,” “bounty,” or “power.” This one word is translated in more than forty different ways in some translations. Let us look at some English sentences, to see the literal way of using “hand,” and then add what it means, as a new sentence.
Please give a big hand to our next contestant. Please give a big applause for our next contestant.
Your future is in your own hands. Your future is in your own power. Your future is in your own possession.
Attention, all hands! Attention, all ship’s crew!
She has a good hand for gardening. She has a good ability or skill for gardening.
Please give me a hand, I need some help.
The copperplate writing was beautifully written; she has a nice hand.
At times, even a literal translation committee will not render a word the same every time it occurs, because the sense is not the same every time. The only problem we have is that the reader must now be dependent on the judgment of the translator to select the right word(s) that reflect the meaning of the original language word accurately and understandably. Let us look at the above texts from the Hebrew Old Testament again, this time doing what we did with the English word “hand” in the above. It is debatable if any of these verses really needed to be more explicit, by giving the meaning in the translation, as opposed to the word itself.
2 Samuel 8:3: who went to restore his hand at the Euphrates River – who went to restore his control at the Euphrates River
1 Kings 10:13: she asked besides what was given her by the hand of King Solomon – she asked besides what was given her by the bounty of King Solomon
Proverbs 18:21: Death and life are in the hand of the tongue – Death and life are in the power of the tongue
We can look to one example translation, who touts the fact that it is a literal translation, i.e., the English Standard Version (ESV). In fact, it waters that concept down by qualifying its literalness, saying that it is an essentially literal translation. Essentially means being the most basic element or feature of something. In this case, the ESV is the most basic element or feature of a literal translation. In the course of 13 years of using the ESV, this author has discovered that it unnecessarily abandons its literal translation philosophy quite regularly. Dr. William Mounce was the head of the translation committee that produced the ESV, and he leans toward or favors the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy. He has since left the ESV committee and has become the head of the New International Version committee, which is being more and more of a dynamic equivalent, with each new edition. This is not to say that the ESV is not a splendid translation because it is.
Dynamic Equivalent Translation
Translators who produce what are frequently referred to as free translations, take liberties with the text as presented in the original languages. How so? They either insert their opinion of what the original text could mean or omit some of the information contained in the original text. Dynamic equivalent translations may be appealing because they are easy to read. However, their very freeness at times obscures or changes the meaning of the original text.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (NLT)
8 Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne!
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (CEV)
8 Dress up, comb your hair, and look your best.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (GNT)
8 Always look happy and cheerful.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (NCV)
8 Put on nice clothes and make yourself look good.
First, the above dynamic equivalents do not even agree with each other. What does Ecclesiastes 9:8 really say.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (NASB)
8Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (ESV)
8 Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking on your head.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (UASV)
8 Let your garments be always white, and let not your head lack oil.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (HCSB) 8 Let your clothes be white all the time, and never let oil be lacking on your head.
What does the metaphorical language of “white garments” and “oil on your head” symbolize? Does “white garments” mean to “wear fine clothes,” “dress up,” “look happy,” or “put on nice clothes”? In addition, does “oil on your head” mean “a splash of cologne,” “comb your hair” or “make yourself look good”? Duane Garrett says, “Wearing white clothes and anointing the hair (v. 8) symbolize joy and contrast with the familiar use of sackcloth and ashes as a sign of mourning or repentance.”[4] Let us also look at an exegetical commentary as well as a book on Bible backgrounds.
John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Ecclesiastes
White garments are the expression of festive joy and pure, calm feelings in the soul, comp. Rev. 3:4 f.; 7:9 ff. Koheleth could hardly have meant a literal observance of this precept, so that the conduct of Sisinnius, Novatian bishop of Constantinople, who, with reference to this passage, always went in white garments, was very properly censured by Chrysostom as Pharisaical and proud. Hengstenberg’s view is arbitrary, and in other respects scarcely corresponds to the sense of the author: “White garments are here to be put on as an expression of the confident hope of the future glory of the people of God, as Spener had himself buried in a white coffin as a sign of his hope in a better future of the Church.”
