Translation pet peeve

MJ. Smith said:

I disagree. I see it as strictly a linguistics issue that some have chosen to make theological. It is a case in which English is changing in a manner that requires a change in the English translation.

I would say the problem is a linguistics issue, but one that forces a theological solution.

MJ. Smith said:

But either way it's not a Logos issue.

Yea, no disagreement there. Sorry for the rabbit trail.

Just one more big reason early Christians had to learn greek before the annual baptismal rite. Since they used the LXX, hebrew was optional.

Justin Cofer said:

 ... there's a world of difference between internalizing the language and be able to READ it rather than simply playing a decoding game.  You don't know Greek until you understand it on its own terms as Greek (and not English).

ἐὰν οὖν μὴ εἰδῶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς φωνῆς, ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι βάρβαρος καὶ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος.

True. makes me wonder if some folk aint just pure troglodytes!

Agreed Tom et al. 

I am guilty of summarizing the self-praises from publishers of such translations as the ESV that state, “As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language.” 

In hindsight, I should have said that a good selection of English translations provides the English reader with greater insight on the meaning of the text, and clues where translations differ where some original language study would be worthwhile.

While I do truly appreciate the advantage (and joy) of being able to read and understand Biblical texts in their original languages, in the face of unbelief (especially in our times) of certain (but not all or even the majority) learned Biblical scholars and Biblical language experts, I have to conclude that such are not “super-Christians” any more than those at Corinthian were who thought themselves as great orators and therefore great believers. 

What a blessing for the Church to have translators, scholars, and other such experts to help other believers gain insight into the original languages and Biblical cultures.  But akin to Paul’s analogy of the body and its individual parts, it has been my observation that certain folks belittle others concerning their knowledge of the original languages.  No one (at least I’m not) suggesting that Logos allows me to understand Greek to the degree of others, but with all the resources, including commentaries from those that do understand Greek very well, I certainly do not accept that it is beyond my reach to grasp the essence of any given passage.  I believe this is one of the founding reasons why a program like Logos has been developed – so that the “average” Christian can enjoy the original languages.  With regards to any boasting, everyone who can read/understand any language must be taught by someone else – parents, peers, or a book written by another person.  While I realize there is a difference between giving someone a “fish” and learning to “fish,” in the end we are still talking about a fish, right?  Anyway.

Regards

Mark O'Hearn said:

Agreed Tom et al. 

I am guilty of summarizing the self-praises from publishers of such translations as the ESV that state, “As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language.” 

In hindsight, I should have said that a good selection of English translations provides the English reader with greater insight on the meaning of the text, and clues where translations differ where some original language study would be worthwhile.

While I do truly appreciate the advantage (and joy) of being able to read and understand Biblical texts in their original languages, in the face of unbelief (especially in our times) of certain (but not all or even the majority) learned Biblical scholars and Biblical language experts, I have to conclude that such are not “super-Christians” any more than those at Corinthian were who thought themselves as great orators and therefore great believers. 

What a blessing for the Church to have translators, scholars, and other such experts to help other believers gain insight into the original languages and Biblical cultures.  But akin to Paul’s analogy of the body and its individual parts, it has been my observation that certain folks belittle others concerning their knowledge of the original languages.  No one (at least I’m not) suggesting that Logos allows me to understand Greek to the degree of others, but with all the resources, including commentaries from those that do understand Greek very well, I certainly do not accept that it is beyond my reach to grasp the essence of any given passage.  I believe this is one of the founding reasons why a program like Logos has been developed – so that the “average” Christian can enjoy the original languages.  With regards to any boasting, everyone who can read/understand any language must be taught by someone else – parents, peers, or a book written by another person.  While I realize there is a difference between giving someone a “fish” and learning to “fish,” in the end we are still talking about a fish, right?  Anyway.

Regards

You make some good points.  Software programs like Logos almost make it possible for a man with no knowledge of Greek to know something about it, paradoxical as that sounds.  A.T. Robertson said,

[quote]There is no sphere of knowledge where one is repaid more quickly for all the toil expended. Indeed, the Englishman’s Greek Concordance almost makes it possible for the man with no knowledge of Greek to know something about it, paradoxical as that may sound. That would be learning made easy, beyond a doubt, and might seem to encourage the charlatan and the quack. It is possible for an ignoramus to make a parade of a little lumber of learning to the disgust and confusion of his hearers. But the chief reason why preachers do not get and do not keep up a fair and needful knowledge of the Greek New Testament is nothing less than carelessness, and even laziness in many cases. They can get along somehow without it, and so let it pass or let it drop.

Although I agree with you, I would advance the point that it is not necessarily an either/or proposition.  Logos is a phenomenal tool and can be used by one with no knowledge of Koine Greek.  But one can get so more out of it with a working knowledge of the languages.  A little bit of knowledge of Greek is a big percent on nothing.

Robertson says,

[quote]It ought to be taken for granted that the preacher has his Greek Testament. This statement will be challenged by many who excuse themselves from making any effort to know the Greek New Testament. I do not say that every preacher should become an expert in his knowledge of the New Testament Greek. That cannot be expected. I do not affirm that no preacher should be allowed to preach who does not possess some knowledge of the original New Testament. I am opposed to such a restriction. But a little is a big per cent on nothing, as John A. Broadus used to say. This is preeminently true of the Greek New Testament.

