Translating the Greek

[Pard]

I am curious what you all think of the following scenario.

When you translate the Greek (be it a manuscript or one of the Koine Greek New Testaments) you come upon various problems. The one that I am going to focus on is the problem with Greek words having multiple meanings. For example:

'oti can mean either "that" or "because" which can have a dramatic impact on doctrine. Another example is whether the a word in the genitive ought to be translated, and the one that is the study of my research. The genitive can be translated either objectively or subjectively. If it is an objective genitive than you would say that "X goes to Y". However if you translate it as a subjective genitive than you would say "X comes from Y". Both are correct translations of the genitive, and one has to rely upon context to decide which is correct for any given passage.

The impact the chosen translation of this word has can be seen in Romans 3:22:

When translated as an objective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

But, when translated as a subjective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

My research actually revolves around the proper translation of the phrase "faith [in/of] Jesus Christ", which occurs many times throughout the Bible.

The problem, and thus the focus of my research, is on the idea of what does "context" entail? With almost no exception ever translation of the Bible prior to the 1900s translated every occurrence of this phrase as "faith of Jesus Christ". However, since the 1900s nearly ever Bible translates this phrase as "faith in Jesus Christ". What I have seen, and the reason that I have decided to embark upon this research, is that this change in translation began at the same time that Arminianism began to take upon the role of the popular soteriological view.

The question, then, is: "When translated from the Koine Greek into another language, does context include or exclude one's doctrinal views"

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

I wish that I knew Greek well enough to ask that kind of question... I have Dan Wallace's book and Mounce too. Just not enough discipline to get passed chptr 3.... Blessings

 

[Pard]

Mounce is a hard textbook to go on! PM me and I would be more than happy to give you some advice as to where to start and help you understand anything that is confusing to you.

 

[heymikey80]

I am curious what you all think of the following scenario.

When you translate the Greek (be it a manuscript or one of the Koine Greek New Testaments) you come upon various problems. The one that I am going to focus on is the problem with Greek words having multiple meanings. For example:

'oti can mean either "that" or "because" which can have a dramatic impact on doctrine. Another example is whether the a word in the genitive ought to be translated, and the one that is the study of my research. The genitive can be translated either objectively or subjectively. If it is an objective genitive than you would say that "X goes to Y". However if you translate it as a subjective genitive than you would say "X comes from Y". Both are correct translations of the genitive, and one has to rely upon context to decide which is correct for any given passage.

THe "that" translation means 'oti has a different semantic footprint than English (I thought it was "for that", but ... we'll get to that). It means, "There's a use for this word you are not familiar with in English -- the closest we can come to is the English 'for that'." An anlytical lexicon will go into minute detail as to what can be meant by the word.

But "because", well, here there are direct parallels with English. "because" is ambiguous, too. In English it sometimes indicates a real cause in the second phrase; but it may simply be a reason that is linked in some way, be it an unnecessary or necessary condition, a purpose, a future result, or even a minor, narrow event that's being discussed in relation to the first phrase.

The ambiguity in individual words is an aspect of linguistics. So, y'hafta explore word usage -- how the word would've struck a native speaker given his history. And also contextual word usage: how he would've learned to use the language.

Nonambiguity is what terminology seeks to produce in math and other sciences -- including theology. In politics there is also a rhetorical terminology involved, which results in a certain word usage. So it is not a surprise that there are some (... some) differences in the way theology and Scripture use the same words. Still, theology should never override a word usage in Scripture: that would imply putting words in the Head of the Universe.

The impact the chosen translation of this word has can be seen in Romans 3:22:

When translated as an objective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

But, when translated as a subjective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

My research actually revolves around the proper translation of the phrase "faith [in/of] Jesus Christ", which occurs many times throughout the Bible.

This is the genitive case? I don't really see 'oti being used in this verse.

The genitive case simply expresses an association -- little more -- between the two. Some argue to squeeze more meaning out of a statement that simply isn't there, in that place.