And let thy head lack no ointment. As in 2 Sam. 12:20; 14:2; Isa. 61:3; Amos 6:6; Prov. 27:9; Ps. 45:8, so here appears the anointing oil, which keeps the hair smooth and makes the face to shine, as a symbol of festive joy, and a contrast to a sorrowing disposition. There is no reason here for supposing fragrant spikenard (Mark 14:2), because the question is mainly about producing a good appearance by means of the ointment, comp. Ps. 133:2. Ver. 9.[5]
James M. Freeman and Harold J. Chadwick, Manners & Customs of the Bible
In any area with strong sunlight, white clothing is preferred because white reflects the sunlight and so decreases the heating effect of it. In addition, white garments in the East were symbols of purity, and so were worn on certain special occasions. The symbols and custom were adopted by the West and is reflected especially in the wedding ceremony. The oil was symbolic of joy. Together they signified purity and the joy of festive occasions.
In the Bible there are several references to white garments symbolizing purity, righteousness, or holiness. In Daniel 7:9, the clothing worn by the “Ancient of Days … was as white as snow.” When Jesus was transfigured, “his clothes became as white as the light” (Matthew 17:2). The angels appeared in white robes when they appeared to the soldiers guarding Jesus’ tomb and when the women went to the tomb after He had risen (Matthew 28:3, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and John 20:12), and also when Christ ascended into heaven (Acts 1:10). In the ages to come, the redeemed will be clothed in white (Revelation 7:13 and 19:14).[6]
We can see that the three sources interpret the metaphorical language of “white garments” and “oil on your head” as purity and joy. Would we get this by way of the four dynamic equivalents in the above? Would “Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne” (NLT) get us to the correct meaning? We should not replace metaphorical language because we feel it is too difficult for the reader to understand. They should buy out the time, just as this writer has done, by going to commentaries, word study books, and Bible background books. Let us look at one more informative Bible background book,
9:8. clothed in white. Scholars have understood the color white to symbolize purity, festivity or elevated social status. In both Egypt Story of Sinuhe) and Mesopotamia (Epic of Gilgamesh) clean or bright garments conveyed a sense of well-being. Moreover, the hot Middle-Eastern climate favors the wearing of white clothes to reflect the heat.
9.8. anointed head. Oil preserved the complexion in the hot Middle Eastern climate. Both the Egyptian Song of the Harper and the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh described individuals clothed in fine linen and with myrrh on their head. (Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 2000, p. 574)
As we are about to take up the subject of the paraphrase, let us consider the above Ecclesiastes 9:8 and the surrounding verses in a paraphrase.
Ecclesiastes 9:8 (The Message)
7-10 Seize life! Eat bread with gusto, Drink wine with a robust heart. Oh yes, God takes pleasure in your pleasure! Dress festively every morning. Don’t skimp on colors and scarves. Relish life with the spouse you love Each and every day of your precarious life. Each day is God’s gift. It’s all you get in exchange For the hard work of staying alive. Make the most of each one! Whatever turns up, grab it and do it. And heartily! This is your last and only chance at it, For there’s neither work to do nor thoughts to think In the company of the dead, where you’re most certainly headed.
Paraphrase Translation
A paraphrase is “a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form.”[7] The highest priority and characteristic is the rephrasing and simplification. Whatever has been said in the above about the dynamic equivalent can be magnified a thousand fold herein. The best way to express the level this translation will be to go to a paraphrase and set it side-by-side with the dynamic equivalent and literal translations. Below we have done that, i.e., Isaiah 1:1-17. It is recommended that we read verses 1-4 in the Message Bible, then in the New Living Translation, and then in the English Standard Version. Thereafter, read verses 5-9 in the same manner, followed by verses 10-12, and 13-17. This way we will taste the flavor of each with just a small bit at a time, so you do not lose the sense of the previous one by too much reading.
Isaiah 1:1-17 The Message (MSG)
1The vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw regarding Judah and Jerusalem during the times of the kings of Judah: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. 2-4Heaven and earth, you’re the jury. Listen to God’s case: “I had children and raised them well, and they turned on me. The ox knows who’s boss, the mule knows the hand that feeds him, But not Israel. My people don’t know up from down. Shame! Misguided God-dropouts, staggering under their guilt-baggage, Gang of miscreants, band of vandals— My people have walked out on me, their God, turned their backs on The Holy of Israel, walked off and never looked back.
5-9“Why bother even trying to do anything with you when you just keep to your bullheaded ways? You keep beating your heads against brick walls. Everything within you protests against you. From the bottom of your feet to the top of your head, nothing’s working right. Wounds and bruises and running sores— untended, unwashed, unbandaged. Your country is laid waste, your cities burned down. Your land is destroyed by outsiders while you watch, reduced to rubble by barbarians. Daughter Zion is deserted— like a tumbledown shack on a dead-end street, Like a tarpaper shanty on the wrong side of the tracks, like a sinking ship abandoned by the rats. If God-of-the-Angel-Armies hadn’t left us a few survivors, we’d be as desolate as Sodom, doomed just like Gomorrah.
