tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Better Bibles BlogWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger10407125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-4111658941189106012008-10-28T14:56:00.000-07:002008-10-28T14:56:00.000-07:00Dru wondered:Wayne following your wife's view, how...Dru wondered:<BR/><BR/><I>Wayne following your wife's view, how about 'Surely goodness and mercy shall dog me all the days of my life'.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds decent, Dru. Makes a nice pun with my blog post title and picture!<BR/><BR/><I>Or if that is too informal - 'chase'.</I><BR/><BR/>This seems reasonable also.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the suggestions.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-50260847500931972742008-10-28T12:59:00.000-07:002008-10-28T12:59:00.000-07:00Wayne following your wife's view, how about 'Surel...Wayne following your wife's view, how about <BR/>'Surely goodness and mercy shall dog me all the days of my life'.<BR/>Or if that is too informal - 'chase'.Druhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08347832269516755388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-43569872795485700932008-10-28T12:56:00.000-07:002008-10-28T12:56:00.000-07:00I know this is a bit late, but if the object in Gr...I know this is a bit late, but if the object in Greek is elided, and something should be added as an object to make this a proper translation, aren't most of the examples cited being too presumptuous in selecting what is heard, such as 'the message' or 'the good news'. Shouldn't the elided object be something neutral as in the RSV or the following -<BR/><BR/>'Faith comes by hearing something, and that something is by hearing the words of Christ' <BR/><BR/>- note, I also prefer not to use 'word' (singular) in the NT to translate anything else other than logos. That though is probably an oddity of my own.Druhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08347832269516755388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-43014668188057301722008-10-28T11:31:00.000-07:002008-10-28T11:31:00.000-07:00John, my instincts about "also" are similar to you...John, my instincts about "also" are similar to yours. For me, as a general rule, "also" relates to what follows, whereas "too" and "as well" relate to what precedes.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-75260980477082616912008-10-28T10:51:00.000-07:002008-10-28T10:51:00.000-07:00Thanks for your thoughts, WayneIt seems to me that...Thanks for your thoughts, Wayne<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that in "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can also preach there", I take "also" to refer to "preach there" rather than just "preach". Analysing my preferred usage further in these extracts, it would seem that I like "also" to precede a verb, the exception being "were" (so "were also" as in 4:36 and 15:41 is ok, but I'm less happy with "also were" in 14:67, although it doesn't grate as much as end-of-clause usage does).<BR/><BR/>I'd guess this highlights one problem with trying to produce "standard" English translations: there's no such thing as "standard English". What sounds natural to some will sound odd to others. Now while I can *understand* the passages that have my non-preferred usage, usages that sound unnatural to the reader or listener still produce a "jolt" that detracts and distracts from what is actually being said.<BR/>___<BR/><BR/>Back on topic, I see that HCSB, ISV, NAB (New American Bible), NLT2, Rotherham and Young all go for "pursue".John Radcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17457933540067146460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-66404640805425001712008-10-28T07:55:00.000-07:002008-10-28T07:55:00.000-07:00John, for many (but apparently not all, as your in...John, for many (but apparently not all, as your intuitions show), "also" and "too" are synonyms, interchangeable. For such speakers "also" appears in different places in a sentence depending on what it is is modifying (or within its "scope" to use a technical term).<BR/><BR/>1:38 "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also."<BR/><BR/>Here "also" is "modifying" villages, that is, Jesus has been preaching in the location where he is speaking, but he wants to preach in other areas. "Also" here affects location.<BR/><BR/>"Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages--so I can also preach there."<BR/><BR/>Here (for me, anyway), "also" is "modifying" preach, that is, Jesus has been doing something, such as performing miracles, in the location in which he is speaking. Now he wants to add the activity of preaching to what he is doing.