Difference between revisions of "Talk:Luke 1-8 (Translated)"
(→Luke 6:26: new section)
(→Luke 6:26: I don't see your edit as an improvement. The "Your fathers" refers back to the same "You" at the beginning of the verse. I'll revert.)
|Line 170:||Line 170:|
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:24, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:24, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
Revision as of 07:40, 17 July 2012
Luke 2:1 -- απογραφεσθαι
απογραφεσθαι can mean either a tax or a census. From the writings of Josephus, it appears that this απογραφεσθαι caused an uprising in Judea, which implies taxation (why would a census cause protests?), so I have translated here as taxation.
But so many sources translate this word as a census, so does anybody know of a reason for this? If so, let me know here and we can discuss and possibly change it. JacobB 18:54, 10 October 2009 (EDT)
Was skimming through the translation, and happened to notice these two verses. The construction here can be thought of as a cause-consequence-ultimate purpose clause (or a dual level purpose clause). Quite often, when a construction has both "eis" and "hina/hopos" in it, the clause after the "eis" indicates the immediate consequence (which may or may not be intended, usually determined by context), and the clause after the "hina/hopos" indicates the ultimate intended purpose. So the structure here is as follows:
Cause: (A) The child will cause the fall and rise of many Israelites
Immediate Consequence: (1B) Many will dispute that He is who He says He is (2B) Mary will be deeply grieved
Ultimate Purpose" (C) to reveal the inner motivations of many people
In this case, it is pretty clear that the 2 immediate consequences (people hating Jesus and Mary getting hurt) are not intended, but they are completely unavoidable. The ultimate purpose of His actions, however, both in the current generation, and in all generations to come, is to reveal the innermost motivations of many people (frankly, I think this means both good and evil motivations, but that is another issue).
I think the translation could probably be slightly adjusted to demonstrate this construction a little better.
Just a thought. God bless. Michael Back 1:40, 8 November 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks for the enlightening explanation! I'll see if I can improve our translation of 2:34-35 as you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 10:37, 8 November 2009 (EST)
In this particular instances, as weird as the word is to us today, each of the men identified including Herod Antipas is τετρααρχοῦντος - tetrarch. A tetrarch was one who ruled over 1/4 of the empire and was subordinate only to the emperor. King gets used frequently incorrectly used to refer to Herod Antipas in translating this term, but he was not a king and Judea was not a kingdom. I am using the word governor instead of king, which isn't controversial when used for Pilate, who had exactly the same role as Herod Antipas - he was tetrarch of Judea. But perhaps there is a better word than both governor or king. Cambrian 22:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
Chapter 3 Verse 12
Master is the original, Teacher is the modern version. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do they say I am?" I am thinking the replacement should be "Rabbi" (a respected authority) or "Great Prophet" (some say Elijah, some say John the Baptist). --Jpatt 12:38, 30 October 2009 (EDT)
- The Greek is 'didaskale' (teacher, instructor). KJV uses 'master' (a very common term for a teacher pre 20th century). I like the old-fashioned 'master', but I think 'teacher' is better understood these days. I think 'Rabbi' is diverging a little from the original word, and 'Great Prophet' is simply not what the original text says *and* breaks the relationship described between Jesus as teacher and his disciples/students. AdeleM 17:37, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- Teacher has different connotations today, as in tenured (and very liberal) public school officials or professors. It may work in some contexts, but I doubt all. Perhaps additional words should be considered: "Sir", "Boss", "Mister", "Coach", others?--Andy Schlafly 18:34, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- I see where you're coming from, but I'm not too comfortable with with using words that are further from the original Greek-- teacher may not be perfect, and it may come with some baggage, but it's still the best fit for 'didaskale'. AdeleM 22:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- Mentor is a very good idea. But it's not used much as a salutation or title, is it?--Andy Schlafly 18:57, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- I don't think it's used much as a title, but I think in the context it would work. Some examples:
- "Tax collectors asked to be baptized, saying, 'Mentor, what should we do?'"
- "And His students awoke Jesus, saying, 'Mentor, we will drown.'"
- "...and Peter said 'Mentor, the crowd is thick, and presses against you...'"
- 19:09, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- I think you're right that "Mentor" does work in many contexts. Great idea!