Although we are blessed to have so many translations in English, Robertson notes (perhaps controversially) that the real New Testament is the Koine Greek New Testament.

Robertson says,

[quote]The real New Testament is the Greek New Testament. The English is simply a translation of the New Testament, not the actual New Testament. It is good that the New Testament has been translated into so many languages. The fact that it was written in the koiné, the universal language of the time, rather than in one of the earlier Greek dialects, makes it easier to render into modern tongues. But there is much that cannot be translated. It is not possible to reproduce the delicate turns of thought, the nuances of language, in translation. The freshness of the strawberry cannot be preserved in any extract.

I simply haven't met anyone who can read God's new covenant revelation in its original form who told me it wasn't worth the effort.  Its not a matter of being a "super-Christian" or personal ambition, belittle others or boasting.

As Zwingli said,

[quote]I have firmly decided to study Greek; nobody except God can prevent it. It is not a matter of personal ambition but one of understanding the most Sacred Writings.

Source:

[View:http://ntgreekstudies.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/5/5/2755694/the_ministers_use_of_his_gnt.pdf:550:0]

Paul Golder said:

I must ask a question:

Do we not all agree that most faithful English translations are satisfactory enough for all matters of Faith and practice?

I am not going to say that we all agree, but I will say that I will agree with you.

Justin Cofer said:

Paul Golder said:

I must ask a question:

Do we not all agree that most faithful English translations are satisfactory enough for all matters of Faith and practice?

I agree.  Most English translations are faithful and are very good.  But I would advance the point that the need for the pastor/teacher/elder  to know something of Koine Greek is NOT because the translations are poor or insufficient for all matters of faith and practice.

Well, that's a major argument that the coptics should be using one of our english versions (instead of their english versions).

Justin Cofer said:

This gift of love for the Koine Greek language which drove me to learn it is a blessing from God.

...or the strong delusion.

David Paul said:

Justin Cofer said:

This gift of love for the Koine Greek language which drove me to learn it is a blessing from God.

...or the strong delusion.

why do you think that love of reading God's revelation in its original form is a "strong delusion?"  [;)] lol

David ... I sure hope you're on board with Adam speaking hebrew. Else we're going to have to load up with even more languages.

David Paul said:

Justin Cofer said:

why do you think that love of reading God's revelation in its original form is a "strong delusion?"  lol

It's original form is Hebrew...do you love it also?

Josh said:

It's interesting no one brought up red letter editions of the text.

If I recall correctly you can either have red letters or not have red letters so, if someone doesn't like red letters, they can be changed to black.

I just spoke against "speaker tags" in another thread, but I do find an advantage in the red lettering of the NT. It is, for me, a kind of broad brush highlighting mechanism that helps me to more quickly narrow in on a verse that I am looking for when I don't know exactly where it is. The visual patterns of red and black, some larger, some smaller, are sort of like radar feedback. For me, there is much value in this, as I have used it as a tool with good success for years.

That said, I haven't overlooked the fact that I called it a "broad brush", and as such it obviously isn't the tool one should use for doing "detail" work. I don't assume the red letters are perfectly applied.

Josh said:

The whole double column thing is unnatural to the way we typically read books.

The ms was written by 2 scribes, "A" and "B," of whom B wrote the NT. The codex is of fine appearance, square (27 × 27 cm), composed of 5-sheet quires (quinions), with 3 columns to a page, and 40–44 lines to a column. The text was corrected by a hand contemporary with the scribes, generally identified with the diorthotes (official corrector of the scriptorium).

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, s.v. Codex, Codex Vaticanus. Edited by Freedman, David Noel, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Multiple columns is not a new thing. 

DMB said:

Well I agree with Josh.  They just remind me of a greek temple where they did column worship (why else so many columns?). Then you have army columns where each column is trying to hog the road. Plus spreadsheets; they start with columns and then go crazy with 'rows'.  If I remember right, didn't the Israelites go through the reed sea in a SINGLE column. Bingo.  Didn't Moses (or the finger of YHWH) write in a single column? In fact, the text was VERY specific (front and back of tablets; no columns).

Ding-a-ling !

Josh said:

I can't stand that our Bible's have been transformed into reference works. It's not a dictionary! Each book was meant to be read through completely.

Except the Bible IS a reference work...it is a collection of prophecies that sometimes resembles nothing quite so much as a shoe box crammed full of little scraps of paper with various prophecies scribbled on them...which is one of the reasons folks often find prophecy incomprehensible. It was written that way on purpose. How can a book be "sealed" and yet be the world's best seller? By using phenomena such as the one I just described...among a plethora of others whose purpose is to cause blindness through confusion and false assumptions in readers.

Prophetic truth is scattered "here a little and there a little". A program like Logos allows a person to pierce the intentional fog precisely because it isn't tied slavishly to the "delivered" context, because the delivered context, which is slavishly perceived to be "historical narrative", is the fog which must be pierced.

Josh said:

The whole double column thing is unnatural to the way we typically read books.

Well, there you go. Reading the Bible in the same way you "typically read books" is a process that will doom you to never understand the message YHWH is trying to convey. In case it hasn't occurred to you...the Bible isn't a typical book. 

[I]

MJ. Smith said:

I haven't seen one for 50 years or so.

I know that you have said that your avatar here on the forums is a much younger you.  Taking this into consideration, the total number of trips that you have made going around the the big ball of fire in the sky that we call a sun can only be 22.51 times.