"faith of Christ" uses the most ambiguous preposition in the English language, to express the ambiguity of the genitive here. In truth the strict forms meant by the Greek genitive are slightly less ambiguous than "of". But let's not quibble: the ambiguity is there, and attempts to be more specific with the grammar of one verse will fail.

The best translation I can give for this is "Christ-faith" -- that's the term Paul is using for "Christianity".

But here history is revealing.

Because of its history, we can go a lot further than simply wondering about what this means. Declarations from Caesar Augustus on vanquished enemies declare his victory, but then call upon the people to rely on Caesar ("have faith in Caesar"), and he will not wipe them out but save them. The terminology Caesar uses in his proclamations is remarkably close to the terminology Paul uses in his proclamations. "pistis", "kurios", "soter", "eirene", even "evangellion" are all used in Caesar's declarations. And Paul's. This cluster of words is uncommon usage outside political speech of the time. I don't think the list stops there, but you get the picture: this cluster of word usage is virtually impossible, by chance. So Paul's using this terminology; subverting it to some extent to introduce Christianity, but using it.

What did that reliance mean? In Caesar's case, it meant to lay down your arms and cease resistance to Caesar's power. It normally extended into religious experience of the greatness of the Empire, supplying your needs, working in peace for your self-improvment, abandoning the death and starvation that came from rebellions. Maybe not at first, but ultimately, Caesar wanted your commitment to his Empire as well as your submission.

I've set up the parallels as best I understand them: it's clear y'can't apply all of it precisely to the Gospel of Christ -- but many experiences of the First Century Empire make great sense for how Paul's words struck Paul's hearers.

Ultimately, there are other places to resort to what Paul means. Yes, "Christ-faith" is used all over the place in Paul's letters. But not everywhere. Paul also goes on to describe what he means by "Christ-faith" in many letters, most specifically here in Romans. Romans 3:20-31 are an abstract peak of this "Christ-faith" that Paul intends to expand on throughout his letter, contrasting it primarily with its nearest neighbor: First Century Judaism, and secondarily with its distant human aberration: paganism. Paul has described the initial problems with other religions and indeed philosophies in Romans 1:17-3:19. But there's no way to put all the specifics into an introductory sentence, or even a couple of words. That's left for Romans 4:1-16:1.

The problem, and thus the focus of my research, is on the idea of what does "context" entail? With almost no exception ever translation of the Bible prior to the 1900s translated every occurrence of this phrase as "faith of Jesus Christ". However, since the 1900s nearly ever Bible translates this phrase as "faith in Jesus Christ". What I have seen, and the reason that I have decided to embark upon this research, is that this change in translation began at the same time that Arminianism began to take upon the role of the popular soteriological view.

The question, then, is: "When translated from the Koine Greek into another language, does context include or exclude one's doctrinal views"

I hope it helps. Some interesting books have been written on this subject, but unfortunately the only good introductions I've read are really older. Many of their ideas are valid, yes. But they work from a paucity of information, where with some discoveries we have a flood. Oddly the constant confirmation of some of these pillars of principle, this "normal" theology is not confirmed by the more and more liberal scholars. So with that caveat, I'd suggest "Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire" by T.R. Glover (1909). There may be better, but the paucity of information he drew from allows you to see actually the sweeping source of data we can draw from to set the historical context. Some of NT Wright's big books on "Jesus and the Victory of God" and the one on early Christianity are also good and place a pretty good survey of arguments into a nice structure. But read critically: Wright does have an agenda.

Modern scholars all seem to have an agenda each time a book comes out, some social initiative of their own, which isn't really well-supported by their research. Even my appreciation of NT Wright takes a cynical eye to his plea from early Christianity for multiculturalism and tolerance for conflicting theologies. And Elaine Pagels is flatly defending her ambition for religious tolerance she learned as a kid. It's one thing to accept tolerance for religious inquiry. It is quite another to demand that Jesus Christ share that tolerance. The one is simply courtesy. The other must be rigorously demonstrated.

 

[Pard]

I am going to read this when I have time, so I can do your response just, however I don't think 'oti is in that verse at all, actually, I am completely certain that it is not. I merely used 'oti as an example of a word that has been translated as different English words. It was just my attempt to give a quick primer to those unfamiliar with Greek and the difficulties of translating it.

