Question of time or place

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

I am trying to understand how a phrase or word in the bible is translated differently within the same translation and in a different one. For example the phrase found at 1 Cor 15:23: " ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ·" the emphatic diaglott says “at his appearing” and another bible translates it as “during his presence”

The same exact phrase in greek is used in 3 different scriptures: 1 Cor 15:23, 1John 2:28 , and 1 Thessalonians 2:19. A similar statement is found at 1 Thessalonians 3:13.

Both translations use different words in regard the preposition “ἐν”. In, at, during.

While one translation always renders “parousia” as “presence” it says “during” one time and “at” the other 3 times. The Diaglott says “at his appearing” 2 times, “in the presence of him” once and “at his coming” once. The KJV and many others always render it “at his coming”.

My question is two part, first: (besides context and doctrinal leanings) what would make one translation always translate “παρουσία” as “presence”, regardless of being plural/singular , a different case or in relation to verbs in different tenses. Is that even proper? Can or should this word only be translated presence? If the context refers to the beginning of the “being alongside” we would say, “arrival”, is there a grammatical rule to say this is not acceptable? In deciding between “arrival/coming” and “presence” in the translation, is there a rule to guide this found in the tense of verbs or case of the noun in the sentence, or does it rely soley on context and theology from the translators viewpoint?

Secondly or fourthly…lol… in the case of a singular dative case, as in the above phrase, how do you know if it refers to place or time? For example: one is saying “at” as in a fixed point in time, an event, and the other is saying “during” as if inside of or through a period of time. Can you use the dative dually for time and place? What decides this choice?

For instance, another phrase “in the days” found at Luke 17:26: καὶ καθὼς ἐγένετο ἐv ταῖς ἡμέραις Νῶε, οὕτως ἔσται καi ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου·

greek: “ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις”

It seems both place and time are dually used in regard the preposition. How do you determine between at or in? Could you say, “during the days”

I am new to greek so I may be completely overlooking some basic principles. I’m only in the first lesson of Hardy/Quinn.

Thanks.

2

As you probably know, Greek words and expression don’t necessarily map precisely onto English words and expressions;
Greek words usually have a range of meanings; and the range of a particular Greek word’s meaning is not necessarily identical to the range of meaning of the English word that is conventionally given as the “translation.”

So it may be necessary to use different English words for the same Greek word in different contexts, and there is not necessarily a single way to translate a specific passage of Greek into English. And context is always the guide for determining what a particular Greek means in a particular passage. So you can’t look at the issue “besides context”.

The Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) Greek-English dictionary is the best place to find out about the range of meanings of a particular ancient Greek word. It gives numerous citations to specific passages in ancient Greek literature, including the New Testament and the LXX, and for verbs, it will give you the various complements that a verb takes. You can check the citations to see for yourself how a word is used in a specific passage written in a specific period and draw your own conclusions. The on-line version is clunky and difficult to use, but it’s a good idea to learn how to do so if you don’t have access to the print version.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dparousi%2Fa

A lexicon of New Testament Greek exists and may be of some help, but confining your research exclusively to the New Testament, so as to exclude most of ancient Greek literature and focus solely on a tiny slice of it, seems like too narrow an approach. Even if your interest is in the New Testament, you ought to know how words are used elsewhere in ancient Greek, which may be illuminating for New Testament usages. For one thing, there is no such thing as New Testament Greek: the New Testament encompasses a number of varieties and registers of Greek. And, though I haven’t used the New Testament lexicon, I suspect that you will be at the mercy of doctrinal prejudices, conscious or unconscious, of the lexicographers, which I think you recognize is a problem.

It seems both place and time are dually used in regard the preposition. How do you determine between at or in? Could you say, “during the days”

The same ambiguity, or rather bi-valence – time or place – exists in the case of the English preposition “in”: in Paris vs. in the 19th century. You can almost always tell how “in” is being used in context.

