Bible versions

[MoreCoffee]

As we all use Dictionaries on a regular basis then there should be no reason why anyone shouldn't be able to read a Lexicon, they're probably no harder to read than a good exhaustive English dictionary. The best part of a Lexicon is that almost anyone can understand them where the information should keep them from following someone's strange doctrine that they may have based on a single Greek or Hebrew word.

The translators of English bibles are, generally speaking, expert in the languages they are translating from and have a good command of English so when they choose a particular English word in a passage there are likely to be excellent reasons for their choice and one ought not to use a lexicon to "prove" they were wrong on some significant exegetical point. This "proof" lexicography appears to be a common error in on-line discussions about doctrine and holy scripture. One ought to be very cautious about accepting argument by lexicon.

 

[Biblicist]

The translators of English bibles are, generally speaking, expert in the languages they are translating from and have a good command of English so when they choose a particular English word in a passage there are likely to be excellent reasons for their choice and one ought not to use a lexicon to "prove" they were wrong on some significant exegetical point. This "proof" lexicography appears to be a common error in on-line discussions about doctrine and holy scripture. One ought to be very cautious about accepting argument by lexicon.

My point was directed more toward those less than astute lay-individuals who either intentionally or unintentionally attempt to present a position that is poorly based on say a Strong’s concordance definition. It could also be the result of hearing a remark by a preacher on a Sunday morning about what a particular word is supposed to mean or that they have come across a poor definition within a pamphlet.

When it comes to serious Bible study this absolutely requires the services of a good Lexicon and certainly a Concordance that has either the G/K or Strong’s numbering system included – this is definitely not an option. I would be absolutely staggered to hear any Bible translator attempting to suggest that serious Bible study can be performed without these two tools.

With the difficult and often onerous task of Bible translation; every professional translator would be expecting the readers of their Bibles to not only ensure that they have a lexicon and concordance on hand but that they make the effort to refer to the better commentaries as they all fully realise that it is essentially impossible to compile a full formal equivalence translation as more often than not, it can be simply too difficult to fully convey the content of a donor word into a receptor language.

For instance, the translators are well aware that Paul never uses the term ‘spiritual gifts’ but they will often use this problematic term – but often for good reasons. The only way that my comment can be either confirmed or rejected is by referring to a lexicon or maybe a number of lexicons; but in this case any good lexicon should be able to allow even someone with a grade school education to understand how and why this problematic term is frequently used.

As for relying on a Concordance alone, this is probably the best way to fall into trouble as they MUST NEVER be used to define a Greek or Hebrew word, ABSOLUTELY NEVER!!!

One ought to be very cautious about accepting argument by lexicon.

I would be more inclined to lean to the position that any argument that is not based on solid lexical evidence is probably not worth entertaining.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In CF and especially in CF>GT one comes across numerous arguments built on lexicographical proofs which contradict nearly all available English translations and hone in on some lexical outlier definition for their main argument - the alleged "proof". That is the locus of interest in my remarks. One need not venture into other fields where the use of a good lexicon, sound grammar, and careful exegesis will be helpful. Doing so only manages to miss the locus of conversation.

 

[Biblicist]

In CF and especially in CF>GT one comes across numerous arguments built on lexicographical proofs which contradict nearly all available English translations and hone in on some lexical outlier definition for their main argument - the alleged "proof". That is the locus of interest in my remarks. One need not venture into other fields where the use of a good lexicon, sound grammar, and careful exegesis will be helpful. Doing so only manages to miss the locus of conversation.

Would the arguments that you're referring to be based more with Strong's definitions than they would be with solid lexical evidence? From what I've seen with my time on the forum is that whenever solid lexical evidence is supplied that the person doing so may in fact be correct, or maybe even just a 'bit more correct'- but I grant that this does not seem to happen very often.

We've all undoubtedly seen where people have cut and pasted a horrid brief excerpt from an online Strong's dictionary which of course carries absolutely no weight whatsoever; we can add to this the often outlandish conclusions that people can make once they have done this.

When a good lexicon is being employed within a discussion it often allows the other person to go and check the evidence where they can either acknowledge or reject the proposition being offered.