<BR/><BR/>Now, it's not quite as clearcut as this, since many people can get either the location or activity reference for "also" in the second sentence.<BR/><BR/>As others have pointed out here, and I hope I have, as well, language speakers do not always follow the very rules which they themselves (or their parents and peers) typically do. But we still are able to get our intended meanings across to others, at least some of the time. :-)Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-40999289209922908472008-10-28T07:46:00.000-07:002008-10-28T07:46:00.000-07:00The NET Bible translation uses "pursue", "Surely y...The NET Bible translation uses "pursue", "Surely your goodness and faithfulness will pursue me all my days..." There is a note for the word "pursue" which says:<BR/><BR/>The use of רָדַף (radaf, “pursue, chase”) with טוֹב וָחֶסֶד (tov vakhesed, “goodness and faithfulness”) as subject is ironic. This is the only place in the entire OT where either of these nouns appears as the subject of this verb רָדַף (radaf, “pursue”). This verb is often used to describe the hostile actions of enemies. One might expect the psalmist’s enemies (see v. 5) to chase him, but ironically God’s “goodness and faithfulness” (which are personified and stand by metonymy for God himself) pursue him instead. The word “pursue” is used outside of its normal context in an ironic manner and creates a unique, but pleasant word picture of God’s favor (or a kind God) “chasing down” the one whom he loves.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17037149915676335084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-23548489100996557572008-10-28T06:35:00.000-07:002008-10-28T06:35:00.000-07:00Wayne,Please also excuse me from taking you off-to...Wayne,<BR/><BR/>Please also excuse me from taking you off-topic. My question is triggered your sentence: "I like puppies, also." I don't want to hijack your thread, so please feel free to delete, ignore or move this comment as you consider appropriate.<BR/>___<BR/><BR/>I find that the way many people use "also" frequently "jars" on my ear when I'm reading. The reason would seem to be that in "standard" English (i.e. English as used the majority of speakers and writers) "also" is (or can be) post-fixed, while to me it "should" always be pre-fixed (so I would never use it at the end of a clause).<BR/><BR/>Do you have any thoughts? Does anyone else reading this share my “problem", or is it just me?<BR/><BR/>I give below examples from Mark's gospel, where the TNIV I quote scores 9 "ok" out of 12 uses.<BR/><BR/><B>These 3 are problematic</B> to me (they "jar" on my ear):<BR/><BR/>1:38 "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there <B>also</B>."<BR/>I would reword this as: "… so I can also preach there." (Or "… so I can preach there too.")<BR/><BR/>8:7 "They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them <B>also</B> and told the disciples to distribute them."<BR/>I would put: "… he also gave thanks for them …" (Or "he gave thanks for them too")<BR/><BR/>14:67 "When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him. "You <B>also</B> were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said."<BR/>I would put "You were also with …" (Here I wouldn't suggest "You too …" as it could be misheard as "You two …")<BR/><BR/><B>The remaining 9 all sound ok</B> to me:<BR/><BR/>1:34 "Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He <B>also</B> drove out many demons."<BR/>2:26 "… he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread…. And he <B>also</B> gave some to his companions."<BR/>4:26 "He <B>also</B> said …"<BR/>4:36 "Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were <B>also</B> other boats with him"<BR/>6:41 "Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He <B>also</B> divided the two fish among them all."<BR/>12:21 "The second one married the widow, but he <B>also</B> died, leaving no child."<BR/>14:9 "Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will <B>also</B> be told, in memory of her."<BR/>15:32 "Those crucified with him <B>also</B> heaped insults on him."<BR/>15:41 "In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were <B>also</B> there."John Radcliffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17457933540067146460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-21455064320441009522008-10-28T00:50:00.000-07:002008-10-28T00:50:00.000-07:00Listen, I know this is off-topic, but I don't know...Listen, I know this is off-topic, but I don't know where else to ask this, as there is no forum connected to this site. So, please bear with the interuption.