3

Beginners are often struggling with small details, and besides helping with those, the best role for experienced readers is to contextualise issues in the larger contexts that are presumably off the beginner’s horizons. Let me follow the first respondent in continuing to do that.

With just one lesson of Greek under your belt, I assume that you know the alphabet and puncuation. At that stage, the most important thing that Greek can do for you is to show how many verses you need to consider to establish what “context” to consider a word or phrase in. English translations tend to render the Greek into sentences that are within the usual lengths appropriate for English. Being able to access the Greek text allows you to see the extent of the Greek sentence that the word or phrase that you are considering occurs in. It is quite common that sentences in some genres extend over more than one verse. Reading less than a (Greek) sentence is “brave”.

There is a general assumption that Greek is a more exact language than English is. The fact is that at the (lower) intermediate stage of learning a language, every language seems exact and precise. At that stage of learning, the basic elements of the language have been mastered but not the complexities, nuabces and subtleties. As one progresses beyond that level, things become more complex, and the language no longer seems so exact. The statement by people using the New Testament that the Greek is exact is testimony to their own level of mastery. Here you have entered into discussion on a classics forum with members who have attained various levels of competence in the language. You can expect less simplistic answers here than you might be looking for. Hylander (Qimmik) has made a statement to that effect in his opening sentence.

In general, people with training in Classics handle the language better than people with training in New Testament Greek only. The aims of either group are quite different too. Exegetes have to find the exact meaning of a text, seeing as the health or salvation of people’s soul may be deoending on correct interpretation. Such rigour and exactitude is an effective way to enforce creativity and foster confirmity - quite the reverse of a good situation.

Translation is a creative and interpretative act, not a simple mechanical equivalence, but rather one which depends on background knowledge and linguistic skill. Dictrinal understanding is one of a set of background knowledge that a translator brings, and ut us important to develop your knowledge of philosophy, geography, agriculture, Roman politics and administration, along with theology as you try to understand the Greek and express it into English. I’m sure you’ve opened your new VCR or (now) mp3 player and wondered if the translator of the instruction booklet had any idea what they themselves meant by what they were translating. A good translation should at least give the impression that the translator knew how to operate the VCR, or had tried. In our present day, having the same level of training as Paul had means taking theological education, or as one of the ancient historians had means doing a history degree. There are sure to be biases in that, but that is not all bad.

4

Hylander wrote the post I was too tired to write last night (ironically after doing a seminar presentation on “Psalm 12:2, A Problem in Translation?”) and εκηβολος added some good perspective. Semantic range and context, the sort of thing we do automatically in our primary language, but often requires a bit of thought when learning a second language. If you didn’t hear it above, I’ll repeat it for emphasis, read as much Greek as you can outside of simply the NT. It helps – a lot.

And you mentioned the “Emphatic Diglott?” Interlinears are evil in general and that one is especially bad. Throw it out. It would have better use recycled as a children’s book about giraffes or something. It won’t help you with your Greek a bit.

5

Thank you for your help. I understand your points and really appreciate the time you took to answer. I realize my own vast limitations with understanding ancient greek will as stated basically, oversimplify my views until I learn it in detail. However you did answer my question. In the topic of “parousia”, I have seen historical secular statements put forth to force a particular idea, that presence should only be used. For instance “the parousia of the king” or a similar statement taken from official documents of the times. Stating that this was proof that coming is not correct, but only presence…apparently forgetting arrival was an option. Also a secular writing by a land owner stating that her parousia was required to take care of business at a property. This was also used to say only presence can be correct.

This is put forth to allow the idea for an invisible “parousia” and later a coming of Jesus. This was born out of a failed prediction, that his coming didn’t happen as expected in 1874/75… the second such failure..(1843)by adventist. The emphatic diaglott was then used as evidence for Jesus being present but invisible…Mr. Wilson did use presence in the literal translation side but chose by context various words like appearing, coming, presence on his english side.

