Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated)

21:12

Reversion explained: the edit significantly weakened the translation and introduced terms like "cashier" that are out of place. Please discuss first before making a sweeping edit in this entry.--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 19 November 2009 (EST)

28:19 - "Divine Guide"

I am curious about the translation of "Holy Ghost" to "Divine Guide". I would have expected "Holy Spirit", but this alternate term is very intriguing and I would like to learn more about it. Can anyone comment on how this term was developed? --FatherJoseph 14:57, 12 December 2009 (EST)

A quick google on both gave me the impression that both are commonly used interchangingly. But personally, I find that 'Divine Guide' flows that fits a lot better with what or who the 'Holy Ghost' is meant to be. It is meant to be an urging or pull on someone's heart or spirit to do good things. Or if I might say so, a Guide. It fits in my mind. MHarris

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)

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