tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1311138703502814099..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: To be or..to become: when translators should try harder (John 1:1, 6)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40616255636714236432014-06-27T05:42:12.182-07:002014-06-27T05:42:12.182-07:00As a rule, I like NET's footnotes better than ...As a rule, I like NET's footnotes better than I like NET's translation.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27379955726138602612014-06-26T16:56:31.810-07:002014-06-26T16:56:31.810-07:00The NASB does use a footnote here that provides a ...The NASB does use a footnote here that provides a more literal translation ("Came into being"). But I don't think any edition of the Bible outside of commentaries and interlinears provide the detail in notes that you or I would want in such a way that a reader not trained in the languagues (and with knowledge on text criticism, etc.) would understand. This particular NASB footnote does not indicate whether one of the translations (the given text or the option in the note) is more literal or if perhaps there is a textual variance issue going on, or maybe the original Greek is ambiguous and we really don't know how to translate it, woodenly or not.<br /><br />Generallly the best and most detailed grammatical footnotes are in the NET but surprisingly they give no indication in the notes that verse 6 and 7 use different verbs except the cryptic and unhelpful note for verse 7 "Grk “came for a testimony.”"Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05657160848405432116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3496329824903046372014-06-25T04:23:34.355-07:002014-06-25T04:23:34.355-07:00Thank you, Jeff, but yes, you do misunderstand me....Thank you, Jeff, but yes, you do misunderstand me. "Was" is the issue.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39834401315570195512014-06-24T20:30:22.596-07:002014-06-24T20:30:22.596-07:00Maybe I misunderstood you, but I believe the KJV h...Maybe I misunderstood you, but I believe the KJV has what you were looking for, "There was a man sent from God, his name <i>was</i> John" Doesn't the italicized word indicate what you want here.Jeff Voegtlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13038716402776736733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5151897008962675752014-06-24T12:41:46.309-07:002014-06-24T12:41:46.309-07:00Right. In such cases where literal is impossible, ...Right. In such cases where literal is impossible, or where it's just impossible to denote the distinction in translation, I always resort to footnotes. As in Prov. 9:18, where a word is used that is commonly glossed "depths." However, I'd just used "depths" repeatedly in chapter 8 to translate a different Hebrew word. <br /><br />Most (i.e. all) tr's just use "depths" for both, not caring to note a distinction. And the distinction is not terribly significant. But I am really trying to do <i>something</i> to honor Solomon's vocab; so in 9:18 I translated "In the chasms of Sheol," which is lexically justifiable. But I footnoted, "Or “depths,” but different word than 8:24, 27-28."DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64023146448189574232014-06-24T12:35:01.553-07:002014-06-24T12:35:01.553-07:00Another word-change in translation of the NT that ...Another word-change in translation of the NT that baffles me to no end is in the pericope at Mark 8:34-38. ψυχή appears four times, yet the first two times it is often translated "life" (v. 35 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it") while the second two times it is often translated "soul" (v. 36-37 "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?").<br /><br />Sure, both words are acceptable as translations of ψυχή, but does anyone really think Jesus would use the same words four times in the same pericope and not want the connection and flow to be apparent? Switching words like that destroys this, inserting an apparent distinction that doesn't appear in the text and skewing interpretations because of the different freight the two words carry today. It's inexplicable to me. The NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, and ESV all do it, though the NET, RSV, NRSV, ASV, and the Holman don't (they opt to consistently use "life"). Aaron Snellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08551668915973379312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76338026608335516812014-06-24T12:16:39.617-07:002014-06-24T12:16:39.617-07:00Your point about "came" itself is a good...Your point about "came" itself is a good one, Stephen. It does better justice to <i>egeneto</i> in this use than "was"; but then it runs into grief when the proper verb for "came" is used.<br /><br />If you're saying that this flaw in "came" means giving up or ignoring ("was") is the wiser course, then in response I'd say... what I already said the whole post, above.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83897285974373206852014-06-24T12:13:01.384-07:002014-06-24T12:13:01.384-07:00The problem with "A man came" in verse 6...The problem with "A man came" in verse 6 (NASB, NET), of course, is the very next verse, "He came." You again have two different verbs and need some way to differentiate them. I think the question for translators is, can <i>eimi</i> and <i>egeneto</i> be differentiated in context more easily than <i>egeneto</i> and <i>erchomai</i> in verse 7.<br /><br />The rest of the prologue, I hope, makes very clear the essential differences between the Word, Jesus, and the man, John. Indeed Jesus is set apart from every other man. So while a strictly literal translation wants to distinguish every Greek root, there is not a great need for it here when there is not a smooth way to say in English "A man became, sent from God."Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05657160848405432116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6077392636274288682014-06-24T09:45:38.035-07:002014-06-24T09:45:38.035-07:00Maybe the translators were just tired and overwork...Maybe the translators were just tired and overworked that day, and didn't happen to notice it needed to be clarified as clearly you have?Penn Tomassettihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04426113620189406498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79406097177745388352014-06-24T08:27:04.027-07:002014-06-24T08:27:04.027-07:00For the first time this year, I'm actually doi...For the first time this year, I'm actually doing my morning New Testament reading from Greek. Usually sitting beside my wife who is reading NASB. Little things like this have jumped out for the first time, and we have greatly profited from actually looking at the text in the original language.<br /><br />To those who think we don't need it--there are dozens of enlightening moments like this in John alone. learn it if you can!Doug Hibbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01099486048716032843noreply@blogger.com