However, concerning the “parousia of a king”, I also know that when this was converted to latin and put on coins, it was “adventus” not “praesentia” that seems to meet the idea of the previously used greek statement. This is important because Jerome used either praesentia or forms of “adventus” in the latin vulgate, depending on his understanding of context for “parousia”. I feel that is proof that his use of adventus was not doctrinally biased, but true to common use. I had already on my own study picked out those verses ,prior to looking at his translation, by context and felt that a few would be presence (praesentia) and the rest arrival or coming (adventus). His translation only confirmed it. What is the best interlinear bible to look at for accuracy? My journey is just beginning but I will see it through. I feel that understanding the bible without forced conformity is important, I am skilled at comprehension of context and can easily point out problems with the way some beliefs can be based on just a sentence, leaving out context and the writers previous statements. I feel that only using one word in English defies reason, especially when parousia requires an arrival, and if one is solely looking forward to that moment of arrival it makes no sense to say presence. In other context, sure, especially past tense, looking back on the time period as a whole, a person’s presence with you. Anyway, thanks for at least confirming that context is king and that a thorough understanding is needed to come to a conviction.

6

One point that you may or may not be aware of is that παρουσια is a noun derived from the verb παρειμι, which itself is a compound composed of a verbal prefix παρα (also a preposition) plus the verb ειμι, “be”. -ουσια is a nominal form derived from -ειμι, which you may or may not recognize but will be evident when you learn more Greek.

These type of derivations – compound verb consisting of prepositional prefix + base verb, and noun derived from verb with a nominal suffix – are very common and enormously productive in Greek. They’re recognizable to anyone who knows Greek at a certain level, and recognizing them is an important part of learning Greek.

The various meanings of παρα as a verbal prefix or preverb are given at the end of the entry for παρα in LSJ:

G. IN COMPOS.,
I. alongside of, beside, of rest, παράκειμαι, παράλληλοι, παρέζομαι, πάρειμι （εἰμί）, παρίστημι; of motion, παραπλέω, πάρειμι （εἶμι).
II. to the side of, to, παραδίδωμι, παρέχω.
III. to one side of, by, past, παρέρχομαι, παροίχομαι, παραπέμπω, παρακμάζω, παρατρέχω.
IV. metaph.,

  1. aside or beyond, i.e. amiss, wrong, παραβαίνω, παράγω, παροράω, παρορκέω, παρακούω, παραγιγνώσκω.
  2. of comparison, as in παραβάλλω, παρατίθημι.
  3. of alteration or change, as in παραλλάσσω, παραπείθω, παραπλάσσω, παρατεκταίνω, παραυδάω, παράφημι.
  4. of a side-issue, παραπόλλυμι. (Cogn. with Goth. faúr ‘along’, Lat. por-.)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpara%2F

And here is a link to the LSJ entry for πάρειμι:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpa%2Freimi1

As mentioned abovre, the relationship of παρουσια to παρειμι, though it may seem strange at first blush, is immediately recognizable and anyone writing Greek in antiquity would certainly be aware of it. So to explore the range of meanings of παρουσια, you would really need to have an understanding of the range of meanings of πάρειμι, and also to understand the derivational process leading from παρα + ειμι to παρουσια and the range of meanings of παρα as a verbal prefix. You can get much of that from LSJ, but experience with a wide range of ancient Greek texts – not just the New Testament – helps a lot.

I don’t mean to be condescending, but I would suggest that at this stage, with very little Greek and without the ability to read words in context, you’re not ready to engage in this type of word analysis.

(To confuse matters even more, and perhaps to save you from a potential mistake, there is another verb πάρειμι, derived from a future-tense verb meaning “to go”, that is totally unrelated to παρουσία.)

7

It is not much use to look to the (original) Greek to understand its (modern) interpretations and appropriations.

8

Thanks for all the points to consider. I’ll just continue to learn, as now I certainly do not know even what I do not know. The journey will continue.