translation problems

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bertie
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:21 pm

Re: translation problems

Post by Bertie »

So, I confess not being sure what JoeWallack is implying, but the second half of Galatians 5:1, including a passive form of the verb under discussion, is:

μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε
don't (you plural) be held in a yolk of slavery again

The base meaning of the passive is:
be held in/by (+dative of the thing doing the holding)

A word of caution: it is not necessarily the case that the passive (and according to LSL, that's what it is, not the Greek middle which shares the form) is a exact "mirror" of the active, because (for example) idiomatic usage could have influenced either or both forms (which seems to be the case here).
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by JoeWallack »

Bertie wrote:So, I confess not being sure what JoeWallack is implying, but the second half of Galatians 5:1, including a passive form of the verb under discussion, is:

μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε
don't (you plural) be held in a yolk of slavery again

The base meaning of the passive is:
be held in/by (+dative of the thing doing the holding)

A word of caution: it is not necessarily the case that the passive (and according to LSL, that's what it is, not the Greek middle which shares the form) is a exact "mirror" of the active, because (for example) idiomatic usage could have influenced either or both forms (which seems to be the case here).
JW:
I have faith that KK will explain all but in the meantime, here is a hint (as to the parallels):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-KDSxqJ_0o


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote:I have faith that KK will explain all
No, I just trying to understand what it means. It's puzzling. :scratch:

But to give a little pay-back. I assume it is often overlooked that in Mark 6:18 John brings forward a typical Pharisaic argument. It´s an argument from the "law" (Leviticus 18:16).
"Not it is lawful (ἔξεστίν) for you to have the wife of the brother of you"
Beside Mark 6:18 the word "lawful" (ἔξεστίν) occurs in Mark only in the discussions between Jesus and the Pharisees (sometimes joined by the Herodians). (If there is a Pauline issue in the background then I would tend to Romans 7:5, 1 Corinthians 15:56.)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by Peter Kirby »

Image

What is the significance of the absence of the definite article before theos for the interpretation of this text?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: translation problems

Post by ficino »

Ernest Cadman Colwell did a study of anarthrous (i.e. without definite article) predicate nouns.

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

Colwell concluded that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article ... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun." The upshot of this for John 1:1 is that the anarthrous predicate, preceding ἦν, indicates, not an entity, but a qualitative predicate: "the word was god as to his nature" was the way our seminary prof. explained it. This was in a discussion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation, sc. that the word was "a god."

Peter, is your pasted-in link to a JW bible?

The JW interpretation really shouldn't work even for them, because it implies polytheism.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Paul Steven Dixon
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANARTHROUS PREDICATE NOMINATIVE IN JOHN.
A Thesis - PDF
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: translation problems

Post by DCHindley »

ficino wrote:The JW interpretation really shouldn't work even for them, because it implies polytheism.
Then you must not know the JWs very well. An analogy might be to compare them to Arians. Arians had no trouble imagining the Father god created a son "out of nothing" to serve a special function for the salvation of mankind.

FWIW, I conducted a psychology experiment the year I was attending a college run by the United Brethren church. I contacted the JW elder at the small town's Kingdom Hall, and explained that I wanted him to give a presentation about the general tenets of the JW church to a group of student volunteers, while a different (control) group just got to watch a really bad movie (the kind with background music played on piccolos). Both groups would be tested before and after the experiment regarding their opinion of JWs. There may have been two sets of groups, I cannot remember that well the events of 1977 anymore. I agreed to give him the results of the experiment.

Strangely, for these students that got to hear the presentation, "familiarity bred contempt." I mean, they weren't derisive or anything, but their opinions of the JWs did seem to drop. I can no longer recall for sure whether the change was statistically "significant" or not, but I think it was not. However, I don't think that guys who went to Christian academies or were home schooled had that much exposure to them. When they realized just how different their theology was to theirs, though, I think it weird-ed them out a bit.

I've also attended a couple of their church services, and it is definitely different than you might get in any other Christian denomination. Everything is preached right out of the Watchtower and Awake magazines. The elder poses hypothetical questions to the assembled witnesses, and they read back key passages in those magazines to answer them. The rest of it, from prayers to singing hymns to listening to their choir, was not that much different than what most of us raised in a church environment remember. They did not recognize many "sacraments" and did not participate in celebration of the "pagan holidays" of Christmas or Easter. My mom is a JW, and she does not even celebrate birthdays, salute the flag. They are citizens of the "kingdom of God" and refuse serve in the military or any secular government.

