LUKE 11:17b ?

[AVRAHAM]

I was curious what anyone's take was on the English translation of Luke 11:17b ? In Greek it reads:
"πᾶσα βασιλειÌ￾α ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτὴν διαμεÏ￾ισθεῖσα, ἐÏ￾ημοῦται, καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον, πιÌ￾πτει."
I translate this as "Any kingdom divided against itself will become desolate, and any house against itself will fall. (or a house against a house will fall)"

Well, Rev John Dobson M.A., B.D. Translates this as: "Every kingdon in rebellion against itself is laid waste by ethnic cleansing, and a ruling family split by rebellion collapses."

I am not as expert in Koine Greek as I'd like to be (yet), and was wondering if I was off so bad in my translating. Because I really don't see his tanslation in the passage.... Thanks for your help everyone.

Truly,
Avraham

[Bert]

I was curious what anyone's take was on the English translation of Luke 11:17b ? In Greek it reads:
"πᾶσα βασιλειÌ￾α ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτὴν διαμεÏ￾ισθεῖσα, ἐÏ￾ημοῦται, καὶ οἶκος ἐπὶ οἶκον, πιÌ￾πτει."
I translate this as "Any kingdom divided against itself will become desolate, and any house against itself will fall. (or a house against a house will fall)"

Well, Rev John Dobson M.A., B.D. Translates this as: "Every kingdon in rebellion against itself is laid waste by ethnic cleansing, and a ruling family split by rebellion collapses."

I am not as expert in Koine Greek as I'd like to be (yet), and was wondering if I was off so bad in my translating. Because I really don't see his tanslation in the passage.... Thanks for your help everyone.

Truly,
Avraham

I am not an expert either but I think that your rendering is a transation and his is a paraphrase, a free one at that.

[Chris Weimer]

I am not an expert either but I think that your rendering is a transation and his is a paraphrase, a free one at that.

Exactly.

[AVRAHAM]

Okay. I have more to ask here than just a translation. I do have lexica. Well, I have noticed that there is a common theme with Christians, who translate the New Testament. That the idea is "not to find the best way to put the Greek into English, but the best way to give the meaning of what the original writer meant." Is this not a poor way to translate a text? Yes, I agree, quite a paraphrase. To me, it takes away from the text. Especially one of a spiritual nature....

[Chris Weimer]

Okay. I have more to ask here than just a translation. I do have lexica. Well, I have noticed that there is a common theme with Christians, who translate the New Testament. That the idea is "not to find the best way to put the Greek into English, but the best way to give the meaning of what the original writer meant." Is this not a poor way to translate a text? Yes. A paraphrase. To me, it takes away from the text. Especially one of a spiritual nature....

Who makes this person more qualified to know exactly what the author originally meant and how to phrase that succinctly in English so that others can grasp it.

I find his translation reaching. He's not explaining what the author meant, he's expanding on what the author said. Explanantions, please, should be kept to the footnotes.

Chris

[IreneY]

He had a divine epiphany in which it was revealed to him that the whole passage had to be much more specific? Amazing?

[Bert]

Okay. I have more to ask here than just a translation. I do have lexica. Well, I have noticed that there is a common theme with Christians, who translate the New Testament. That the idea is "not to find the best way to put the Greek into English, but the best way to give the meaning of what the original writer meant."

That is certainly not a common theme.
There are debates between translators concerning how literal a translation should be.
If someone were to translate the second part of that sentence ( καὶ οἶκος á¼￾φ' οἶκον πίπτει.) as: "a house agains a house falls." the translation is so literal that it hinders understanding the meaning. "a house divided against itself will fall." is not nearly as literal but it brings the meaning across much better (and the context makes clear that this is what is meant.)
If we look at the first part

Every kingdon in rebellion against itself is laid waste by ethnic cleansing

I think that the ethnic cleansing part has gone well past translation into far fetched speculation.

Is this not a poor way to translate a text? Yes. A paraphrase. To me, it takes away from the text. Especially one of a spiritual nature....

A paraphrase has its uses as long as we are aware that it is not a translation.

[AVRAHAM]

Perhaps "common theme" would have been better stated "popular theme". As far as what you say, I concur. I also agree that just so long as something is considered a paraphrase, and not a translation, I suppose that's fine. As long as a distinction is made.

[Lost Cause]

The common debate among Christian scholars of the NT is the difference between "dynamic equivalence" and "literal translation."

Dyanmic equivalence is part translation, part art, part editorializing.
There are times when words give hints to expansions of phrases. Other times, the words are idiomatic and need some exposition to fill the gaps. These are the reasons some translators prefer dynamic equivalence. (Translations using this approach range in conservative approach, such as the NIV, to a very liberal approach, such as "The Message," which is almost purely paraphrasic.)

Those who prefer literal translation tend to stay true to the words in Greek, on the basis that the words used have specified meanings, and at times specified intents. They tend to find the idiomatic saying a little bit tricky to work around, but, it's not impossible on occasions to stay literal and carry across the meanings. (Translations using this approach are all fairly conservative: KJV, NKJV, English Standard Version, which uses UBS4 and NA27 as their textual basis, and NASB.)

I, personally, stay literal when I'm translating. But, when I'm studying, I tend dig deeper, referring not only to my NT Lexicon, but also to some of my other Attic and Classical references as a comparison the usage of the word(s) in question. Your translation of Luke 11:27 was very direct and literal, and it came across clear. The use of "and a house against a house, it falls," has to be cleared up a little bit, as it is idiomatic. But, it's context, coming after "any kingdom divided against itself," puts it into a clear light, especially since the verb "it falls" is 3rd/Sing.

[AVRAHAM]

Good stuff Lost Cause (you too, huh? ). I was wondering if anyone knew if other ancient texts, Greek or otherwise has this translation dilema? And if so, or if not, why on either? Also, a note: As far as I understand all the contemporary translations in the States use USB4 (generally equal to NA27), except the KJV and NKJV, which is based completely off of the Textus Receptus of the Codex Vaticanus. No? Thanks again!

[Bert]

Dyanmic equivalence is part translation, part art, part editorializing.

A lot of times Dynamic equivalance is more a tranlation than a literal one would be. It is easier to produce a litteral translation than a dynamic equivalant one but it may not do justice to the original.

I was wondering if anyone knew if other ancient texts, Greek or otherwise has this translation dilema? And if so, or if not, why on either?

I don't think it has the same intensity because there the issue is not whether or not we are corrupting a Spritual meaning.
It is more a matter of an end result that is pleasant to read, has the style of the author or is stiff and akward etc.

except the KJV and NKJV, which is based completely off of the Textus Receptus of the Codex Vaticanus. No?

I think that is correct.

[modus.irrealis]

As far as I know, KJV is based on Textus Receptus and the NKJV is based on that (although I remember reading somewhere that some people were upset that it made some changes to reflect other variants), but the Textus Receptus is very different from the text of Codex Vaticanus -- not my favourite source, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus does seem to be well referenced.

I agree with Bert that there are non-translation religious issues involved in how you translate the NT (or the Bible in general) which don't apply to any other texts, but things like poetry present problems too, where you see some translators do literal (I'm tempted to put that into quotes) prose translations and other do much freer verse translations which try to get some of the effect across.

I think that the ethnic cleansing part has gone well past translation into far fetched.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure that one out too, especially when "ethnic cleansing" is such a modern concept that relates to certain modern events -- it's hard to see how it could in any way accurately represent what the original author was thinking.

[AVRAHAM]

So which is more important than? When one says "this is what the writer REALLY meant to say", are they not adding their own ideas to the text? And thus spoiling it, on both a spiritual AND textual basis? I mean, some things are so idiomatic, that grammar requires a translation to compensate. However, on other areas where it may be a bit awkward, is not possible for the reader to figure the passage out? I mean, even on the toughest passage, 3 seconds in a Bible dictionary could clear it up. For example, "ethnic cleansing"??? I thought that was pretty silly personally....

[Bert]

So which is more important than? When one says "this is what the writer REALLY meant to say", are they not adding their own ideas to the text? And thus spoiling it, on both a spiritual AND textual basis? I mean, some things are so idiomatic, that grammar requires a translation to compensate. However, on other areas where it may be a bit awkward, is not possible for the reader to figure the passage out? I mean, even on the toughest passage, 3 seconds in a Bible dictionary could clear it up. For example, "ethnic cleansing"??? I thought that was pretty silly personally....

What is more important? Not what the writer really MEANT to say but what he really SAID. He said nothing about ethnic cleansing.
A nation divided against itself will go down hill whether through ethnic cleansing or through other means.
I'll use John 2:4 as an example. καὶ λέγει αá½￾τῇ á½￾ Ἰησοῦς· Ï„á½· á¼￾μοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; Rendering this as; "And Jesus said to her; Woman what to me and to you"? is not really translating. It not only is unclear but also misleading. "Woman, what do we have in common" is better but still misleading. In English (at least where I live,) addressing someone as "woman" is rude and disrespectful. Making it; "Dear woman, what do we have in common" though it is not as litteral, is a much better translation because it is saying in English what the text says in Greek.

Now if someone would want to say what the author really MEANT to say he may come up with something like this; Dear woman, my purpose on earth is much different from yours so even if you don't understand what I am doing, please bear with me. Now we have gone past translating.

[AVRAHAM]

What is more important? Not what the writer really MEANT to say but what he really SAID. He said nothing about ethnic cleansing.
A nation divided against itself will go down hill whether through ethnic cleansing or through other means.
I'll use John 2:4 as an example. καὶ λέγει αá½￾τῇ á½￾ Ἰησοῦς· Ï„á½· á¼￾μοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι; Rendering this as; "And Jesus said to her; Woman what to me and to you"? is not really translating. It not only is unclear but also misleading. "Woman, what do we have in common" is better but still misleading. In English (at least where I live,) addressing someone as "woman" is rude and disrespectful. Making it; "Dear woman, what do we have in common" though it is not as litteral, is a much better translation because it is saying in English what the text says in Greek.
Now if someone would want to say what the author really MEANT to say he may come up with something like this; Dear woman, my purpose on earth is much different from yours so even if you don't understand what I am doing, please bear with me. Now we have gone past translating.

Perfect. That's exactly what I mean. For some parts it is only logical that it is so idiomatic that it needs to be cleared in translation. As in "Ï„á½· á¼￾μοὶ καὶ σοί". And while one may infer something from the passage, that needs to be left up to the reader. Anything else is just commentary.

[IreneY]

Look, it's one thing to use the equivalent expression and quite another to try to interpret the text by paraphrasing. Obviously when a text says "it rains cats and dogs" I will turn it to "it rains chair legs" or "it rains priests" in Greek and vice versa. That doesn't mean I have the right to translate something the way I interpret it; I can add a footnote if I really want to inform the reader of how I understand that particular passage.

[Bert]

Look, it's one thing to use the equivalent expression and quite another to try to interpret the text by paraphrasing. Obviously when a text says "it rains cats and dogs" I will turn it to "it rains chair legs" or "it rains priests" in Greek and vice versa.

Are you just using a wild example or are there Greek expressions like that?

[IreneY]

Nope these are real Greek expressions (Ï￾ίχνει/βÏ￾έχει καÏ￾εκλοπόδαÏ￾α and Ï￾ίχνει/βÏ￾έχει παπάδες)

[Bert]

I wonder how some of those expressions made it into the world.
In Dutch there is one that says something like; It is raining pipe-stems.

[IreneY]

Well pipe stems and chair legs I can sort of understand (big thick raindrops come to mind) but I do admit that the image (I always imagine them in their everyday cassocks not their vestments) of Greek priests falling from the sky is qutie funny and not quite comprehensible