One Word, Two Meanings

Eucharisted · #1 5th September 2010, 12:39 AM

In Phil 3:20, we find the word "politeuma". It means a community, but has two different meanings: (abstract) citizenship or (figure) communication.

Which meaning do we go with? For some will say, "Communication means prayer, that's what the verse is stressing," and others will say "Citizenship means brotherhood, that's what the verse is stressing." So a correct translation is necessary, even if both meanings mean the same thing: Community.

In truth, either meaning is correct in as far as the root word contains both meanings, yet, a correct translation requires the context of the words - but this is easier said than done, because, translation can be influenced by one's theology: so someone will read the verse one way and translate it that way.

But that is not even the core problem. The core problem is that, because the words has two meanings, even if you translate it one way or another, it will still hold the other meaning, and so, someone could read it in a new way in light of the other meaning. Thus, it's necessary to translate carefully.

So, what ought to be done with this word? Should it be left untranslated - or even, the whole verse left untranslated - or even, the whole book - or even, the whole Bible? But I think the real solution is even simpler: To translate the verse in light of grammar, context, Pauline theology, Tradition, and Judaism.

Grammar will show the literal translation, context will show the meaning of the words, Pauline theology will show the author's intent, Tradition will show God's meaning, and Judaism will back up the Pauline theology and Tradition - after all, Paul was once a Jew and Sacred Tradition has its roots in Jewish Tradition. (Yet not every so-called "Christian tradition" is Sacred Tradition)

What say you?

ProScribe · #2 5th September 2010, 12:54 AM

I've been a student of Catholicism for a couple years. so yea

ebia · #3 5th September 2010, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Eucharisted

In Phil 3:20, we find the word "politeuma". It means a community, but has two different meanings: (abstract) citizenship or (figure) communication.

Which meaning do we go with? For some will say, "Communication means prayer, that's what the verse is stressing," and others will say "Citizenship means brotherhood, that's what the verse is stressing." So a correct translation is necessary, even if both meanings mean the same thing: Community.

In truth, either meaning is correct in as far as the root word contains both meanings, yet, a correct translation requires the context of the words - but this is easier said than done, because, translation can be influenced by one's theology: so someone will read the verse one way and translate it that way.

But that is not even the core problem. The core problem is that, because the words has two meanings, even if you translate it one way or another, it will still hold the other meaning, and so, someone could read it in a new way in light of the other meaning. Thus, it's necessary to translate carefully.

So, what ought to be done with this word? Should it be left untranslated - or even, the whole verse left untranslated - or even, the whole book - or even, the whole Bible? But I think the real solution is even simpler: To translate the verse in light of grammar, context, Pauline theology, Tradition, and Judaism.

Grammar will show the literal translation, context will show the meaning of the words, Pauline theology will show the author's intent, Tradition will show God's meaning, and Judaism will back up the Pauline theology and Tradition - after all, Paul was once a Jew and Sacred Tradition has its roots in Jewish Tradition. (Yet not every so-called "Christian tradition" is Sacred Tradition)

What say you?

You were okay in your analysis of the problem: that words in Greek each carry different sets of meanings and connotation, but bringing more information (Tradition) to bear doesn't make that go away. Often whichever translation you pick you are limiting or directing what the text says - there is no right answer, only a choice between two or more partially adequate answers. The best you can do is go for the best and footnote the others.

In trying to figure out what the best is then we need to take into account all the best thought that has gone into the matter, but also all the best lexacographal and other scholarship available, and what makes the most sense of the passage within the broader writing of the author. The citizenship metaphor makes enormous sense in a letter to Philippi at this point - albeit has been widely misuderstood by a lot of people since who equate citizenship with where you live.

Mr Dave · #4 5th September 2010, 06:10 AM

You could try a go-between word like "commonwealth" which is what the RSV uses.
Notes are also useful, in John Wesley's translation, he used the traditional "conversation" but with a note saying

Our Conversation - The Greek word is of a very extensive meaning: our citizenship, our thoughts, our affections, are already in heaven. (Italics in original).

ebia · #5 5th September 2010, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Dave

You could try a go-between word like "commonwealth" which is what the RSV uses.