10“Listen to my Message, you Sodom-schooled leaders. Receive God’s revelation, you Gomorrah-schooled people.
11-12“Why this frenzy of sacrifices?” God’s asking. “Don’t you think I’ve had my fill of burnt sacrifices, rams and plump grain-fed calves? Don’t you think I’ve had my fill of blood from bulls, lambs, and goats? When you come before me, whoever gave you the idea of acting like this, Running here and there, doing this and that— all this sheer commotion in the place provided for worship?
13-17“Quit your worship charades. I can’t stand your trivial religious games: Monthly conferences, weekly Sabbaths, special meetings— meetings, meetings, meetings—I can’t stand one more! Meetings for this, meetings for that. I hate them! You’ve worn me out! I’m sick of your religion, religion, religion, while you go right on sinning. When you put on your next prayer-performance, I’ll be looking the other way. No matter how long or loud or often you pray, I’ll not be listening. And do you know why? Because you’ve been tearing people to pieces, and your hands are bloody. Go home and wash up. Clean up your act. Sweep your lives clean of your evildoings so I don’t have to look at them any longer. Say no to wrong. Learn to do good. Work for justice. Help the down-and-out. Stand up for the homeless. Go to bat for the defenseless.
Isaiah 1:1-17 New Living Translation (NLT)
1 These are the visions that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. He saw these visions during the years when Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah were kings of Judah.
2 Listen, O heavens! Pay attention, earth! This is what the Lord says: “The children I raised and cared for have rebelled against me. 3 Even an ox knows its owner, and a donkey recognizes its master’s care— but Israel doesn’t know its master. My people don’t recognize my care for them.” 4 Oh, what a sinful nation they are— loaded down with a burden of guilt. They are evil people, corrupt children who have rejected the Lord. They have despised the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.
5 Why do you continue to invite punishment? Must you rebel forever? Your head is injured, and your heart is sick. 6 You are battered from head to foot— covered with bruises, welts, and infected wounds— without any soothing ointments or bandages. 7 Your country lies in ruins, and your towns are burned. Foreigners plunder your fields before your eyes and destroy everything they see. 8 Beautiful Jerusalem stands abandoned like a watchman’s shelter in a vineyard, like a lean-to in a cucumber field after the harvest, like a helpless city under siege. 9 If the Lord of Heaven’s Armies had not spared a few of us, we would have been wiped out like Sodom, destroyed like Gomorrah.
10 Listen to the Lord, you leaders of “Sodom.” Listen to the law of our God, people of “Gomorrah.” 11 “What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?” says the Lord. “I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle. I get no pleasure from the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. 12 When you come to worship me, who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony? 13 Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts; the incense of your offerings disgusts me! As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath and your special days for fasting— they are all sinful and false. I want no more of your pious meetings. 14 I hate your new moon celebrations and your annual festivals. They are a burden to me. I cannot stand them! 15 When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look. Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen, for your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims. 16 Wash yourselves and be clean! Get your sins out of my sight. Give up your evil ways. 17 Learn to do good. Seek justice. Help the oppressed. Defend the cause of orphans. Fight for the rights of widows.
Isaiah 1:1-17 English Standard Version (ESV)
1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
The Wickedness of Judah
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for Jehovah has spoken: “Sons I have brought up and raised, but they have revolted against me. 3 An ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.”
4 Woe to the sinful nation, a people weighed down with error, brood of wicked men, sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned Jehovah, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they have turned their backs on him.
5 Where will you be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion?? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil.
7 Your land is desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners. 8 And the daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a hut in a cucumber field, like a city besieged.
9 Unless Jehovah of armies had left us a few survivors, we would be like Sodom, we would have become like Gomorrah.
10 Hear the word of Jehovah, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the law[1] of our God, you people of Gomorrah! 11 “What are your many sacrifices to me? says Jehovah; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed animals; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.
12 “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you, this trampling of my courts? 13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of assemblies — I cannot endure iniquity[2] and solemn assembly. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15 When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; yes, even though you make many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full[3] of blood. 16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct the oppresor; bring justice to the fatherless, plead for the widow.
[1] Or teaching or instruction
[2] Isaiah’s use of (ʾāwen) may designate magic or idolatrous ritual, or evil caused by the misuse of power.
