Talk:Idou

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Here you find the discussion so far:

Contents

Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated):

ἰδού

I don't endorse MandersB's tactic to replace every occurrence of ἰδού with at the moment. But he raises some interesting points:

  • Andy, if you think that behold is archaic, why should it occur in the translation at all?
  • Shouldn't it be possible to use at the moment as a translation for ἰδού more than once?
  • I checked a couple of dictonaries and failed to find at the moment as a translation of ἰδού. Could you hint me to your source?

AugustO 09:50, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I searched for a week for a source which states that at the moment is a nuance of ἰδού. I wasn't able to find one. That's why I put a source - tag to the translation. I hope that Aschlafly will show me where this translation comes from. AugustO 10:36, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

I did a Google search on:
  • ἰδού "at that moment"
and nearly 20,000 items were found. I've added a cite to the content entry here.--Andy Schlafly 01:14, 16 April 2011 (EDT)
A google search! Well, for a moment a will join your light-hearted approach:
  • ἰδού and yesterday results in 77,000 hits
  • ἰδού and wow: 100,000 hits
  • ἰδού and later: 200,000 hits
As wow is a demonstrative particle, often stressing what follows, it wouldn't be quite a bad translation! But we both know that such searches are meaningless.
And please keep in mind that this translation is meant to be a serious project: not everybody will appreciate your attempt of humor. So, back to the real problem: it goes without saying that I expected you to present something like article on the nuances of ἰδού, published in one of the many journals like Journal of Translation. Or a excerpt of a textbook, or a renowned Biblical commentary. Please, could you do so?
As for the cite you added to the verse: I'm afraid it doesn't show what you expect it to demonstrate. Indeed, ἰδού appears in the original verse and at that moment appears in the translations of the e.g., New International Version and the New Living Translation. But this doesn't imply that at that moment is the translation of ἰδού! I have stated earlier (User_talk:Aschlafly#Matthew_and_John - btw, it's in one of the four questions I'd like you to answer):
The New International Version starts the verse with At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn.., but this at that moment seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in Bible Translation Issues.
The new international version seems to follow the same principles as the NET Bible project, which states:
Introductory particles like ἰδού (“behold”) have been translated to fit the context (sometimes “listen,” “pay attention,” “look,” or occasionally left untranslated).
It seems to me that you are one of the first to translate ἰδού as at that/this moment. And such a novel translation obviously needs an elaborate justification, especially when it is used further on with far-reaching consequences (see Counterexamples to Relativity).
AugustO 10:28, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

I've shown here and at Talk:John 1-7 that besides the repeated claims that there is a nuance ἰδού meaning "suddenly" or "at that time" no serious evidence for the existence of such a nuance is given. So - as the very minimum - I reintroduced the source-tag. AugustO 11:35, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

For the time being...

According to Bible Translation Issues No. 17, I omitted the translation of ἰδού in Matthew 27:51. I think this is a reasonable compromise until any scholarly source for a translation of ἰδού as at this moment can be found (see here for the ongoing discussion ).

AugustO 09:22, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

As a general matter of interpretation or translation, ignoring or deleting words is disfavored. The word was not included simply to be ignored.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
Isn't inventing a new meaning for a word disfavored, too? Until now, you haven't shown any scholarly source which validates your idea that "at this moment" is a "nuance " of ἰδού.
The source you gave is a list of various translations, which shows that modern liberal translations have a liberal concept of translating. Surely, this can't be model for the CBP, especially as you frown upon these techniques, e.g., here?
ἰδού is an interjection. It doesn't contain information on its own, it just stresses the following text (think of wow in contempory English) .
AugustO 10:34, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
Let's discuss this issue further. For starters, will you agree that simply ignoring and essentially erasing the Greek term is not an option for an optimal translation?--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
I would rather like to see your review and comment on my extensive edits here, especially as the google search is still the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment"!
AugustO 10:19, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Ending the ιδού talk