- One basic translational point is that I don't think the same word should be translated the same way in all uses. I think most would agree, yet it is easy to find superficial criticisms of translating the same Greek word differently in different places. It is a weakness of the word-for-word translations of the NASB and ESV to try to avoid that (baseless) criticism.--Andy Schlafly 19:17, 6 November 2009 (EST)
(unindent)I think that along with word translation comes translation of the context that word was used in. "Mentor" may be a good translation in some areas, but perhaps in others a more formal, subservient "Sir" or "Master" would be in order. I'm not very well-versed in Biblical translation, but I would be more than happy to assist in minute details like this! -- Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:24, 6 November 2009 (EST)
While I'm all for retaining gender-specific language where it exists in the original text, I feel that there are some assumptions being made here that don't really reflect that. In 3:4, for example, the Greek Bible makes it a 'voice in the wilderness', *not* specifically a man's voice. AdeleM 23:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)
- Good point. Where are you on the expression "sons of God"? All modern versions change that to "children of God," presumably to gender-neutralize it (degender -- a new Conservapedia word?). But "children of God" has a very, very different meaning from the Greek and from "sons of God." "Children of God" means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- I don't have a overarching opinion on that, because there's more than one context. For exampke, KJV uses 'sons of God' in clear references to male persons only (ie Genesis 6:2) and to translate the Greek τέκνα θεοῦ (of 1 John 3:1 and elsewhere), which absolutely, 100% really does mean 'children of God'. So, sometimes gender-neutral terms *are* correct, and I think we need to refer to the original text in *every* case. AdeleM 14:36, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- That's fine, but I can't imagine any of the texts to mean "children of God." Rather, that appears to be obvious gender-neutralizing.--Andy Schlafly 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- Honestly, with my general liking for the language of the KJV, that's what I assumed. Then I looked it up, and looked it up somewhere else, and did some additional reading, and looked it up again... etc. τέκνα θεοῦ means "children of God"; the original uses the more inclusive term and the King James Version masculinises it unnecessarily. Nothing for it but to open our minds a little further. AdeleM 15:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)
Chapter 3, Verses 18-20
18. In Greek, the words are εὐηγγελίζετο (could be translated 'preached Good News' or 'evangelized' or just 'preached' and παρακαλῶν parakalōn (exhortations or encouragements). The word 'warning' is just not there.
19. It's a little more complicted than that. Herodias was divorced by Philip and then married Herod Antipas. John's objection was to the fact Herod had married a woman who was the ex-wife of his still-living brother, a condition not permitted in Jewish law. So, the reprove was for an unlawful marriage, and, by extension open fornication, but not adultery.
20. No. The word censor is not in the original, and by throwing John into prison, he did a lot more than that.AdeleM 14:38, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- Excellent points, but the primary meaning of "exhortation" and "Parakaleo" is to admonish, not comfort.
- In verse 19, a better word than adultery to describe the objection would be fine, if one exists in English, but just omitting it altogether seems to leave the reader wondering what the fuss is about.
- In verse 20, the Greek word is "katakleiðw", which literally means to "shut up," presumably both physically and in connection with communicating, the point of the verse.--Andy Schlafly 14:56, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- On 'exhortation'-- I have no problem with 'admonish'-- just with 'warning', which means something a *slightly* different.
- On verse 19-- please see my edit-- I agree it's not quite obvious to the modern audience, but 'adultery' isn't quite what's wrong and probably muddies the waters a bit. I've tried to clarify.
- On verse 20: Nope-- "shut up" means two things in modern English, but the Greek κατακλείω only has the sense of 'incarcerate'. (Honestly, I don't think *any* reader could miss the fact that John criticises Herod and is silenced-- no need to belabour the point.) AdeleM 15:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- You have good ideas and I've learned from this discussion. I wonder why the Greek word κατακλείω could not mean "censor", especially since that is what was happening here. I'll investigate further.
- More generally, I think some of your efforts on verses 18-20 overly emphasize word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity of meaning. If, for example,, "adultery" is the best word we have for verse 19, then isn't it better to use it than to obscure the point? If Herod had an unlawful divorce from another woman, would translators be as reluctant to use the word "bigamy"?--Andy Schlafly 16:28, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- That's not quite it either. Herodias was lawfully divorced from Philip and free to marry, so her second marriage was neither bigamous nor adulterous. The issue was that it was forbidden to marry the brother of a former husband who was still living-- the prohibition is similar to the prohibition of incest. I'm not sure how to express this in the verse other than "unlawful" or perhaps "illicit".
