Added words in translstions

Is there are way to turn off or highlight the added words in a translation? [I.E. has Logos flagged the added words in any way?]

Is there a study on ‘added words’ and their usage?

Translators feel that the text as is needs help so they add words. [and if the translator can add words can we? J]

Examine using the Reverse Interlinear for MAT 27:31. There is no Greek word for the English word ‘Him’ (last word in verse “and led him away in order to crucify him.”). Some versions note that they added the word by printing it in Italics. (examples NASB, KJV, LEB) Others do not note that they added a word (examples ASV, NIV, NIV84, ESV) [at least how it shows in Logos4] And some do not add the word letting the text stand on its own (examples DARBY) Others just reword the phrase so that ‘added words’ are not ‘needed’.

“”The practice of using italics or brackets for the purpose of singling out words that are only implied is declining. Most translators judge that an implication of the original is sufficient to justify the presence of such words and to express them in the corresponding English rendering without special indicators. The original need not explicitly state the word or words.””

Robert L. Thomas, How to Choose a Bible Version : An Introductory Guide to English Translations, 137-38

At least the earlier translators were honest and told us where they had to modify the text to make it understood. [imho]

For example the following verse is often used to say the woman should not speak in church as that is what Paul said. If a translator does NOT tell us what words they needed to add then we are at their mercy. This verse picked DELIBERATELY to show the Difference [DAMAGE?] that could be done with an unflagged added word or two.

1 Corinthians 14:35 [Current translations read as]

³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. NIV84

Or should it read? [Will future translations read thus? – without the ‘[]’ of course]

³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a [untaught] woman to speak [disruptively] in the church.

Is there a way to turn off or highlight the added words?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tobias Lampert

At least the earlier translators were honest and told us where they had to modify the text to make it understood. [imho]

David,

Every translation per definitionem is a modification of the text - the question is where modfying is possible, where it is necessary and where it is presumptuous. Because of that, it would be difficult to have a filter showing 'added' words - it's simply a question of definition and weighting of different approaches.

That's why it is better to learn the original languages instead of relying on a software that would always have to make decisions that are not necessarily right in themselves.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/231955#Comment_231955

I would add every translation is trying to render the text as faithfully as possible and the question they must ask is: What do we assume you'll know about the original language and how much should we "explain" in our translation?

To see what i mean...go to your McReynolds NA27 interlinear Greek/English New Testament and turn off all lines except the English literal translation...and see how it reads....its' very very hard because not only is the word order wrong, but it's very "wooden" sounding....not at all like people speak.

Here is a cut/paste from the McReynolds:

2 It became but in the days those went out decree from Caesar Augustus to be enrolled all the inhabited world. 2 This enrollment first became leading of the Syria Cyrenius. 3 And traveled all to be enrolled, each into the of himself city. 4

and:

14 splendor in highest to God

and on earth peace

in men of good thought.

Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993). 157.

See? It's close to being unreadable in English....there are lots of words missing.

DMB

If indeed a person is in agreement with the last verses of Matthew, it would be almost impossible to achieve a one-to-one match across languages. English has had the advantage of its past development to reasonably match the greek, though not the hebrew/aramaic. Here in northern Arizona, there is no such thing as a match, outside of english.

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/231957#Comment_231957

its' very very hard because not only is the word order wrong, but it's very "wooden" sounding....not at all like people speak.

And even then one has to remember this is nothing one can rely on - there are dozens and hundreds of words that simply don't have an exact equivalent in another language, so again: every translation is a modification per se. So, who gets to decide which translation is an 'adding' and which is not? I wouldn't rely on any software in the world when at the same time I have the chance to get to know a language by learning it.

Dave Hooton

For example the following verse is often used to say the woman should not speak in church as that is what Paul said. If a translator does NOT tell us what words they needed to add then we are at their mercy. This verse picked DELIBERATELY to show the Difference [DAMAGE?] that could be done with an unflagged added word or two.