<BR/><BR/>I've read in at least one standard reference work that in the history of the use of the Greek equivalent of baptism/to baptize that the word came to take on an alternate meaning: death/to die, from the idea of drowning, and the constant use of the word in reference to drowned sailors at sea.<BR/><BR/>My question is whether any of you out there have any thoughts as to whether this ancient sense of the word carries weight in the Koine of the New Testament, such as in passages like Colossians 2:12?David Gregghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16128777288926435153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-19688337868372261072008-10-27T23:16:00.000-07:002008-10-27T23:16:00.000-07:00Michael asked, probably rhetorically:But if we are...Michael asked, probably rhetorically:<BR/><BR/><I>But if we are talking about the "faith comes by hearing" clause in its context, that is another matter, isn't it?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is, Michael. Hopefully, readers would at least understand the meaning that is intended. Understand, of course, doesn't make something grammatical.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you field test the entire verse, or even the verse in the entire discourse section. And then you can ask people what they think is heard in 10:17a. Let us know the results.<BR/><BR/>I'm always glad to be proven wrong. There's nothing like getting closer to the truth, and the One who is the Truth. What a privilege we have. What a challenging, interesting journey we are on.<BR/><BR/>Have you heard? Have you read? :-)Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-82156110020937789942008-10-27T21:13:00.000-07:002008-10-27T21:13:00.000-07:00Well, I'll grant that you're right only if you are...Well, I'll grant that you're right only if you are talking about a clause which must communicate "the meaning that there is something specific that is heard" all by itself, apart from any context of discourse which would indicate the object. If that's what you've been talking about, your point is true, but trivial.<BR/><BR/>But if we are talking about the "faith comes by hearing" clause <I>in its context</I>, that is another matter, isn't it? I don't see any good reason why it should be called ungrammatical when the word "hearing" is used with an implicit object <I>to be inferred from the context</I>, and I think I quoted some decent examples of this usage from printed sources that generally adhere to standard English.Michael Marlowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04094927012917474680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-21142957525164941882008-10-27T20:49:00.000-07:002008-10-27T20:49:00.000-07:00Hunt and hound, now those are vivid words, also. T...Hunt and hound, now those are vivid words, also. Thanks for sharing your translation of Ps. 23, Bob.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-49556261265067537412008-10-27T20:48:00.000-07:002008-10-27T20:48:00.000-07:00Pursue, see folks! There it is. Right from the Heb...Pursue, see folks! There it is. Right from the Hebrew poet's pen, er, keyboard. Now isn't that just cool, or what?!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing that, John.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-83778081629591686272008-10-27T20:00:00.000-07:002008-10-27T20:00:00.000-07:00BibleGateway.com and Gospel.com Acquired by Zonder...<A HREF="http://tatumweb.com/blog/2008/10/27/gospelcom-2/" REL="nofollow">BibleGateway.com and Gospel.com Acquired by Zondervan</A><BR/><BR/>Rich<BR/><A HREF="http://tatumweb.com/blog/" REL="nofollow">BlogRodent</A>Rich Tatumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290320244688616885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-66105989970210307952008-10-27T19:24:00.000-07:002008-10-27T19:24:00.000-07:00"Poreuthentes" is known as an "attendant circumsta..."Poreuthentes" is known as an "attendant circumstance participle," which _borrows the idea of the mode of the main verb_. So, in this case, "poreuthentes" takes on the imperatival nature of "matheteusate"--hence the reason it is often translated "go," such as in "go and make disciples." However, as Mike has already noted, the use of the conjunction "and" makes the preposition seem equal to the verb in English.<BR/><BR/>The grammatical construction in Matthew 28:19 is similar to that of Matthew 9:13. In the former, it is "poreuthentes matheteusate," in the latter, "poreuthentes mathete." In the context of 9:13, Christ is not commanding them to physically "go" anywhere; He is commanding them to apply themselves to learning the meaning of the quote from Hosea 6:6. It makes little sense to translate this as "having gone, learn" or "as you go, learn."