For example, in my last post I made mention that Paul has never employed the term 'spiritual gifts' which can only be checked with a lexicon or a good commentary which is based on lexical information.

With 'pneumatikos' in 1Cor 12:1, the only way that we can understand what Paul meant is from within a theological framework where we need to look at his presentation before we can make a decision. This is where the various translators such as the Exegetical scholar Gordon Fee (NIV) can be of great service, as he will supply a wealth of lexical information to either support or reject a specific position that was held by the translation committee.

If we look at the following Strong's (NASB) definition then we can see that it is of little help, but when we look at the Gingrich and Friberg lexicons we can better understand the dilemna that all translation committees have with this very difficult word.

By reading the better lexicons we can often come to realise that words are complicate creatures where even the best translators simply have to make an educated guess as to what a Biblical writer meant with a specific word.

Strong's Concordance (NASB)

<4152> pneumatiko,j pneumatikos

Meaning: spiritual
Origin: from 4151
Usage: spiritual(23), spiritual men(1), spiritual things(2).​

Gingrich Lexicon:

5219 pneumatiko,j
pneumatiko,j, h,, o,n pertaining to the spirit, spiritual—1. caused by or filled with the (divine) Spirit, pertaining or corresponding to the (divine) Spirit—a. as adj. Ro 1:11; 7:14; 1 Cor 10:3f; 15:44; Eph 1:3; 5:19; Col 1:9; 3:16; 1 Pt 2:5. o` pneumatiko.j (a;nqrwpoj) in 1 Cor 2:15 means the spiritual person, whose powers of judgment are directed by the divine pneu/ma. Cf. also 1 Cor 15:47 v.l.—b. subst. ta. pneumatika, spiritual things or matters Ro 15:27; 1 Cor 2:13; 9:11; 15:46. Spiritual gifts 1 Cor 12:1; 14:1. o` pneumatiko,j the one who possesses the Spirit 1 Cor 3:1; 14:37; Gal 6:1.—2. pertaining to (evil) spirits subst. spirit-forces Eph 6:12.* [pneumatic] [pg 162]​

Friberg Lexicon

22291 pneumatiko,j, h,, o,n spiritual, pertaining to the spirit, opposite sarkiko,j (fleshly, carnal) and sa,rkinoj (worldly, earthly); (1) as distinguishing the nonmaterial from the material part of man; (2) predominately as distinguishing what belongs to the supernatural world from what belongs to the natural world (1C 15.44, 46); substantivally o` p. the spiritual person, the Spirit-filled person, i.e. a person possessing and governed by the Spirit of God ( 1C 2.15); neuter plural ta. pneumatika, spiritual things or matters (1C 9.11); spiritual gifts or enablements (1C 14.1); (3) as an adjective expressing the qualifying characteristic of impersonal things under the divine order spiritual ( RO 7.14); (4) as an adjective denoting relationship to satanic forces; neuter plural ta. pneumatika. th/j ponhri,aj as a substantive spiritual forces of evil, supernatural evil powers (EP 6.12)​

 

[Thekla]

I hope this won't detract from the thread, but where do your concerns lay with 'paradosis', is it with 'traditions' or 'teachings'.

The word paradosis means roughly tradition; that it is sometimes translated as teachings, which is an altogether different term, is my concern.

 

[Thekla]

I forgot !

For the Masoretic OT, I use the Stone edition of the Tanach (and very much like it)
ArtScroll.com - Stone Edition Tanach - Full Size (7" x 10") - Black

 

[MoreCoffee]

I forgot !

For the Masoretic OT, I use the Stone edition of the Tanach (and very much like it)
ArtScroll.com - Stone Edition Tanach - Full Size (7" x 10") - Black

I had one of those but gave it to a friend for his son.

 

[Thekla]

I had one of those but gave it to a friend for his son.

bet he was pleased

It reads quite nicely .... "In the beginning of God's creating ..." just a beautiful way to express it. (And the notes are very helpful as well)

though I admit, it can be a bit disorienting to read "backwards" when reading this OT along with my LXX

 

[MKJ]

As we all use Dictionaries on a regular basis then there should be no reason why
anyone shouldn't be able to read a Lexicon, there probably no harder to read then a good exhaustive English dictionary. The best part of a Lexicon is that almost anyone can understand them where the information should keep them from following someone's strange doctrine that they may have based on a single Greek or Hebrew word.