 

[heymikey80]

Not a problem. I hope my writeup didn't preserve that assumption. In either event you're right that the ambiguity in meaning exists both for 'oti and for the genitive case, and both have to be resolved from context, either grammar, location in the text, history, or something else.

 

[wayseer]

I am curious what you all think of the following scenario.

When you translate the Greek (be it a manuscript or one of the Koine Greek New Testaments) you come upon various problems. The one that I am going to focus on is the problem with Greek words having multiple meanings. For example:

'oti can mean either "that" or "because" which can have a dramatic impact on doctrine. Another example is whether the a word in the genitive ought to be translated, and the one that is the study of my research. The genitive can be translated either objectively or subjectively. If it is an objective genitive than you would say that "X goes to Y". However if you translate it as a subjective genitive than you would say "X comes from Y". Both are correct translations of the genitive, and one has to rely upon context to decide which is correct for any given passage.

The impact the chosen translation of this word has can be seen in Romans 3:22:

When translated as an objective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

But, when translated as a subjective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

My research actually revolves around the proper translation of the phrase "faith [in/of] Jesus Christ", which occurs many times throughout the Bible.

The problem, and thus the focus of my research, is on the idea of what does "context" entail? With almost no exception ever translation of the Bible prior to the 1900s translated every occurrence of this phrase as "faith of Jesus Christ". However, since the 1900s nearly ever Bible translates this phrase as "faith in Jesus Christ". What I have seen, and the reason that I have decided to embark upon this research, is that this change in translation began at the same time that Arminianism began to take upon the role of the popular soteriological view.

The question, then, is: "When translated from the Koine Greek into another language, does context include or exclude one's doctrinal views"

Unless you have doctorates in language studies, several, theology, archaeology, anthropology and few other disciplines and have been doing this stuff for 30 + years I prefer to relay on scholars who have.

Quite simply, we are too far behind. While scholars may get into endless discussions about meanings we really don't know what was happening as Jesus walked this earth. The extant copies we have only go back to the 3rd century with one credit card fragment of the Gospel of John dated in the 2nd century. We have copies of copies of copies. And while it is interesting to get into such debates I really wonder what is the purpose because there can be no final answer - we simply don't know.

And as HM80 points out, the authors have their own agenda running alongside the text. For Paul it was juxtaposing Jesus against Augustine who was basically perceived by the population as 'god among us'.

I rather look at the bigger picture - the social context and work backwards from there. But there are problems here also.

 

[heymikey80]

There're actually about 9 fragmentary texts, and the large number of closely-allied, early copies is quite an argument for their origination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts

The John Rylands Fragment (the credit-card earliest copy) is so old it could be an original (but likely isn't). So the early pieces are quite an attestation on their own.

By comparison other ancient manuscripts are hundreds of years separated from their originals.

So we can get into a thousand discussions about little items, but there are some points that give us a very, very big advantage.

The big point again is knowing what it says. Even the unlearned, and even young children can understand the basic thrust of what Scripture is saying.

 

[heymikey80]

Right, Edward. After decades of learning and training and experience I can't say my understanding of a single verse is exhaustive.

Still the basic message is just obvious. We pick up individual verses and argue over them, but others are flatly clear. Or worse, we pick up verses that are irrelevant to the big point, and argue that they are relevant.

Obviously one of us can't fix the situation. But that's what I see after journeying through a lot of issues with Scripture.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Pard,

I am curious what you all think of the following scenario.

When you translate the Greek (be it a manuscript or one of the Koine Greek New Testaments) you come upon various problems. The one that I am going to focus on is the problem with Greek words having multiple meanings. For example:

'oti can mean either "that" or "because" which can have a dramatic impact on doctrine. Another example is whether the a word in the genitive ought to be translated, and the one that is the study of my research. The genitive can be translated either objectively or subjectively. If it is an objective genitive than you would say that "X goes to Y". However if you translate it as a subjective genitive than you would say "X comes from Y". Both are correct translations of the genitive, and one has to rely upon context to decide which is correct for any given passage.