[3] Or covered with
Literal Contrasted With Dynamic Equivalent
In short, the dynamic equivalent translator seeks to render the biblical meaning of the original language text as accurately as possible into an English informal (conversational) equivalent. Alternatively, the literal translation seeks to render the original language words and style into a corresponding English word and style.
Again, there are two major divisions in translation philosophy. We have the word-for-word and the thought-for-thought. A literal translation is one-step removed from the original, and something is always lost or gained, because there will never be 100 percent equivalent transference from one language to the next. A thought-for-thought translation is one more step removed than the literal translation in many cases and can block the sense of the original entirely. A thought-for-thought translation slants the text in a particular direction, cutting off other options and nuances.
A literal word-for-word translation makes every effort to represent accurately the authority, power, vitality and directness of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and to transfer these characteristics in modern English. The literal translations have the goal of producing as literal a translation as possible where the modern-English idiom permits and where a literal rendering does not conceal the thought. Again, there are times when the literal rendering would be unintelligible, and so one must interpret what the author meant by the words that he used.
Literal Translation Dynamic Equivalent Focuses on form Focuses on meaning Emphasizes source language Emphasizes receptor language Translates what was said Translates what was meant Presumes original context Presumes contemporary context Retains ambiguities Removes ambiguities Minimizes interpretative bias Enhances interpretative bias Valuable for serious Bible study Valuable for commentary use Awkward receptor language style Natural receptor language style
The alteration of one word can remove an enormous amount of meaning from the Word of God. Let us consider 1 Kings 2:10 as an example.
Literal Translation Dynamic Equivalent 1 Kings 2:10 (ESV)
10 Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (GNT)
10 David died and was buried in David’s City.
1 Kings 2:10 (ASV)
10 And David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (NLT)
10 Then David died and was buried with his ancestors in the City of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (NASB)
10 Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (GW)
10 David lay down in death with his ancestors and was buried in the City of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (UASV)
10 Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (NIRV)
10 David joined the members of his family who had already died. His body was buried in the City of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (RSV)
10 Then David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.
1 Kings 2:10 (NCV)
10 Then David died and was buried with his ancestors in Jerusalem.
One could conclude that the (dynamic equivalent) thought-for-thought translations are conveying the idea in a more clear and immediate way, but is this really the case? There are three points that are missing from the thought-for-thought translation:
In the scriptures, “sleep” is used metaphorically as death, also inferring a temporary state where one will wake again, or be resurrected. That idea is lost in the thought-for-thought translation. (Ps 13:3; John 11:11-14; Ac 7:60; 1Co 7:39; 15:51; 1Th 4:13)
Sleeping with or lying down with his father also conveys the idea of having closed his life and having found favor in God’s eyes as did his forefathers.
When we leave out some of the words from the original, we also leave out the possibility of more meaning being drawn from the text. Missing is the word shakab (“to lie down” or “to sleep”), ’im (“with”) and ‘ab in the plural (“forefathers”). Below are verses that enhance our understanding of death, by way of sleep, as being temporary for those who will be awakened by a resurrection.
Psalm 13:3 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
3 Consider and answer me, Jehovah my God; give light to my eyes lest I sleep the sleep of death,
John 11:11-14 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
11 After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” 12 The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will get well.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,
Acts 7:60 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
60 Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.[8]
1 Corinthians 7:39 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
39 A wife is bound for so long time as her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep (koimethe) [in death], she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.[9]
1 Corinthians 15:51 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
1 Thessalonians 4:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
13 But we do not want you to be ignorant,[10] brothers, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.
Those who argue for a though-for-thought translation will say the literal translation “slept” or “lay down” is no longer a way of expressing death in the modern English-speaking world. While this may be true to some extent, the context of chapter two, verse 1: “when David was about to die” and the latter half of 2:10: “was buried in the city of David” resolves that issue. Moreover, while the reader may have to meditate a little longer, or indulge him/herself in the culture of different Biblical times, they will not be deprived of the full potential that a verse has to convey. (Grudem, et al. 2005, pp. 20-21)
A Word of Caution
The dynamic equivalent and paraphrase can and does obscure things from the reader by overreaching in their translations. This can be demonstrated on the moral standards found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 The Message
9-10 Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men of passive homosexual acts, nor men of active homosexual acts,[11] 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
If you compare the MSG with the UASV, you will notice that the MSG does not even list the specifics defined by the apostle Paul on precisely what kind of conduct we should shun.
Matthew 7:13 Today’s English Version (TEV)
13“Go in through the narrow gate, because the gate to hell is wide and the road that leads to it is easy, and there are many who travel it.