I'm not sure that would be at all helpful to a modern audience.

cyberlizard · #6 5th September 2010, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Dave

You could try a go-between word like "commonwealth" which is what the RSV uses.

the word in its common usage of the period also meant 'way of life'... i.e. where Paul speaks of non_jews being partakers in the 'commonwealth of Israel'... Paul is basically saying that after becoming grafted in to the tree, non_jews have the right to live like Jews live, for example keeping the Sabbath, observing tithing rules, maintaining purity standards, etc. It was not a demand that non_jews observe them, just that they had the right to join in the Jewish 'way of life' by finding their identity in Messiah.

Steve

bugkiller · #7 5th September 2010, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Eucharisted

In Phil 3:20, we find the word "politeuma". It means a community, but has two different meanings: (abstract) citizenship or (figure) communication.

Which meaning do we go with? For some will say, "Communication means prayer, that's what the verse is stressing," and others will say "Citizenship means brotherhood, that's what the verse is stressing." So a correct translation is necessary, even if both meanings mean the same thing: Community.

In truth, either meaning is correct in as far as the root word contains both meanings, yet, a correct translation requires the context of the words - but this is easier said than done, because, translation can be influenced by one's theology: so someone will read the verse one way and translate it that way.

But that is not even the core problem. The core problem is that, because the words has two meanings, even if you translate it one way or another, it will still hold the other meaning, and so, someone could read it in a new way in light of the other meaning. Thus, it's necessary to translate carefully.

So, what ought to be done with this word? Should it be left untranslated - or even, the whole verse left untranslated - or even, the whole book - or even, the whole Bible? But I think the real solution is even simpler: To translate the verse in light of grammar, context, Pauline theology, Tradition, and Judaism.

Grammar will show the literal translation, context will show the meaning of the words, Pauline theology will show the author's intent, Tradition will show God's meaning, and Judaism will back up the Pauline theology and Tradition - after all, Paul was once a Jew and Sacred Tradition has its roots in Jewish Tradition. (Yet not every so-called "Christian tradition" is Sacred Tradition)

What say you?

Could it possibly be getting at our common fellowship over the same things. Who said anything about agreement?

bugkiller

Frogster · #8 5th September 2010, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by cyberlizard

the word in its common usage of the period also meant 'way of life'... i.e. where Paul speaks of non_jews being partakers in the 'commonwealth of Israel'... Paul is basically saying that after becoming grafted in to the tree, non_jews have the right to live like Jews live, for example keeping the Sabbath, observing tithing rules, maintaining purity standards, etc. It was not a demand that non_jews observe them, just that they had the right to join in the Jewish 'way of life' by finding their identity in Messiah.

Steve

Oh please!.Why no Sabbath for the Galatians?. Grafted into Abraham, before all the Jewish bondage. How could Gentiles be grafted into Moses?

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

LittleLambofJesus · #9 5th September 2010, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by cyberlizard the word in its common usage of the period also meant 'way of life'... i.e. where Paul speaks of non_jews being partakers in the 'commonwealth of Israel'... Paul is basically saying that after becoming grafted in to the tree, non_jews have the right to live like Jews live, for example keeping the Sabbath, observing tithing rules, maintaining purity standards, etc. It was not a demand that non_jews observe them, just that they had the right to join in the Jewish 'way of life' by finding their identity in Messiah.
Steve

Originally Posted by Frogster

Oh please!.Why no Sabbath for the Galatians?. Grafted into Abraham, before all the Jewish bondage. How could Gentiles be grafted into Moses?

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Yeah, tis tuff getting away from Sabbath discussions on GT sometimes

http://www.christianforums.com/t7430788/
This Thread Will End All Debate On The Sabbath Once And For