1 Corinthians 14:35 [Current translations read as]

³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. NIV84

Or should it read? [Will future translations read thus? – without the ‘[]’ of course]

³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a [untaught] woman to speak [disruptively] in the church.

The suggested additional words are interpretive as the immediate (Greek) context does not readily lead to their inclusion. The main translation issue is "wife" or "woman" (singular in v35 but plural in v34). It would be more appropriate to offer footnotes to clarify(?) Paul's meaning but NET and NIV 2011 do not do so; although the NET notes opine that vv. 34-35 should not be included!

MJ. Smith

1 Corinthians 14:35 [Current translations read as]

³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. NIV84

Or should it read? [Will future translations read thus? – without the ‘[]’ of course]

³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a [untaught] woman to speak [disruptively] in the church.

You lost me - is the second translation your idea of what some future "Amplified" Bible author might do or is it an existing translation/paraphrase? If the first, I don't share your fear - but then I rarely use a paraphrase or amplified Bible. If the second, I'd love to know the "translators'" explanation.

Mike T

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/231957#Comment_231957

I would add every translation is trying to render the text as faithfully as possible and the question they must ask is: What do we assume you'll know about the original language and how much should we "explain" in our translation?

I would agree with the OP, as words that have been added could actually change the meaning of the verse. Take, for example, 1 Cor 7:19... In the KJV, this is given as "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God". Many modern translations add to this, such as the NKJV: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters". The latter version gives the verse a problematic interpretation, as circumcision would be obediance to God's law for a Jew. And how would one reconcile the latter with Paul's general stance that Gentiles are not under the law? One could build a case that Paul is saying something very different here. The Greek word for 'keeping' is 'teresis'. Nowhere (else) in the NT is this word used as a noun to mean obediance. However, 'teresis' is used twice as a noun in Acts, and is usually interpreted as 'hold' (as on a ship), 'prison', 'jail', etc. What would it look like if all three instances of 'teresis' had the same meaning? The concept of 'containment' could be used in all three instances. In Acts, the apostles were placed in containment... In 1 Cor 7, Paul would then be making the original identification of covenental nomism: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the containment of the commandments of God". This would be very different from the interpretive slant of the NKJV! Before dismissing this as unreasonable, consider also 1 Cor 7:17. Using the Byzantine version of the Greek text, and using the most common meaning of each word, the Greek text could be interpreted as "If not to each (salvation, the question at hand in v.16) as God divided (i.e. Jew/Gentile), as the Lord has called each so let him walk". In other words, Paul is rejecting Jewish covenental nomism and replacing it with practice based on the new covenant.

Personally, this is how I believe 1 Cor 7 should be interpreted... But if my only version of the bible did not identify the added words in v.19, I never would have questioned the meaning. (Although some may think I should not have questioned it! [*-)] )

Michael

David Ames

1 Corinthians 14:35 <<as totally goofed up by somebody>>

³⁵If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a [untaught] woman to speak [disruptively] in the church.

Was only meant as what could be done with 'added words' - not meant as a possible true reading but to show the dangers of 'added words'

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232109#Comment_232109

I would add every translation is trying to render the text as faithfully as possible and the question they must ask is: What do we assume you'll know about the original language and how much should we "explain" in our translation?

Yes, they are doing the best job they can. The more open the better [please let us follow - please explain - gets my vote]

But if my only version of the bible did not identify the added words in v.19, I never would have questioned the meaning. (

Yes, they flagged the verse - we dig deeper. They do not flag the verse we roll over and go to sleep. [i.e. accept with out question]

That why I like the "The Handbooks in the UBS Handbook Series"

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232109#Comment_232109

Many modern translations add to this, such as the NKJV: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters".