I've studied Greek and Latin and frankly I think this is bunk. Translation is much more complicated than looking at a dictionary.

A real ancient language dictionary is huge, it talks about many different ways of using the words, their different contexts, how they changed over time, how different writers used them in different ways. These dictionaries are complied by experts in those languages, and still they are to some extent an interpretation.

Even an undergraduate who is studying these languages, who knows how to use these dictionaries, is still only going to be able to produce a very crude translation. Being able to give a really good one depends on having a real sense of the language, of reading hundreds and hundreds of texts. Just like if someone wanted to translate Jane Austen into French credibly, they would need to read many many other English books to be able to have an interior sense of what is being said.

People with little or no background in the languages going to Greek or Hebrew lexicons to decide on the correct meaning of a word or passage are fooling themselves. They are less likely to get it right than pretty much anyone who could be credibly employed to do the translation in the first place.

Better to pick three translations and look at the differences. Or, maybe actually read what has been said by commentators like the Fathers over the years.

 

[Thekla]

The translators of English bibles are, generally speaking, expert in the languages they are translating from and have a good command of English so when they choose a particular English word in a passage there are likely to be excellent reasons for their choice and one ought not to use a lexicon to "prove" they were wrong on some significant exegetical point. This "proof" lexicography appears to be a common error in on-line discussions about doctrine and holy scripture. One ought to be very cautious about accepting argument by lexicon.

My point was directed more toward those less than astute lay-individuals who either intentionally or unintentionally attempt to present a position that is poorly based on say a Strong’s concordance definition. It could also be the result of hearing a remark by a preacher on a Sunday morning about what a particular word is supposed to mean or that they have come across a poor definition within a pamphlet.

When it comes to serious Bible study this absolutely requires the services of a good Lexicon and certainly a Concordance that has either the G/K or Strong’s numbering system included – this is definitely not an option. I would be absolutely staggered to hear any Bible translator attempting to suggest that serious Bible study can be performed without these two tools.

With the difficult and often onerous task of Bible translation; every professional translator would be expecting the readers of their Bibles to not only ensure that they have a lexicon and concordance on hand but that they make the effort to refer to the better commentaries as they all fully realise that it is essentially impossible to compile a full formal equivalence translation as more often than not, it can be simply too difficult to fully convey the content of a donor word into a receptor language.

For instance, the translators are well aware that Paul never uses the term ‘spiritual gifts’ but they will often use this problematic term – but often for good reasons. The only way that my comment can be either confirmed or rejected is by referring to a lexicon or maybe a number of lexicons; but in this case any good lexicon should be able to allow even someone with a grade school education to understand how and why this problematic term is frequently used.

As for relying on a Concordance alone, this is probably the best way to fall into trouble as they MUST NEVER be used to define a Greek or Hebrew word, ABSOLUTELY NEVER!!!


I would be more inclined to lean to the position that any argument that is not based on solid lexical evidence is probably not worth entertaining.

To some extent I agree, and to some extent I disagree ...

for translators tend to learn from and lean on previous translations (the anomalous translation of mev in the Lukan passage regarding Mary/Mariam is one example) which also colors their decision.

But also, the richer (often untranslatable) or more nuanced understanding of a term is often lost in translation, but also lost when one's education is entirely academic, cut off from the cultural mindset of the language itself and those who produced the text.

 

[Thekla]

I've studied Greek and Latin and frankly I think this is bunk. Translation is much more complicated than looking at a dictionary.

A real ancient language dictionary is huge, it talks about many different ways of using the words, their different contexts, how they changed over time, how different writers used them in different ways. These dictionaries are complied by experts in those languages, and still they are to some extent an interpretation.

Even an undergraduate who is studying these languages, who knows how to use these dictionaries, is still only going to be able to produce a very crude translation. Being able to give a really good one depends on having a real sense of the language, of reading hundreds and hundreds of texts. Just like if someone wanted to translate Jane Austen into French credibly, they would need to read many many other English books to be able to have an interior sense of what is being said.