The impact the chosen translation of this word has can be seen in Romans 3:22:

When translated as an objective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

But, when translated as a subjective genitive you get: "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:"

My research actually revolves around the proper translation of the phrase "faith [in/of] Jesus Christ", which occurs many times throughout the Bible.

The problem, and thus the focus of my research, is on the idea of what does "context" entail? With almost no exception ever translation of the Bible prior to the 1900s translated every occurrence of this phrase as "faith of Jesus Christ". However, since the 1900s nearly ever Bible translates this phrase as "faith in Jesus Christ". What I have seen, and the reason that I have decided to embark upon this research, is that this change in translation began at the same time that Arminianism began to take upon the role of the popular soteriological view.

The question, then, is: "When translated from the Koine Greek into another language, does context include or exclude one's doctrinal views"

I've only gone through a few chapters of Mounce's book as well (after covering part of it in a class - which is much better when you have help), and my knowledge of Greek stops at the nouns (unfortunately!), but it seems to me that the obvious investigative technique that you need to seek out here is to look to see if the exact same genitive phrase is used in the rest of Romans, and secondarily in any of Paul's other epistles and get a handle for its meaning there. This can be very important if you are going to base a doctrinal interpretation off of it.

A case in point: I once read an article that tried to pull a fast one on the unwary reader, doctrinally speaking, by trying to convince the reader that the phrase "in regards to a feast" in Colossians 2:16-17 was improperly translated based on the root of the Greek word merei. It tried rather to make it appear that Paul said not to let anyone judge you in (observing) a portion (based on the root word meros) of a feast or Sabbath or New Moon, and that it was rather affirming the keeping of these days instead of saying you should not be beholden to judgment for not observing them due to their fulfillment in Christ. I found out some time later that this interpretation came from St. John Chrysostom (of whom even the translators of Chrysostom's commentary that I was reading agreed that Chrysostom was twisting the meaning of the word in the text there as they mentioned in a footnote).

I was unfortunately rather scandalized by this interpretation at the time until in desperation I send an email to a well-known New Testament Greek scholar and author who has a focus in the Pauline Epistles (if you want to know who it was I can PM you - but I'm not sure if I should divulge the person's name publicly since it was a personal communication) who graciously answered my query and pointed out that the phrase employed is a figure of speech despite the literal root and showed me at least two other places where the same phrase was used. And sure enough, those other instances checked out in their individual contexts to mean "in regards to" or "in the matter of".

A condensed version of that Q&A/email is below.

------------

My question: I read someone's personal rendering of Colossians 2:16-17 according to what they claim is the literal Greek which they translated, "[FONT=&quot]Therefore do not let anyone judge you in eating and in drinking, or with a portion of the new moon feast or Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, and of the body of Christ.[/FONT]" My question is what the Greek word "meros" translated here "a portion" indicates, and is that a literal translation of meros? Is Paul just indicating that even if they already observe these days that they are not to be judged in regard to what they do, or do not, observe concerning them? That understanding of the passage (if true) would seem to imply that Paul wasn't condemning the observance of those days per se, but only judgment concerning their observance.

Answer: The translation is wrong. The Greek phrase ἐν μέρει is an idiom for “in the matter of,” and Paul uses it this way in two other places in his letters, 2 Cor. 3:10 and 9:3. It is very hard to know what the statement “let no one judge you in the portion of a feast” would mean. It is very clear what “let no one judge you in the matter for a feast” means. The translation “and of the body of Christ” is also not a possible translation for the phrase τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. τὸ σῶμα is in the nominative case, not the genitive (the genitive would be required for “of the body”). The Greek word δέ moreover is never used in the way that the translation represents it here. It can mean “and,” but would not mean that in a sentence with this sort of syntax. The phrase can really only mean, “But the body is of Christ” which, in all probability means, “but the substance belongs to Christ.” Hope this helps.

------------

Anyway, this was an important lesson and a God-send answer for me at the right time. Always look up all other phrases in the text of similar construction in Scripture before making an interpretational call!

I hope that is helpful.

God Bless,
~Josh