That's why 'is what matters' is in italics. In such cases, it wouldn't be a problem to make a filter highlighting added words, since what we have here is intended explanations. However, a filter highlighting phrases like this would be dispensable, since they already are labeled. In fact, for readers who don't know the original languages this would be even worse, since they could easily suggest that it is easy to know exactly what the original text says and what it doesn't without having any skills in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. In many cases this might be true, but in many other it isn't. Thus there are two possibilities: either you try to read some commentaries, ask your pastor etc. or you start learning the languages (or both at the same time, of course). None of both will be ever free of error, but virtually always better than relying on a filter that, as I explained earlier, can't be reliable due to the very nature of translation.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/231961#Comment_231961

Here in northern Arizona, there is no such thing as a match

That's because of the fire hazard. [;)]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Is there are way to turn off or highlight the added words in a translation? [I.E. has Logos flagged the added words in any way?]

"I.E. has Logos flagged the added words in any way?" = Maybe for Reverse Interlinear Bibles where a dot appears in the Manuscript (MSS) line. However, some MSS dots are misleading, see forum http://community.logos.com/forums/p/30061/222544.aspx#222544 In Matthew 27:31, ESV has a dot in MSS under last "him" (an added word for English readability).

Thought about Greek morphological filter highlighting to show which English translation words correspond to Greek; however, screen shot shows all Greek words are highlighted in NA27 with English Interlinear, but ESV only highlights one English word for each Greek word. In Matthew 27:31, the subjects "they" are not highlighted in ESV; reverse interlinear line has arrows under "they" to show corresponding verb. For this screen capture, chose to display NA27 with English literal translation to show "they" are visually highlighted with corresponding verb in NA27 Interlinear (normally display Greek manuscript and Louw-Nida numbers).

By the way, these visual filters highlight action sense of Greek verb in English. Observation: first Greek word Ἐξερχόμενοι of Matthew 27:32 is a participle that has verbal and noun aspects with four visual filters combined: image above word (Participle - Mood), pink text for word (@V for verb), yellow glow (Nominative - Case), and pink background (Present - Tense).

Apologies - not know how to generically search for untagged English words (or italicized words in KJV, etc).

What would it look like if all three instances of 'teresis' had the same meaning?

Observation: τήρησις is a greek noun with one Strong's number and three Louw-Nida semantic domain numbers indicating meaning depends on context. While reading commentaries in my Logos library (using parallel resources for 1 Corinthians 7:19), found a Talmud observation.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Mike T

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232122#Comment_232122

Observation: τήρησις is a greek noun with one Strong's number and three Louw-Nida semantic domain numbers indicating meaning depends on context.

Recognizing, of course, that context is an interpretive decision made by the translator, and is not necessarily the meaning intended by the author...

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232125#Comment_232125

Michael Replied: Today 7:03 AM “”Recognizing, of course, that context is an interpretive decision made by the translator, and is not necessarily the meaning intended by the author...””

>>> And that is the entire problem – we are at the mercy of the translators [And that is why the Koran is only in the original language – prove you are faithful – learn the language]

[Anybody know how much Arabic has changed since 700 AD?] [Yes, we all need to learn the original languages – BUT …]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus Replied: Today 6:45 AM “”Apologies - not know how to generically search for untagged English words (or italicized words in KJV, etc).””

>>> [ALL of] your posts are appreciated – and no one else seems to know either.

Current status: as you are reading your Bible be sure to have its related Reverse Interlinear open and watch the DOTS. [am using the AMP ,AV ,EMPH ,ESV ,D-R ,NAS ,NIV ,NIV84 ,RDR and reading all the footnotes – add the rest of my English Bibles when I get ‘stuck’ – and if they do not agree I try to find a different verse on the same subject] [That is 4 with reverse interlinears available - (use KJV1900 also)] [How did we study the Bible BL? (BL ==> before Logos)]

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232125#Comment_232125

Observation: τήρησις is a greek noun with one Strong's number and three Louw-Nida semantic domain numbers indicating meaning depends on context.

Recognizing, of course, that context is an interpretive decision made by the translator, and is not necessarily the meaning intended by the author...