People with little or no background in the languages going to Greek or Hebrew lexicons to decide on the correct meaning of a word or passage are fooling themselves. They are less likely to get it right than pretty much anyone who could be credibly employed to do the translation in the first place.

Better to pick three translations and look at the differences. Or, maybe actually read what has been said by commentators like the Fathers over the years.

(and even, once again, three translations may carry forward a pov that is not supported in the text etc.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

I've studied Greek and Latin and frankly I think this is bunk. Translation is much more complicated than looking at a dictionary.

A real ancient language dictionary is huge, it talks about many different ways of using the words, their different contexts, how they changed over time, how different writers used them in different ways. These dictionaries are complied by experts in those languages, and still they are to some extent an interpretation.

Even an undergraduate who is studying these languages, who knows how to use these dictionaries, is still only going to be able to produce a very crude translation. Being able to give a really good one depends on having a real sense of the language, of reading hundreds and hundreds of texts. Just like if someone wanted to translate Jane Austen into French credibly, they would need to read many many other English books to be able to have an interior sense of what is being said.

People with little or no background in the languages going to Greek or Hebrew lexicons to decide on the correct meaning of a word or passage are fooling themselves. They are less likely to get it right than pretty much anyone who could be credibly employed to do the translation in the first place.

Better to pick three translations and look at the differences. Or, maybe actually read what has been said by commentators like the Fathers over the years.

Some very good points here. Just the experience of studying Japanese with native speakers will underscore how much culture affects language and understanding, and that is only within a completely modern context. Understanding the complexities of something as simple as counting words is very complicated, and in something more nuanced like terms of address and the honor system, one quickly realizes that books are inadequate for easily transmitting everything one needs to know.

We used to have a very entertaining time by writing familiar passages and translating it into Chinese (for example) then back into English using online word-for-word translators. Sometimes we would put them through several translations, which might make them nearly unrecognizeable. But even a single "generation" is often hilariously inaccurate. Of course, there is no human element choosing words (one hopes) carefully. But still, it's easy enough to see how difficult and complicated it can be. And for those of us in the US, we are separated by language, culture, mindset, and thousands of years.

 

[Biblicist]

I've studied Greek and Latin and frankly I think this is bunk. Translation is much more complicated than looking at a dictionary.

As for being “bunk”, if we were to apply your views to those who maybe wake up in the morning where they wonder, “Where am I, who am I and even what am I”, then maybe there could be some truth with what you have said but as most people can wake up knowing who they are and that they are more than able to read simple instructions, then they’re the ones who I am talking to – which is undoubtedly the vast majority or all of us.

A real ancient language dictionary is huge, . . .

The more comprehensive dictionaries can certainly be large but such is the nature of the dictionary but the lexicons are a different matter but my abridged copy of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is still only 6cm. The lexicons are a different matter where my important BAGD Greek Lexicon is only 5cm wide. As for my numerous commentaries none are wider than 6cm though Keener’s very comprehensive four volume work on Acts which in itself is a lexical work would stack up to about 25cm.

it talks about many different ways of using the words, their different contexts, how they changed over time, how different writers used them in different ways. These dictionaries are complied by experts in those languages, and still they are to some extent an interpretation.

Very good! Now this why every serious student of the Scriptures will naturally gravitate to the Greek lexicons and particularly with the newer commentaries that were published since the 80’s – they simply cannot be kept apart.
I seriously doubt if anyone who picks up a lexicon or commentary ever intends to publish their own translation of the Bible; but every serious student of the Bible will certainly want to understand the semantic range of each of the Greek words behind our translations where they will quickly understand the difficult choices that the various translation committees have to make at times; this is something that virtually anyone can effectively do with a bit of exposure (takes time) to these tools.

The advantage that I had was that 25 years ago I was able to sit through a weekly session in our church over about a six month period where we went through the various study tools, starting from the humble Strong’s
concordance along with the old Thayer’s lexicon, TWOT etc. Even though we were all a bit goggled eyed with this fabulous material, since this time there has been an incredible explosion of superb lexical and commentary works which makes our rudimentary introduction seem almost a bit quaint.

People with little or no background in the languages going to Greek or Hebrew lexicons to decide on the correct meaning of a word or passage are fooling themselves. They are less likely to get it right than pretty much anyone who could be credibly employed to do the translation in the first place.