<BR/><BR/>In Matthew 9:13, "poreuthentes" means that they were to _pursue_ a true understanding of Hosea 6:6. In Matthew 28:19, "go" implies that we are to _pursue_ the discipleship of all peoples. In both cases, _the deliberate journey toward the achievement of the main task_ (the imperative) is meant by the inclusion of "poreuthentes." It is used in this way in many other verses in the New Testament. Here are just a few more: Matthew 2:8; 11:4; Luke 9:13; 13:32; 22:8.<BR/><BR/>These are the reasons why I think Matthew 28:19 should render "poreuthentes matheteusate" as "go make disciples" or "go disciple", just as its counterpart in Matthew 9:13 should render "go learn"--neither with "and."David Gregghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16128777288926435153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-64306889146026777352008-10-27T18:53:00.000-07:002008-10-27T18:53:00.000-07:00It's closer to alliteration than punning. And it i...It's closer to alliteration than punning. And it is clever to try and imitate but usually impossible.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-33207082023670717352008-10-27T18:43:00.000-07:002008-10-27T18:43:00.000-07:00Hound would be an appropriate translation of pursu...Hound would be an appropriate translation of pursue/follow.<BR/><BR/>And I think rebuke is also appropriate for XSD in that verse. That's because I know the voice that says to me - 'we don't do things that way'. A rebuke from HaShem is surely mercy incarnate.<BR/><BR/>My first raw translation is <A HREF="http://bmd.gx.ca/psalms/167.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A>Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-49425334442921644712008-10-27T18:42:00.000-07:002008-10-27T18:42:00.000-07:00Here is the translation of Psalm 23 I posted on my...Here is the translation of Psalm 23 I posted on my blog many moons ago:<BR/><BR/>יהוה is my shepherd,<BR/> I shall not want.<BR/>In grassy meadows he lets me lie,<BR/> guides me to quiet streams,<BR/> my spirit he revives.<BR/>He leads me along the right paths<BR/> as befits his name.<BR/><BR/>Were I to walk through a dark valley,<BR/> I would fear no evil,<BR/>for you are with me,<BR/> your rod and your staff –<BR/> they afford me comfort.<BR/><BR/>You spread a table before me<BR/> in the face of my foes.<BR/>You moisten my head with oil,<BR/> my cup overflows.<BR/><BR/>Surely goodness and kindness will pursue me<BR/> all the days of my life,<BR/>with my stay in the house of יהוה<BR/> many days in length.John Hobbinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17011346264727684917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-84343861749112495972008-10-27T16:34:00.000-07:002008-10-27T16:34:00.000-07:00Precisely the problem with attempting a pun. The ...Precisely the problem with attempting a pun. The snake is crafty, or even "moving past protective defenses", the post deals with smooth skin and the making of loin cloths (why would they make loin cloths if the snake could move past these defenses? They did it because for whatever reason they wanted their sexual organs covered. They were still unprotected but no longer naked in the sense commonly assumed here. I believe the snake was crafty, i.e., not going to bite their privates, but was tricky. They were naked and covered themselves. I can't imagine that fig leaves on their loins was viewed as some form of primitive armor.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872097932838677378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-60302376032748641952008-10-27T15:37:00.000-07:002008-10-27T15:37:00.000-07:00Thinking about this a bit more...The pun sets a st...Thinking about this a bit more...<BR/><BR/>The pun sets a strong textual link between the fact that the serpent was cunning and the result that Adam and Eve experienced. This connection suggests that woven into the text is the meaning of <I>the cunning of the serpent resulted in the understanding by nakedness of Adam and Eve</I>.<BR/><BR/>I think it's somewhat easy to develop that out of the text. However, with the pun, it's obvious that the original author intended the connection. In other words, I'm more comfortable believing the more finely tuned exegesis.<BR/><BR/>So, IMO, it is better to understand the meaning of the text to be: <I>the serpent, by maneuvering past protective defenses, caused Adam and Eve to be and to see they were unprotected</I>.