- I'm not actually an absolute word-for-word enthusiast, but when it's straiightforward, I think we should keep it as straightforward as possible and save the interpolation for difficult passages. AdeleM 18:04, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- Ah, just read your edit-- immoral also works, although illicit might be slightly better. AdeleM 18:05, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- You use the word "unlawful", but Herod essentially made the civil law, and John the Baptist wouldn't have cared about civil law. Do you mean unlawful under Jewish law? In that case I don't think "lawful" would be the term. Regardless, I guess if Herod married Herodias, then "adultery" wouldn't be appropriate as the translation.
- I'm all for being straightforward and concise, but I don't think we should obscure meaning simply because the English terminology is inadequate. Sometimes we have to choose the closest English term based on modern connotations, and adultery does seem to capture the basic objection here most concisely. I'm fine with "immoral" or "illicit" but am not confident the reader will really get the point as well.--Andy Schlafly 18:34, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- Yes, of course I meant under Jewish religious law-- sorry I didn't make that a bit clearer. I think, then that we agree that we just don't have a good term for this. I think immoral or illicit will do though, since the larger point is actually that John was silenced for his criticism. I think "shut John up in prison" conveys the point nicely. AdeleM 18:46, 7 November 2009 (EST)
- OK, fine, though I think "adultery" captures the essence of the Jewish prohibition against someone having an affair with his former sister-in-law. In essence, Jewish law does not recognize the divorce with respect to the brother-in-law.--Andy Schlafly 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
I don't see an improvement in capturing original intent by replacing "ostensibly" with "being known as." This may illustrate the difference between translating based on original intent verses a textualist translation. We're the former.--Andy Schlafly 15:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
- No, not at all-- mostly, I just prefer the slightly simpler words-- that and the fact that 'ostensibly' is sometimes used to suggest deceit, which I would rather avoid here. AdeleM 17:40, 8 November 2009 (EST)
- But our version is not dumbing things down. In fact, that is one of our objections to the NIV, which some say is written at only the 4th grade level.
- "Being known as" is not accurate. Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph, John the Baptist and perhaps others always knew he was the Son of God. And "being known as" is not a word-for-word translation of the Greek either. Finally, why should anyone care what others may have thought? "Being known as" just doesn't fit the point of the passage.
- Ostensibly does not imply deceit in English. I saw that nowhere in its definition in the dictionary.--Andy Schlafly 18:31, 8 November 2009 (EST)
- Well, if I said that you are ostensibly here to translate the Bible, I'd be implying that you were really here to do something else. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostensibly I know that's not the *only* meaning, but I'd like to avoid *any* possible misunderstanding on this point.
- Presumably Mary and others didn't "suppose" (KJV's word) Him to be the literal son of Joseph, either.
- Another option might be to say that He *seemed* to be or that he was *apparently* the son of Joseph, which is probably no further from the original and reads a little better.
- I'm not trying to dumb this down-- replacing complex language with simple would be dumbing down, and I'm not doing that. I'm just trying to hang on to some of the plainness of the KJV verse. AdeleM 18:50, 8 November 2009 (EST)
I just saw your very recent translation of Luke 6:35, and have a question about the use of the phrase "sons of God." While I wholeheartedly agree that we don't want to use the gender-neutral "children", the translated verse in a way implies that each good person will become a "son of God." As we know, there is only one Son of God - Jesus Christ. I wonder if this could be rephrased somehow, although it might be difficult (as you pointed out, this verse could be the subject of entire thesis!). --FatherJoseph 19:59, 12 December 2009 (EST)
- Great point. Luke 6:35 is perhaps the toughest single verse yet ... after John 1:1! By the way, the objection I have to "children of God" is that removes our responsibility, accountability, adult-like nature, etc. The KJV does have occasional examples of misguided gender-neutralization, and it's impressive that the NASB is more conservative on this point than the KJV!--Andy Schlafly 20:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)
- ἐχθρός: Jesus expect more from us than to love those who are hated (ἐχθρός as used by Homer) - we have to love even those who hate us (hostiles).
- "charity" should include the concept of "expecting nothing in return"'. But this isn't even mentioned in the merriam-webster definition of charitable. Luke stressed the point by using μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες, so should we.