Concur, along with including Greek New Testament contextual numbering assignments by Dr Johannes P. Louw and Dr Eugene A. Nida many centuries after original autographs (unable to ask human author for clarification) plus dictionaries and lexicons that attempt to define range of word meaning based on observed contextual usage (including extra-Biblical sources). Observed Enhanced Strong's Lexicon included 3 definitions for τήρησις without contextual reference. The "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domain" introduction concludes: logosres:louwnida;art=i.4;off=20171

For those preparing a lexicon in any language, and especially for those dealing with a form of language used some two thousand years ago, there are a host of problems resulting from indeterminacy in the range of referents, fuzzy boundaries, incomplete sets of related meanings, limitations in the corpus and background data, and specialization of meaning due to the uniqueness of the message. In the preparation of this lexicon, these problems have constituted real challenges, and the editors are not at all sure that they have found fully satisfactory solutions to many of these difficulties, even as the footnotes suggest. But despite these limitations, the editors sincerely trust that translators and others will find significant help and insights leading to further analyses in the critical areas of lexical semantics.

For more information on the theory and practice of this lexicon, see under Louw and Nida in the Bibliography.

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.). New York: United Bible societies.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Mike T

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232138#Comment_232138

For those preparing a lexicon in any language, and especially for those dealing with a form of language used some two thousand years ago, there are a host of problems resulting from indeterminacy in the range of referents, fuzzy boundaries, incomplete sets of related meanings, limitations in the corpus and background data, and specialization of meaning due to the uniqueness of the message. In the preparation of this lexicon, these problems have constituted real challenges, and the editors are not at all sure that they have found fully satisfactory solutions to many of these difficulties, even as the footnotes suggest. But despite these limitations, the editors sincerely trust that translators and others will find significant help and insights leading to further analyses in the critical areas of lexical semantics.

Thanks for sharing that, Keep! I had not read the introduction of Louw/Nida, but it is the perfect expression of how I feel about lexicons: They are incredibly useful for understanding scripture (and I don't know how we would approach study in the original languages without them), but they are neither authoritative nor infallible.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232125#Comment_232125

Recognizing, of course, that context is an interpretive decision made by the translator, and is not necessarily the meaning intended by the author.

Several elements to consider:

some words in the original language are not included in the translation - usually grammatical elements
some words in the translation are not in the original language - usually grammatically required
some words in the original language have no close equivalent in the language of the translation
all translation involves some degree of interpretation

Moral: if you want to know precisely the original text, read it in the original language. Any attempt to filter for the changes will simply give a false sense of knowledge. AND choose a translation with adequate footnoting.

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232169#Comment_232169

Moral: if you want to know precisely the original text, read it in the original language. Any attempt to filter for the changes will simply give a false sense of knowledge. AND choose a translation with adequate footnoting.

Thanks, MJ - that's exactly what I've been trying to say. [Y]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232169#Comment_232169

all translation involves some degree of interpretation

Moral: if you want to know precisely the original text, read it in the original language. Any attempt to filter for the changes will simply give a false sense of knowledge. AND choose a translation with adequate footnoting.

Genesis 11:1–9 [It is all their fault! If only they had filled the Earth instead of building a city. ]

[Was trying to search for the changes so I would know what to study]

jwsheets

I remember Bil Mounce once saying, "All translators are traitors''. Translation isn't 'just"about the meaning of the text, it also about the translation philosophy of the translator(s). The myriad of new translations constantly appearing is not because of new breakthroughs in semantics, but rather on disagreement on what a translation should do and who are you trying to reach with it. Familiarity with the original text, and with original language tools, really is our only safeguard.

Tobias Lampert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232852#Comment_232852

I remember Bil Mounce once saying, "All translators are traitors''. Translation isn't 'just"about the meaning of the text, it also about the translation philosophy of the translator(s). The myriad of new translations constantly appearing is not because of new breakthroughs in semantics, but rather on disagreement on what a translation should do and who are you trying to reach with it. Familiarity with the original text, and with original language tools, really is our only safeguard.

Yep!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/232852#Comment_232852

I remember Bil Mounce once saying, "All translators are traitors''.

with credits I assume:

"If all translators are traitors, as goes the Italian
saying ("traduttori traditori")"