<BR/><BR/>That ends up being a rather substantive point within the text. And that point is conveyed by the pun. So, yes, the original pun adds significantly to the understanding of the text.Mike Sangreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06436714466682782260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-61137033752503413092008-10-27T15:19:00.000-07:002008-10-27T15:19:00.000-07:00Charles Dog asked:Does the pun add anything to the...Charles Dog asked:<BR/><I>Does the pun add anything to the understanding of these verses?</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps it wasn't the pun that helped me understand. Perhaps it was my <B>new</B> understanding that 'smoothness' was at the root of the word. I had always assumed that nudity was at the root. And nudity is not the point.<BR/><BR/>In any case, the fact of a pun in the original doesn't mean we have to come up with a pun in English. The goal is to bring over the meaning from the original and into the English.<BR/><BR/>However, it is best if--at the same time--we can present the meaning in an enjoyable fashion. That's probably part of the reason the pun is there in the original. It also aids in memory.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps another way of coming at it is to translate 3:1 with the idea that <I>"the serpent could worm his way past protective defenses better than any other creature in the Garden."</I> And then, in verses 7 and 11, refer to how Adam and Eve understood they were <I>unprotected</I>.Mike Sangreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06436714466682782260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-56350649175936983702008-10-27T12:56:00.000-07:002008-10-27T12:56:00.000-07:00Michael responded:you just haven't presented any p...Michael responded:<BR/><BR/><I>you just haven't presented any persuasive argument for your contention that "faith comes by hearing" is ungrammatical in English.</I><BR/><BR/>Michael, it is *not* ungrammatical if it means hearing in general. It is only ungrammatical if we want the clause to communicate the meaning that there is something specific that is heard.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-40443657523500865852008-10-27T12:42:00.000-07:002008-10-27T12:42:00.000-07:00Wayne wrote: "Without data that disproves my claim...Wayne wrote: "Without data that disproves my claim, I continue to claim ..." <BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure there are implied "objects" of the "hearing" in at least three of the examples I cited, Wayne. And ISTM you misunderstood the "teaching comes from hearing" one that you commented on. But either way, it doesn't matter, because you just haven't presented any persuasive argument for your contention that "faith comes by hearing" is ungrammatical in English. It does not seem ungrammatical to me, at least. To me it seems quite normal and unproblematic. And I really doubt that many English-speaking people would agree with you on this. Certainly your contention is not entitled to any <I>a priori</I> assumption in its favor.Michael Marlowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04094927012917474680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-54674611299809062832008-10-27T11:30:00.000-07:002008-10-27T11:30:00.000-07:00Thanks, Wayne. I chose that example by looking on ...Thanks, Wayne. I chose that example by looking on the Americas page of the BBC website for a specific piece of news which might be of interest.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-45871481611575941082008-10-27T10:46:00.000-07:002008-10-27T10:46:00.000-07:00Peter offered:Examples like this one I just made u...Peter offered:<BR/><BR/><I>Examples like this one I just made up show that while "I can hear" without an object refers to the sense of hearing, "I heard" and "I have heard" usually refer to a specific object implied in the context - at least in my dialect of English.</I><BR/><BR/>In my dialect, also, Peter. And I had a similar reaction to Kurk's noting Rom. 10:18 which sounds better to me than the first instance of "hearing" in 10:17.<BR/><BR/>I *suspect* that there is an interplay with discourse matters here, where if a referent is already established in the discourse, ellision of an object of hearing becomes (more) acceptable.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to each of you, Peter, Kurk, and Michael, for wrestling over these issues with me.<BR/><BR/>Iron still sharpens iron!<BR/><BR/>It *is* interesting that the biggest newspaper in Alaska has not endorsed their native daughter and her running mate. I had not heard <B>that</B> (!) until I got an email message from a friend an hour or so ago, and then your used of that info in your comment.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.com