Matthew 7:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
The Greek word apōleian means “destruction,” “waste,” “annihilation,” “ruin.” Therefore, one has to ask, ‘why did the TEV translation committee render it “hell”? It has all the earmarks of theological bias. The translation committee is looking to promote the doctrine of eternal torment, not destruction. The objective of the translator is to render it the way that it should be rendered. If it supports a certain doctrine, this should be accepted, if not, then this should be accepted as well. The policy is that God does not need an overzealous translator to convey his doctrinal message.
Literal Dynamic Equivalent Dynamic Equivalent 1 Corinthians 11:10 (UASV)
10 This is why the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1 Corinthians 11:10 (GNT)
10 On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her head to show that she is under her husband’s authority.
1 Corinthians 11:10 (CEV)
10 And so, because of this, and also because of the angels, a woman ought to wear something on her head, as a sign of her authority.
As we can see, the English lexical glosses of the interlinear are literally carried over into the Source Language word for word, keeping the exact form. This is called a gloss in the world of the Bible translator. While this does not convey much meaning to the average English reader, it does to one who has studied Biblical Greek. However, the Bible student would have a literal translation as a study Bible. The literal translation, as you can see, will keep the form as far as is possible, as well as the wording. The Dynamic Equivalent advocates will argue that this does not sound natural. Well, for those that want the Word of God in its undiluted form, as accurately as possible, we will accept a little unnatural sounding at times. Soon, we will see the danger of going beyond translation into interpretation.
Our literal translation contains ambiguity. Is the writer talking about women or wives? Is the woman to have her own authority, or is something or someone else to have authority over her? This is just fine, because it ambiguity has many benefits, as you will see. First, as a quick aside, the work of interpretation will weed out those pseudo-Christians, who do not want to put any effort into their relationship with God, who do not want to buy out the time to understand. Now, the reader has the right to determine for himself or herself which is the correct interpretation. The translator should not steal this right from them, for the translator or the translation committee, could be wrong, and life or death may be uncertain.
Seeing two dynamic equivalents side-by-side helps you to see that they have arrived at two different conclusions and both cannot be right. The Today’s English Version believes that the “woman” here is really the “wife,” as it refers to the “husband.” It also believes that the wife is to be under the husband’s authority. On the other hand, the Contemporary English Version does not commit to the argument of “woman” versus “wife,” but does understand the verse to mean the woman has her own authority. She has the authority to act as she feels she should, as long as she wears something as a sign of this.
A good translation will do the following:
Accurately render the original language words and style into the corresponding English word and style that were inspired by God.
Translate the meaning of words literally, when the wording and construction of the original text allow for such a rendering in the target language.
Transfer the correct meaning (sense) of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering of the original-language word or a phrase would garble or obscure the meaning.
After considering, the objectives of the first three points, as far as possible, use natural, easy-to-understand language that inspires reading.
Are there such translations available on the market? Yes, the author recommends that you use the NASB Zondervan Study Bible by Kenneth L. Barker, Donald W. Burdick, John H. Stek and Walter W. Wessel (Jan 6, 2000), as your primary study Bible. Of course, you should consider other literal translations as time permits. In addition, use the dynamic equivalents as mini-commentaries, as that is what they are.
[1] Kurt Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (Interlinear with Morphology) (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993; 2006), Jn 3:7.
[2] Edward Andrews et al., The Updated American Standard Version (Christian Publishing House, 2014; 2018), Jn 3:7.
[3] Or diligent
[4] Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 331.
[5] John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Ecclesiastes (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 126.
[6] James M. Freeman and Harold J. Chadwick, Manners & Customs of the Bible (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998), 338.
[7] Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary., Eleventh ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).
[8] I.e. died
[9] The ASV, ESV, NASB, and other literal translation do not hold true to their literal translation philosophy here. This does not bode well in their claim that literal is the best policy. We are speaking primarily to the ESV translators, who make this claim in numerous books.
[10] Or uninformed
[11] The two Greek terms refer to passive men partners and active men partners in consensual homosexual acts
Bible Translation Philosophy The debate as to where one should be in the spectrum of literal versus dynamic equivalent, i.e., their translation philosophy has been going on since the first translation of the Hebrew (Aramaic) into Greek, i.e., the Septuagint (280-150 B.C.E.).
#Bible Translation Philosophy#Bible Translation Process#Dynamic Equivalent#Functional Equivalent#Interlinear#Literal Translation
0 notes