greekprof's blog

One of the dangers of simply translating word-for-word is that sometimes the translation is not only awkward English but actually wrong, depending on your interpretation. In this verse, the often untranslated μή is the culprit.

When a masculine singular form refers to a male, “he” is a good translation. But when the referent is ambiguous such as an article–participle construction, then translators have to decide how they are going to use the word “he.”

One of the more misused verses in the Bible is 1 Timothy 2:9 and its supposed four-fold prohibition against braided hair, gold, pearls, expensive clothing. Among other things, almost every woman in the ancient world braided their hair, and to do otherwise was seen as a sign of rebellion. Just look at the statues of the time and you can see how women wore their braided hair. So what is going on in 1 Timothy 2:9?

Are you (singular) or all of you (plural) the temple of God, and what would it look like if we really understood this truth?

After speaking to the woman from Samaria, Jesus says to his disciples, “Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white (λευκαί) for harvest” (ESV).

I received an email the other day that said, “It's usually translated as though the fields are white, which is nonsensical anyway (ripe grain is never white). What is white?”

Sometimes when translators go more word-for-word, they (unintentionally) use an English idiom that has a different meaning than the Greek. They can kind of sneak up on you if you aren't watching.

Paul likes to use word plays, and this literary device rarely makes its way into our translations. Most languages cannot express a play on words, and the translator needs to decide between meaning and style. What would you do?

When the author to the Hebrews tells them to "remember" those in prison, what does he mean? Are they supposed to say, "Oh, that's right. I forgot" (i.e., punctilear), or is he saying that they should constantly think of those in prison (i.e., imperfective)?

If there ever was a question about salvation being by God’s grace and not as a result of something we do, just read Ephesians 1:1–10. Paul is falling over himself to emphasize that salvation is due to what God has done, not what we have done. And yet we are to do good works. What I want to talk about today is the dual use of γάρ.

1 John 1:4 is pretty easy to translate, but it does have a periphrastic construction (BBG 30:16). It also provides a good example of textual criticism and why you should never talk about a textual variant without talking about its significance.

Well-known verses are hard to translate. Even if the historical translation is a little off, committees are slow to change. 1 John 1:9 is one of those verses. The KJV reads, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” One would assume that behind “to forgive” is an infinitive of purpose (se also the ESV, CSB, NLT). But its not; “to forgive” translates ἵνα ἀφῇ.

I am toying with the idea of starting a yet third blog that focuses on helping people review first year Greek. I will focus on just first year and, for the most part, not introduce second year grammar. You have enough to review without more stuff. I will be covering the passages in my Graded Greek Reader. Here is the first; please let me know if it is helpful.

There are quite a few exegetical difficulties in 1 John 1:1, starting with why the initial relative clauses are introduced with a neuter relative pronoun.

Many of the newer translations often don't use the word Behold.” Why? Are there other ways to translate the Greek word behind “Behold”?

1 Timothy 2:12 is one of the most debated verses today. My point in discussing it is not to enter into the general debate but to deal with an erroneous misunderstanding of the present tense. Most of what follows comes from my commentary on the Pastorals.

Ephesians 3:6 presents us with two issues. One is the oddity of words compounded with σύν. The other is with the theological implications of Jews and Gentiles being “joint heirs ... fellow members of the body ... and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” The mystery of the gospel is the combining of these two people–groups. Do you separate them in your mind to any degree? Why? Whatever we believe, we have to make sense of these three compound words.

Translations are divided as to whether Jesus used the whip to drive the people or just the animals out of the temple. And even if he used the whip on people, it doesn't necessarily mean he hit the people. Or does it? An interesting question whose answer depends on the gender of a word. This is best taught with a screencast and phrasing.

One of the more common constructions in Greek is the appositional construction. It is often downplayed in first–year Greek, but it is quite common. There are also two types of appositional constructions, the Simple Apposition and the Genitive of Apposition. The difference between the two is nuanced but important. We will be looking at three verses, Ephesians 1:1, 1 John 1:3, and Romans 4:11.

Most of us are familiar with Don Carson’s excellent book, Exegetical Fallacies, and most of us are aware of the common error called the “etymological fallacy.” But the question I am asking is can a word’s etymology ever be trusted to define a word?

Philippians 2:2 is a confusing sentence grammatically, although its meaning is clear. Fee comments that in “the apodosis there is an equally striking compounding of synonymous phrases of such nature that the ‘wayfaring person though a fool’ could not possibly miss the point.” Sentences like this make me miss Gordon, who just recently went home to be with his Lord.

Sometimes first year teachers simplify the dative and have you use the one keyword “to.” This works until “to” makes no sense. I am thinking that it is better from day one to keep five basic definitions of the dative in mind. It's not that hard.

People often say the Greek manuscripts behind the New Testament are so corrupt that we can’t trust them. Ehrman is famous for his line that here are more errors than words. The problem is that these numbers are irrelevant if you do not, at the same time, discuss significance.

Paul can sometimes make broad statements that are open to misunderstanding, especially when read out of context. In some of these cases, we see later scribes trying to qualify what he said so as to clarify -- in their minds -- what Paul means. Enter the wonderful world of textual criticism.

Sometimes translators have to make a decision; sometimes there is no ambiguous option. In 2 Cor 4:6, is the gospel glorious or is the gospel about the glory of Christ? It is one or the other, not both.

Paul ends his list of the fruits of the Spirit with the general, “against such things there is no law” (Gal 5:23). Most likely, it is meant to parallel the conclusion to the list of “the works of the flesh in v 21. “Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” But what exactly does v 23b mean?

Why do translations all say that Jesus gave up “his” spirit when the Greek behind “his” is the definite article, “the”? This is a good example of why knowing a little Greek may not always be helpful and why I wrote Greek for the Rest of Us.

The KJV gives us an unfortunate translation of the genitive in Galatians 2:7, which can be easily misunderstood as teaching that there are two different gospels. One gospel is for the Gentiles, while the second gospel is for the Jews. Speaking of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, he says, “They saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας) was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision (τῆς περιτομῆς) was unto Peter.” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is assumed from the previous phrase.)

Paul uses a grammatical device called “epexegetical” to explain what the “mystery” is. There are several ways of doing this, but in Ephesians 3:6 he uses an epexegetical infinitive to show that Jews and Gentiles alike are fellow heirs.

Because Greek is an inflected language, the grammar contains meaning that often is lost in translation. This is why translators have to add in words at times. They aren't adding to Scripture; they are trying to convey the full meaning of the grammar. The use of the word “all" in the NIV of Romans 3:24 is a good example.

We just finished recording a 20-hour class on Isaiah by Dr. John Oswalt. What an amazing lecturer, and what an amazing book. The class will be available on BiblicalTraining.org in about 6 months. But John pointed out an interesting passage where concordance was not kept.