Guess what I did? I translated the dang word! It means 'lo' as in "Lo and behold". 'Look' shortened to 'Lo'. Not 'wow' not anything else that has been said. the Greek word ιδού means 'lo'. Translate it yourself and you will see. Just google "Translate Greek ιδού" and oh my goodness, its the first link! Can we find something else to talk about now? I see the translation isn't included, I don't care if it is or not. It is one word from a gosple made up of many other letters and whatnot. The meaning still remains whether or not you use it. I would edit it to correct the commentary placed next to the scripture in question, but I don't want to mess with anything I don't have a right messing with. MHarris

Your spirited comments are welcome, but "lo" (like "wow") seems beneath the level of the Gospels. I wouldn't expect to find those words in the Constitution, or in a good Bible translation.
ιδού does not mean 'wow' it means "Lo, Look/behold". Beneath the level of the Gospels? You think they were written by some elite nobility? It was written by a former tax collector. The scripture in question was most likely a dictated writing of what he experienced or what one of his students found out during his research into his Master's past life while writing a biography. Interjections like 'wow' or 'behold' are perfectly acceptable in these accounts as it is the authors way of expressing the emotions they felt during the event or when they found out about the event.
Good translations respect the source that is being translated, and preserve as much meaning as possible. If the meaning is "lo" (or "wow"), the point is to explain what is so amazing about what happened. In this context, the amazing attribute is temporal: the veil was torn "at that moment." Hence that is the best translation.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm pretty sure you are using the word 'temporal' wrong in that statement. But I restate. The meaning is not 'wow' nor should 'lo' be put on the same level as 'wow' though they are both interjections. In the usage of the word, the author was pointing to the veil as evidence as in "LOOK! There is the proof that he is the Lord our Savor! The Great Veil that took two strong men to lift just enough to let a small man though was ripped from the inside out, top down as the LORD cut away the boundary between us and HIM!" the Veil was a large, thick cloth that separated people from the Ark. To give sacrifice, a lamb was killed and it's blood put in a cup, then two men lifted the veil and another man crawled under it. If the sacrifice was accepted, bells would ring. When Jesus died, the veil was cut from the inside out or from were the Ark was to the outside and from top down, or from Heaven to Earth, meaning God cut away the boundary between us and Him though the sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Lord. That is why the word is so important and must be properly translated and added into the scripture. MHarris
So there is no disagreement about whether the term should be translated and included. It should be. But to translate it as the equivalent of merely an underline or exclamation point is little better than omitting it entirely.--Andy Schlafly 09:50, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:John 1-7 (Translated):

(Matthew 27:51) At Bible Translation Issues, no. 17, you wrote: The word "behold" appears frequently in the KJV but lacks a modern equivalent. Is there a strategy for this dealing with this concept? Possibilities include "rejoice", "observe", "listen", "note that", and ignoring it altogether (which modern versions often do). Here, you omit the nuance at the moment which you used in Matthew 27:51. I checked a couple of dictionaries and failed to find at the moment as a translation of ἰδού. Where did you find it?

As with any Greek word lacking an English equivalent, the translation of ἰδού requires examining the context in which it was used in order to translate it. Search on: ἰδού "at that moment" , and you'll see there are 20,000 references on the internet.--Andy Schlafly 15:33, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