- AugustO 11:13, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
- μηδὲν ἀπελπίζοντες literally means hoping to receive nothing in return The thing is quite tricky - another meaning of ἀπελπίζω is "to despair".
- "to do good" is the original meaning of ἀγαθοποιέω (a contraction of ἀγαθός - good - and ποιέω - to do). I think that the translation to "do God's work" may be a little bit to restrictive.
- AugustO 07:01, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
For example, in Chapter 1 of Luke, the first verse:
- "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,"
- "Though many have endeavored to write accounts of our most cherished beliefs,"
I have found that the only thing that has been changed are the words. Does anyone else find this? NP 20:23, 12 December 2009 (EST)
- I'm sure of what the Bible means here, but I'm not sure what you mean! I think you're saying that the substance is unchanged for this verse between the KJV and our work-in-progress. I'd agree, and that is usually the case. In fact, to the extent you think the KJV was 100% precise in conveying original intent in 1611 English (not all here would agree), then the substance should always be unchanged.--Andy Schlafly 20:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)
- That is indeed what I meant. I appreciate your explanation for this, now I understand why this is done. NP 20:50, 12 December 2009 (EST)
- NP, thanks for your feedback. We'd welcome your edits on the translation-in-progress itself!--Andy Schlafly 21:44, 12 December 2009 (EST)
I did a little research, hoping wind, "ἄνεμος," might be translated as spirit, but it is not. What I did learn is that Jesus doesn't user ἄνεμος all that much, since it refers to a strong violent wind, and when Jesus uses a wind metaphor for spirit, he used πνεῦμα.  Also, while "broken" may make more sense for staff, the greek is σαλεύω, which means
"1) a motion produced by winds, storms, waves, etc 1a) to agitate or shake 1b) to cause to totter 1c) to shake thoroughly, of a measure filled by shaking its contents together 2) to shake down, overthrow 2a) to cast down from one's (secure and happy) state 2b) to move, agitate the mind, to disturb one"
The last definition seems particuarly interesting to me: to agitate the mind, if there is something else meant by κάλαμος than reed or staff.
Does anybody have a good grasp on what is being said in this passage? JacobB 19:35, 20 December 2009 (EST)
- It's an intriguing mystery. Perhaps ἄνεμος means "the elements" here, and perhaps the entire sentence could be, "A staff broken by the elements?" The meaning could be rhetorical: surely you didn't go out there expecting to find evidence of a man defeated by the harshness of nature.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)
- Kalamos refers to a reed or something made of reeds. Even when it refers to a staff, it's a reed staff. The reed staff is one of John's symbols. However, in the context of the subsequent verses, which emphasize a contrast (a well-dressed man?, no) or parallel (a prophet? yes) to the person of John, it strikes me that "a reed" is a fine translation for kalamos here. Anemos is a wind or gale. Saleuo here is a passive participle that I read as "shook" or "shaken." It seems to me that this sentence is written in the same sense as 25 in that it's meant rhetorically as a contrast to the person of John. I render the sentence exactly as the KJV: A reed shaken with the wind? He was literally as a reed being shaken by the wind while wandering in the desert, but he was also a prophet heralding the coming of Christ's ministry. Cambrian 20:32, 20 December 2009 (EST)
Cambrian, it's always a pleasure to hear from somebody who knows, or is taking Greek. I only wish I could find koine Greek night classes in San Francisco! I agree with your suggestion that "broken" be changed back to "shaken" - they have very different metaphorical meanings. I hear a "reed shaken by the elements," and I think of something fragile and weak up against a brutal and uncaring world, which nonetheless endures - do I have that right? JacobB 20:43, 20 December 2009 (EST)
- (Edit conflict) Good insights, but the question has to be rhetorical in begging an answer of "no" in order to fit with the next rhetorical question, which also plainly has a "no" answer. So first question cannot beg an answer of "yes", and the reed cannot refer to John being shaken. It could mean John NOT being shaken as a reed bends in the wind.--Andy Schlafly 20:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)
You shall suffer, those whom men praise now! Your fathers did likewise for the false prophets.
This is quite messed up. At least it should be their fathers did likewise... For the time being, I reinsert the KJB version, until a better translation is found.
AugustO 07:24, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
- I don't see your edit as an improvement. The "Your fathers" refers back to the same "You" at the beginning of the verse. I'll revert.--Andy Schlafly 08:40, 17 July 2012 (EDT)