Are you serious! Maybe we walk in different circles but with time anyone can gain a good appreciation of the semantic range of a Greek word which should be enough to keep them out of trouble. Go back to my post #44 regarding 1Cor 12:1 with our English word ‘spiritual gifts, “spiritual persons, “spirituals things” or with my preference “spiritual matters”. This question can easily be understood by checking out a good lexicon and particularly with that of a good contemporary commentary such as the ones authored by Carson, Fee, Garland, Thiselton or Witherington.

Better to pick three translations and look at the differences.

That would definitely be an absolute waste of time. Don't forget, where not talking about general reading but serious Bible study.

Or, maybe actually read what has been said by commentators like the Fathers over the years.

For those who belong to traditions that rely heavily on the works of the early churchmen then I have no doubt that this would be obligatory; but for most of us we are better served by reading the more recent peer-reviewed commentaries as the research by these individuals far outweighs that of the early churchmen.

Thankfully there are a number of great books which can assist those who are not familiar with how they can use the various Biblical study tools and they will be able to explain what I have said in far greater detail. Fee's books "How to Study the Bible for all its worth" can be a great start.

 

[Biblicist]

To some extent I agree, and to some extent I disagree ...

for translators tend to learn from and lean on previous translations (the anomalous translation of mev in the Lukan passage regarding Mary/Mariam is one example) which also colors their decision.

But also, the richer (often untranslatable) or more nuanced understanding of a term is often lost in translation, but also lost when one's education is entirely academic, cut off from the cultural mindset of the language itself and those who produced the text.

As my study practices keep me well entrenched within the world of the better commentaries and lexicons then what I have posted simply reflects the practices and suggestions of these scholars. No scholar worth his salt would ever dare suggest that the average reader would be unable to satisfactorily understand the meaning of any Greek word - absolutely none.

One of the more interesting aspects of threads such as these is with the fascination that people have with trying to find the better so called "literal" version which any serious student of the Scriptures understands does not (and cannot) exist - it is simply a myth. Even though I use both versions of the NIV for general reading, simply because the NIV is the main English Bible, I still prefer the superb NASB(95) but even this great version has its weaknesses as do all versions as it is absolutely impossible to faithfully translate a passage from any donor language into a receptor language.

When it comes to the development of the various Greek words, since the 80's there has been a major shift with our commentaries toward the development of the Greek language not only from the early Classic period through to the Koine period but with how the various secular sources have employed the words that the Biblical authors have used. We can add to this the fascinating work with socio-rhetorical studies as well so anyone can gain a good understanding of the semantic range of a given Greek word.

 

[Thekla]

As my study practices keep me well entrenched within the world of the better commentaries and lexicons then what I have posted simply reflects the practices and suggestions of these scholars. No scholar worth his salt would ever dare suggest that the average reader would be unable to satisfactorily understand the meaning of any Greek word - absolutely none.

One of the more interesting aspects of threads such as these is with the fascination that people have with trying to find the better so called "literal" version which any serious student of the Scriptures understands does not (and cannot) exist - it is simply a myth. Even though I use both versions of the NIV for general reading, simply because the NIV is the main English Bible, I still prefer the superb NASB(95) but even this great version has its weaknesses as do all versions as it is absolutely impossible to faithfully translate a passage from any donor language into a receptor language.

When it comes to the development of the various Greek words, since the 80's there has been a major shift with our commentaries toward the development of the Greek language not only from the early Classic period through to the Koine period but with how the various secular sources have employed the words that the Biblical authors have used. We can add to this the fascinating work with socio-rhetorical studies as well so anyone can gain a good understanding of the semantic range of a given Greek word.

It's still 'academic', not living. Recent studies have confirmed the theory that language shapes the brain, so to speak, even affecting our ability to see particular colors. The academic recovery of a lost language is no substitute for the living, and traditioned knowledge of a language. Else learning French as an adult would make you French, as French as anyone who was born and grew up French.

 

[MKJ]

But also, the richer (often untranslatable) or more nuanced understanding of a term is often lost in translation, but also lost when one's education is entirely academic, cut off from the cultural mindset of the language itself and those who produced the text.

Yes, I think this is part of what I was trying to get at.

It's not just "what could this word mean" but "how did people in the X century think about reality".

If one had to choose, I think the second of those things would be much better than a little language study to understand the text. We are very lucky that we all have access to good translations from ancient times, and we can actually manage to some extent to put on the mind of the ancient world. Not putting on that mindset causes far more errors than arguments over which word the translator should have chosen.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, I think this is part of what I was trying to get at.

It's not just "what could this word mean" but "how did people in the X century think about reality".

If one had to choose, I think the second of those things would be much better than a little language study to understand the text. We are very lucky that we all have access to good translations from ancient times, and we can actually manage to some extent to put on the mind of the ancient world. Not putting on that mindset causes far more errors than arguments over which word the translator should have chosen.

 

[James Is Back]

What do they say "a little Greek is dangerous".

 

[MKJ]

The more comprehensive dictionaries can certainly be large but such is the nature of the dictionary but the lexicons are a different matter but my abridged copy of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is still only 6cm. The lexicons are a different matter where my important BAGD Greek Lexicon is only 5cm wide. As for my numerous commentaries none are wider than 6cm though Keener’s very comprehensive four volume work on Acts which in itself is a lexical work would stack up to about 25cm.

Yes, this is my point. I am telling you that even with a full dictionary, if you do not have expertise in the language, it will not be very useful to you, because you won't be able to make a reasonable judgement about which approach to use.

Using a little lexicon doesn't solve that problem, it makes it worse - you aren't even getting the back-ground information about why one choice might be appropriate for your situation and another not.

Are you serious! Maybe we walk in different circles but with time anyone can gain a good appreciation of the semantic range of a Greek word which should be enough to keep them out of trouble. Go back to my post #44 regarding 1Cor 12:1 with our English word ‘spiritual gifts, “spiritual persons, “spirituals things” or with my preference “spiritual matters”. This question can easily be understood by checking out a good lexicon and particularly with that of a good contemporary commentary such as the ones authored by Carson, Fee, Garland, Thiselton or Witherington.

This hardly matters if they aren't able to discern which possibilities do not make sense. They are as likely to make an erroneous interpretation as a good one.

That would definitely be an absolute waste of time. Don't forget, where not talking about general reading but serious Bible study.

Yes, so am I. I was a classics major in university, I know people who study ancient texts for a living, which is very serious, and I have read ancient texts in the original languages myself.

I can tell you that as a university level student with three years of Latin, studying a Latin text with a dictionary, with a professor who was an expert in those authors as a guide, that the study was in no way a matter of the students looking at the dictionaries to get a better sense of what the author meant than could be found in a translation by an actual expert. It was, for us, purely an exersize in practicing reading the language well enough that one day we could be able to do so in a really useful way. It was largely a struggle to see why the translator had made the choices he did.

We, with some language knowledge, and academic level dictionaries, were often making bad decisions about the translations we did ourselves, which means we were misunderstanding the text - that's why we needed the professor who not only was much more fluent, but knew the author and all his writing, and the writings of his teachers and contemporaries.

A bunch of people in Bible study with a lexicon aren't likely to do better. And they will be spending a heck of a lot of time thinking about language issues rather than the gospel.

For those who belong to traditions that rely heavily on the works of the early churchmen then I have no doubt that this would be obligatory; but for most of us we are better served by reading the more recent peer-reviewed commentaries as the research by these individuals far outweighs that of the early churchmen.

The people of the early church have a huge advantage over every peer reviewed modern scholar, and that is that they spoke these languages as a native, and they had the mindset of the people and time. No one has those things today. Some of them even knew the apostles, and no one can say that today either.

In fact, the way experts of today squire that kind of knowledge of the language and mind of the writers of scriptures is by reading those texts of the early church, or also pagans and jews of the same period. There is a good reason the study of those things in the academic world generally go together.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What do they say "a little Greek is dangerous".

One hopes that diminutive Greeks everywhere didn't see that

A lexicon in hand and an interlinear new testament does not make one a competent translator of Greek into English. That is what is being said.

If one is not well versed in Greek then let the Translators do their job and don't pretend knowledge that one does not possess is the rubric.