When I first read this argument, I thought you were joking! Obviously you havn't read what I wrote at Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού (... ἰδού and wow: 100,000 hits ...). Well, this explains why you erased the source-tag there without introducing a proper source. I'll reinsert it, again. Anyway, when trying to use google - counts as an argument, one should at least peek at the results. I looked up the top-10 (non-Conservapedia) results. Clearly you didn't do so, or you would have found a list similar to this one:
  1. the backyard professor: "at that moment" isn't there as a translation of a Greek verse, but appears in an unreleted sentence in the sidebar: He would have continued but at that moment my very obedient daughter who was listening leaned over to me and asked quite audibly in her shrill little four year old girl voice, 'Mom, what is butt dust?'
  2. A Question of When: The Temple Veil An interesting blog entry, arguing that the NRSV get's it wrong: (The NRSV does indeed read “at that moment,” but this is a superfluous addition to the original Greek, which reads ιδου — which is not at all a measure of time, but rather it is a verb in the imperative, meaning behold or lo. Young’s Literal, which was more painstaking in its care not to add anything, does not add this “at this moment,” which is not in the Bible. What is there, ιδου, suggests a simultaneous occurrence or one that is a direct result (he died and behold! this happened). So far, so same.)
  3. Christian Israel "at that moment" appears as a translation of ἐξαυτῆς, not of ἰδού.
  4. Prophecy Felloswhip a discussion of the actual verse, but with the conclusion that "at that moment" is not a viable translation for ἰδού...
  5. Bible.org, Luke 2 "at that moment" appears as a translation of καὶ αὐτὴ τῇ ὥρᾳ - "and at this very hour", while we read - concerning another verse: "The Greek word ἰδού (idou) at the beginning of this statement has not been translated."
  6. Rev. Patrick There are some verses translated, but "at that moment" appears independently in the sentence: In Orthodox theology, the Transfiguration is not only a feast in honour of Christ, but a feast of the Holy Trinity, for all three Persons of the Trinity are present at that moment
  7. Mass Readings for Palm Sunday "at that moment" is used to translate εὐθέως
  8. Was the temple curtain torn before, or at the moment of, Jesus’ death? "'Matthew doesn’t say “At that moment, the curtain…”. He says “And, behold (Kai idou), the curtain…”.** So nothing in the actual words of Scripture implies an ordering of these events. The loud cry and final breath might have occurred before, during or after the rending of the veil and all of the Gospel words would be consistent with the events."
  9. Net Bible The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1)., while "at that moment" is used to translate ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ
  10. SciptureText Acts 11:11 Again, "at that moment" is used as a translation of ἐξαυτῆς while ἰδού is translated as "lo", "behold" - or simply left out.
So, none of these works as a reference for your claim. Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious (here) is bad enough. Getting me to make it blatantly obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about participation, but about contribution!


AugustO 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

(Matthew 27:51) The New International Version starts the verse with At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn.., but this at that moment seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in Bible Translation Issues. Isn't it a little bit unsettling that this crucial nuance of ἰδού is used in CBP's translation for the first and only time in Matthew 27:51, a verse which is used later on in Counterexamples to Relativity?

AugustO 12:49, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
August, translations don't simply erase words. What the KJV translates as "behold" can properly be translated as "at that moment" in modern English, depending on context. And the context is crystal clear that the two events happened at the same time ... otherwise one would expect some description of a delay.
At one point someone asked you what the physical mechanism would be if there were a delay. Could you answer that question?--Andy Schlafly 11:42, 30 April 2011 (EDT)


  • August, translations don't simply erase words. They most certainly do! Have a look at no. 9 of your google-search for ἰδού and at this moment: "The Greek word ἰδού (idou) at the beginning of this statement has not been translated." It's a very common procedure, as there are many words in Greek texts which feel superfluous to us. Partly, they make up for the missing punctuation: where the Greeks used ἰδού, we would perhaps insert just an exclamation mark...
  • What the KJV translates as "behold" can properly be translated as "at that moment" in modern English, depending on context. You keep repeating this conviction of yours. But besides from the entertaining Google search above (which I've shown to be absolutely unconvincing: please read the section above!), you have not given a single scholarly source which shows that there is any translator who shares your conviction.
  • And the context is crystal clear that the two events happened at the same time ... otherwise one would expect some description of a delay. A delay of a couple minutes could not have been spotted by the parties involved (i.e., the Roman nobleman and his servants)! So how could there be a description?
  • At one point someone asked you what the physical mechanism would be if there were a delay. Could you answer that question? You seem to refer to BrandB's questions above, i.e.,
August, can you propose an alternative explanation for how the healing power of Jesus was transferred? One that is more likely than action at a distance? I don't understand how or why His power would necessarily need to "travel", per se. It may be precision not in the text itself, but one that is the most logical.
No, I don't know whether the Lord chose to act instantaneously, or whether there was a (short) delay. And I think that such a question should be answered after translating the verse, as we don't want to fit the translation to our explanations or expectations!
AugustO 11:36, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Bible Translation Issues:

ἰδού

Still no scholarly source for a translation of ἰδού as "at this moment" is presented. AugustO 10:26, 11 June 2011 (EDT) :There is no need for one, it is easily translated. The word means Look/behold. Ιδου is the Koine Greek interjection meaning: look / behold. Koine is Greek for 'Common' as in the commonly spoken dialect of Greek. It would make sense that Koine Greek is used as the Gospel was written most likely by Matthew's student who would not be educated in the more uncommon Greek dialect. MHarris

Words -- and particularly a word indicative of emphasis like "ἰδού" -- should not be translated in isolation from their context. In English it is impossible to explain what the word "get" means unless its context is also analyzed. Sometimes it means "understand"; in other contexts it means "fetch" or "retrieve".
If words could be translated without reference to context, then computer translations would be perfect. Instead, they are typically terrible.--Andy Schlafly 00:46, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
First off, 'Get' is a poor choice of a word. It has only two meanings as a verb. Come to have or hold (something); receive or Experience, suffer, or be afflicted with (something bad). Ether way, 'Get' means to acquire something in some manner. Secondly, we have the context and the word only has TWO possibles meanings. Look or Behold. Both of which in this part of the scripture has the same meaning. "This is important! Take Notice!" What problem is there?
The problem is that it is all important, so translating the word merely as "this is important" is no better than simply ignoring the word altogether. And ignoring words is not a favored approach to translation, or interpretation either.--Andy Schlafly 09:42, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
"this is important" is something else than "at this moment". You are taking liberties in the same way as the modern liberal translations do.
I agree with MHarris that "behold" is an adequate translation of ἰδού, IMO possibly the best one. It shows how words were stressed before punctuation (and text-formatting) was common place.
I didn't propose "wow" as a translation of ἰδού, I just wanted to illustrate that both words fulfilled the same function in speech.
AugustO 10:12, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Aschlafly:

Matthew and John

Dear Andy Schlafly, I understand that you as the owner of Conservapedia have many responsibilities which you have to attend to. So it's not surprising that you can't react to every single issue which some editor raises. But obviously, you are taking great interest in the Conservapedia Bible Project, so I would like you to help me with the following problems which I encountered within the project. I raised these question in a slightly different form on other places, but I think it is convenient to have them here, easy for you to answer. Thank you for your help!

  1. (John 4:52) Which answer would you give to a kid in Sunday School who asks: How did the servants knew that it was 1 o'clock?
  2. (John 4:46-54) You wrote: The instantaneous healing is central to the purpose of the event. and the point of the story is that it happened at the same moment. How so? Why had the healing to be spontaneous, when the creation of the world took six days?
  3. (Matthew 27:51) At Bible Translation Issues, no. 17, you wrote: The word "behold" appears frequently in the KJV but lacks a modern equivalent. Is there a strategy for this dealing with this concept? Possibilities include "rejoice", "observe", "listen", "note that", and ignoring it altogether (which modern versions often do). Here, you omit the nuance at the moment which you used in Matthew 27:51. I checked a couple of dictionaries and failed to find at the moment as a translation of ἰδού. Where did you find it?
  4. (Matthew 27:51) The New International Version starts the verse with At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn.., but this at that moment seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in Bible Translation Issues.
  5. Isn't it a little bit unsettling that this crucial nuance of ἰδού is used in CBP's translation for the first and only time in Matthew 27:51, a verse which is used later on in Counterexamples to Relativity?

AugustO 10:03, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

FYI: over the last week, I searched for a source stating that at the moment is a nuance of ἰδού. I came up empty handed. I now added a source-tag to the translation, and I hope that you will show me where this nuance comes from. Otherwise the translation should be changed back. AugustO 10:41, 15 April 2011 (EDT)


Thank you...

...for getting me unblocked and for your kind e-mail. I'm pleased by your notion that you would not have blocked me, indicating that you are interested in clearing up the details of the translation of John 4:46-54 and Matthew 27:51. Of course I'm contributing to additional entries on the site - and I will go on to do so: at the moment I'm preparing some paragraphs on sundials, as I've learned quite a bit on this subject over the last couple of weeks. And I carry on to add dates to the articles on historical Greek and Roman figures, as well as introducing new Augusts :-)

Anyway, you seemed to be not to pleased that I was causing several us to return to the same issue again, and again, and again. But it isn't this the very definition of an ongoing discussion? For my part, I try to introduce new facts and ideas in my contributions to this discussion, for instance, I showed here, why I think that your argument using a Google search is less than sufficient.

What DouglasA called a snide anecdote was meant to illuminate the fact that even today with our improved ways of time-keeping it's difficult to find out whether two events and two places happened simultaneously.

So, I really hope that you find the time to return to these issues - I will certainly do so!

Yours AugustO 11:06, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

Matthew 27:51

I see that the course on American History is now completed with very satisfactory results. I hope you will find some time to review and comment on my extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue as you stated here on May 13. I'd especially like you to look into the use of the google search.

AugustO 09:52, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Changes explained

  • ἰδοὺ (transliteration: idou) is the second person singular aorist active imperative of the Greek verb οἶδα (eido), which is similar to an exclamation mark or an underline in modern English.

This gave the wrong expression that ἰδοὺ or οἶδα is a kind of exclamation mark. Being a kind of exclamation mark is a just a metaphor, the first thing the reader finds should be the literal translation.

  • The reason for the emphasis -- and the precise translation of the word -- varies depending on context. This is more about interpretation than translation.
  • The King James Version typically translated it as "behold", but that is archaic today. Already mentioned in the section on the KJV.
  • Other anachronistic translations include "lo" or "see", but that merely translates how the word calls attention to what follows from it. That's just the wrong way around: See! is a literal translation, and therefore calls attention to what follows....

So, I made a view changes and moved some of the text further down.

BTW, Aschlafly, on May 13, 2011 you announced that you were preparing an answer to my comments from April 18, 2011 on Talk:John_1-7_(Translated). I would appreciate if you posted your review on this page, especially the explanation for your use of a Google search as (the only!) corroboration of the existence of a nuance of ἰδοὺ which could mean at that moment.

Thanks, AugustO 10:49, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Thoughts

I don't know much Greek, but I do know a little Russian. That language has a word 'же' which seems in principle rather similar to this Greek word - it's an emphatic particle, which adds emphasis to the word it follows. In a context like 'где же август?', 'exactly' would be a very good translation - idiomatically - of 'же': 'where *exactly* is August?'. This seems rather parallel to the controversial case of ιδου. Perhaps my ignorance of Greek means I've missed some obvious flaw in this comparison... Jcw 13:11, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

Many languages use such particles, and different ones in different times: There is no ἰδού in Homer's Iliad for instance (the use of ἰδού in the Gospels shows an Aramaic influence). I argued earlier that wow fulfills a similar function in todays spoken English, but I would not say that ἰδού and wow (or же) are interchangeable.
AugustO 11:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
Indeed no, I'm sure they're not interchangeable; my point is really just that emphatic particles are very difficult to translate idiomatically, often requiring a different translation in each context. This is especially true translating into English, and even more so when translating Scripture, where we must assume that the author used words in the most apt and expressive way, rather than just as decorations or out of habit or error. Therefore in this case, it's important to look at the passage in context and appreciate very thoroughly what it's saying in order to get that one word right. A simple comparison of dictionary definitions won't do at all. Jcw 14:47, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools