Textkit Logo

LUKE 11:17b ?

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

LUKE 11:17b ?

Postby AVRAHAM » Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:39 pm

User avatar
AVRAHAM
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:25 am
Location: United States

Re: LUKE 11:17b ?

Postby Bert » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:48 pm

Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Re: LUKE 11:17b ?

Postby Chris Weimer » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:27 am

Bert wrote: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.
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby AVRAHAM » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:48 am

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....
Last edited by AVRAHAM on Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AVRAHAM
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:25 am
Location: United States

Postby Chris Weimer » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:06 am

AVRAHAM wrote: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
Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Postby IreneY » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:19 pm

He had a divine epiphany in which it was revealed to him that the whole passage had to be much more specific? Amazing?
User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)

Postby Bert » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:09 pm

Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Postby AVRAHAM » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:25 pm

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.
User avatar
AVRAHAM
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:25 am
Location: United States

Postby Lost Cause » Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:14 pm

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.
phpbb
Lost Cause
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:05 am
Location: Texas

Postby AVRAHAM » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:42 am

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!
User avatar
AVRAHAM
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:25 am
Location: United States

Postby Bert » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:40 pm

Lost Cause wrote:
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.
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Postby modus.irrealis » Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:11 pm

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.

Bert wrote: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.
modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Postby AVRAHAM » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:13 am

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....
User avatar
AVRAHAM
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:25 am
Location: United States

Postby Bert » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:59 pm

Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Postby AVRAHAM » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:15 pm

User avatar
AVRAHAM
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:25 am
Location: United States

Postby IreneY » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:48 am

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.
User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)

Postby Bert » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:13 am

IreneY wrote: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?
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Postby IreneY » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:05 am

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)

Postby Bert » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:41 am

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. :?:
Bert
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Postby IreneY » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:22 am

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 :D
User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)


Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Isaac Newton, Qimmik, uberdwayne and 14 guests