There's a new park-like earth coming, where all the faithful will live happily for eternity, except for 144,000, who will go to heaven. Folks who die before the resurrection simply cease to exist until the resurrection reconstitutes them in a perfect "resurrection" body. The rest of us will also simply cease to exist when we die, but without any resurrection. The "lake of fire" is simply being eternally "cut off." Jesus is still the Word of God who died for the sins of mankind, but he is a being created for that purpose, almost like an angel. I think they sometimes think of him as an alternative form of Michael the Archangel.

So, to the JWs, the Word IS "a" god.

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: translation problems

Post by DCHindley »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Paul Steven Dixon
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANARTHROUS PREDICATE NOMINATIVE IN JOHN.
A Thesis - PDF
Wow, Dallas Theological Seminary (think Dan Wallace's "Evangelical Textual Criticism" website)!

The author's a bit snarky, which is just fine with those types, since they know the only valid truth there is to know, and everyone else must be in grave error. E.g., "Colwell's blunder." It is a bit apologetic, as it is really a veiled criticism of JW theology in general. There are other treatments out there that are more sympathetic to the idea that the Johannine prologue really does speaks of the Word as a god. John 1:18 is another place where the textual variants suggest that it was an "only begotten god" who was in the Father's bosom, but I can see the variants that call this figure the "only begotten son" as viable as well, as monogenes ("only begotten") is generally used not so much of an only child as it is the chosen favorite of the child's father. It is used even when there are clearly other children of that same father.

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: translation problems

Post by DCHindley »

ficino wrote:Peter, is your pasted-in link to a JW bible?
The Empathic Diaglott (that peculiar spelling is intentional) was a Greek-English Interlinear NT based on J J Griesbach's edition of the Greek NT (which was based on Vatican ms 1209 = Codex Vaticanus), published by Benjamin Wilson in 1864/1865. Wilson was not a Witness (he was before their time) but, I believe, a Baptist who later co-founded the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith. He translated many cases of the Greek words Kurios (Lord) and sometimes Theos (God) as "Jehovah."

Anyhow, when the Witnesses come about (late 19th century I believe), they were so impressed by this Diaglott that after Wilson's death in 1900, JW leader C T Russell had his Watchtower Society buy the copyright, and later the printing plates, which Wilson had made himself by hand, from his heirs. They then published an edition of it from Wilson's printing plates in 1902, and then made their own plates to print new editions in 1927 & 1942. The original 1864/65 & 1902 editions are now out of copyright, but I suppose the JWs still retain copyright of the newer 1927 & 1942 editions.

In 1969, The Watchtower Society produced a very similar interlinear NT called The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, but based on Westcott & Hort's 1881 edition of the NT in Greek. JWs had already made their own New World Translation based on W&H Greek text in 1961, and this text was printed in the right margin of the Kingdom Interlinear so you could check the "accuracy" of it against the word for word interlinear translation.

IMHO, the JWs word-for-word interlinear is actually first rate, but I have quite a few issues with their NWT. I have not investigated the Emphatic Diaglott closely, although you can buy copies of it online or through your local JW Kingdom Hall (every town has one). They will probably not preach at you especially if you ask nice. They too prefer Jehovah to Lord, but are, if one were to ask me, inconsistent in their decisions whether a particular "Lord" or "God" in Greek referred to the Father God (Jehovah) or to Jesus.

DCH

PS: yes, I do know a lot of useless things ... :whistling:
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: translation problems

Post by ficino »

DCHindley wrote:
ficino wrote:The JW interpretation really shouldn't work even for them, because it implies polytheism.
Then you must not know the JWs very well.
[snip]

So, to the JWs, the Word IS "a" god.

DCH
Actually, I know them fairly well, and have debated exactly this point with one, though decades ago.

They are not thinking systematically.

For the great Arian Christ to be "a" god implies polytheism. Hell, Catholics even have accused the Eastern Orthodox of the same, since the Orth. refuse to posit a godhead beyond the Father, of which, on the western view, the three Persons would be instantiations.
Last edited by ficino on Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply