I came across a great use fo the imperfect in my reading this mornng. In 1 Cor 3:6, Paul writes, "I planted,  Apollos watered,  but God gave the growth (ηὔξανεν)" (ESV). A pretty generic, colorless transation that is reflected by most other translations (cf. NRSV, KJV, HCSB, NET). The NLT, it seems to me, is even more colorless: "it was God who made it grow." That relegates God's work totaly to the past.

The joy of punctuation! It can get the translator out of a real jam, and it can add clarity and reduce misinterpretation. I am wondering why I don’t talk about it more in my grammar.

We talk about semantic ranges, and that a word in one language does not have the same range of meaning as a word in another language, which is one reason translation can be so challenging.

There is perhaps no other word that epitomizes this as much as παιδεία, generally translated “discipline.”

I never cease to be amazed at the power of context in translation. So many times I will see what I think is a good translation of a verse; but when I read it in context, red flags start to wave. Phil 4:13 is one of those passages.

All major translations other than the NIV (2011) translate the plural πάντα as a plural. “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (ESV, so also NASB, NRSV, HCSB, KJV, NET). The 1984 NIV and NLT say, “ I can do everything,” which is essence says the same thing as the plural.

Are you familiar with the term “natural language”? It is a translation theory that seeks to say, for example, in English the same thing as is said in Greek, but to say it is naturally as possible for the English speaker.

In other words, the order of the Greek sentence and its grammatical forms are of less significance than how the English reader hears the biblical text.

There is no substitute for common sense in translation. Sometimes when you read the Greek, it is so obvious that it can’t mean what it says. The question is, what is a translator to do?

Stephen says in his speech, “But as the time of the promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt until there arose over Egypt another king who did not know Joseph (ὃς οὐκ ᾔδει τὸν Ἰωσήφ)” (Acts 7:17-18, ESV).

We all know that commas are not part of the biblical text, and yet they are required by English. To someone just starting their Greek career, it may not seem that commas deserve much attention; but Acts 5:18 gives a good example of why a comma can make all the difference.

I was reading the NIV the other day and came across this verse. “Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy.” What is the relationship between the “associates” and the “Sadducees”? In English, there are two.

Paul is concluding his letter to the Corinthians church, and one among several of his final exhortations is in v 13. The ESV reads, “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men (ἀνδρίζεσθε), be strong.”

I was reminded of this passage as I was reading the current wave of blogs reacting to John Piper’s talk on “The Frank and Manly Mr. Ryle.” This is not a debate I want to enter right now, but it does raise an fascinating problem in translation, and that is how to translate ἀνδρίζομαι.

Hell is a slippery concept; and no, I’m not talking about recent debates. I am talking about what the word ᾅδης means.

I was reminded of this in reading the NIV of Acts 2:27. Peter cites Ps 16:10 as fulfilled in Christ. “You will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay.” Why did the NIV switch from “grave” (1984) to “realm of the dead”? (I was not on the CBT when this change was made, so I was not part of the discussion.)

ᾅδης occurs ten times in the New Testament. In eight the NIV translates ᾅδης as “Hades.” In Acts 2:27 and in Peter’s following comment (v 31), it translates ᾅδης as the “realm of the dead.” In our passage, most translations simply write ”Hades” (NASB, NRSV, HCSB, NET) or “Hell” (ESV, KJV).

I started this blog with the title, The Difference a Comma Makes (Acts 5:18). You will see why I changed it.

We all know that commas are not part of the biblical text, and yet they are required by English. To someone just starting their Greek career, it may not seem that commas deserve much attention; but Acts 5:18 gives a good example of why a comma can make all the difference.

There are some times in which there simply is no good way to translate a verse. No matter how hard you try, there will always be some ambiguity.

I am reading through the NIV looking for what I call “NIVisms,” phrases that stand out as a little unusual. Every translation has them. I suspect that sometimes these NIVisms are the result of hours of debate, and there simply was no easy solution.

Something occurred to me this morning, and I am curious as to what you think about it. It actually has far reaching ramifications.

If you have been following this blog, then you know that I have been thinking about what is a Christian, how do we define it. Specifically, I have been looking for a balance between Jesus’ “Follow me” and the more propositional statements of Paul.

There obviously is no difference between “have” and “have,” except when you speak. “I have a book.” “I have purchased a book.” “I have to read a book.” Unless I am gravely mistaken (and my accident is mid-west), I say the third “have” differently, much closer to “half.”

The first “have” denotes possession. The second “have” is a helping verb. The third “have” denotes obligation or necessity.

Now come to Acts 23:19. The NIV reads, “The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, ‘What is it you want (ὃ ἔχεις) to tell me?’”

I came across Matt 2:8, and it highlights two of the things I have talked about in the past. (Warning: this is a slightly techie Greek blog.)

The first is the force of an aorist adverbial participle followed by an imperative. Herod says, “Go (πορευθέντες) and search diligently (ἐξετάσατε) for the child; and when you have found him, report back (ἀπαγγείλατε) to me, so that (ὅπως) I also may go and worship (προσκυνήσω) him.”

Paul is on his way to Rome, the captain of the ship does not heed his warning, and they are caught in a storm. “When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small storm continued to rage, all hope of our being saved was at last abandoned” (Acts 27:20).

Apparently several days had past, since the men had gone without food for some time. An angel appeared to Paul, telling him that the ship would be lost but no human life (v 23). Fourteen days into the storm (v 27), they run aground. So much for context.

I was asked about the interchange of tenses in Col 1:21-23. It is part of a much larger theological question that I can’t get into right now, but it is worth looking at the Greek.

Nathaniel declares Jesus that he is the “Son of God, the King of Israel” (Jn 1:49). I wonder if “Son” should not be capitalized. We read it in light of later teaching on the deity of Christ, but Nathaniel obviously equates “Son” and “King.” There is no sense of deity in Nathanael’s declaration, at least on his part.

(I would be curious how many people in our churches know that the Greek text doesn’t use capitalization the way we do, and therefore do not understand that “Son” is interpretive. I will put a poll on Facebook.com/teknia. Please let me know.)

When the demon saw Jesus coming, he cried out, “What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me!” (v 28). “Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Legion.’ (For many demons had entered into him.)” (v 30).

The Greek word is λεγιών, which is a transliteration of the Latin legio, a foreign loan word. It refers to a Roman legion, which consisted of 5,000 – 6,000 soldiers. The word came to be used of a very large number.

A few blogs back I talked about my growing apprehension with connecting may and might by default with the subjunctive. Many of you responded with helpful information. Thanks.

In speaking of the final judgment, Jesus says, “All the nations (τὰ ἔθνη) will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people (αὐτοὺς) one from another (ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων) as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”

Someone asked a while back why the pronoun is masculine (αὐτοὺς) and the antecedent is neuter (ἔθνη)?

This has been an issue for me for several years now. When I was first writing my grammar, I taught the subjunctive as I had been taught. But when I became more involved with formal translation, both the ESV and NIV, I started to have my doubts.

Warning: this blog is more technical than usual.

I came across a great illustration today of the relative significance of aorist adverbial participles and finite verbs in Matt 2:8.

(Boy, that sounds like a yawner. I should come up with a better lead-in. How’s this?)

Is the Great Commission to “Go,” “Make disciples,” or both?

One of the beauties of knowing Greek is that you get to see nuances of meaning that are often lost in translation. It’s not that the translators don’t see the meaning; it’s that they simply cannot bring it over smoothly into English.

A prime example is the many ways Greek can state a prohibition, each with its own nuance in terms of aspect, and sometimes a nuance of strength. There is quite a bit of difference between saying “No” and saying “Absolutely not!”

When we are speaking our native language, we have such an intuitive feel for it that we often leave out words. This certainly is true in English, in Greek, and I would assume in most languages.

Paul writes that For by grace (χάριτι) you have been saved through faith (πίστεως), and this (τοῦτο) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9).

Someone asked me a while back about the “perfect” οἷδα and whether its tense helps us understand what Jesus is saying in Mark 13:32-33.

“But of that day or hour no one knows (οἷδεν), neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Watch out, be alert, for you do not know (οἷδατε) when the time will come.” (By the way, from now on unless I say, I am by default quoting the translation dad and I did for the interlinears; watch for it coming out elsewhere in a month — hint, hint.)

This has always been an interesting question.

In 1 Cor 7:8, Paul writes, “Now to the unmarried (ἀγάμοιος) and to the widows (χήραις).” It is clear that Paul is unmarried (1 Cor 7:7), but it is not clear that he is or is not a widower.

“Widow” (χήρα) occurs 24 time in the New Testament. Outside of 1 Cor 7, it apparently always refers to a woman. BDAG lists “widow” and not “widower” as the only meaning of χήρας, which is expected since χήρας is a feminine noun and appears to be following natural gender. The masculine χήρος does not occur in biblical literature.

I found a great example of semantic range, and why it is so important to always check the full entry in BDAG. In Rev 10:6 the angel takes an oath saying, “There will be no more delay (χρόνος)!” How can χρόνος mean “delay”?

χρόνος certainly does mean “time.” In Luke 8:27 we read the demoniac had for a long time (χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ) had not worn clothes or lived in a house. This is the normal gloss for χρόνος.

The people who come to life and reign with Christ for 1,000 years are “the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those (καὶ οἵτινες) who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands” (ESV).

In this translation, it appears there are two groups. One group was martyred; the other group did not worship the beast but had not yet been martyred (possibly also NASB, KJV).

We read Prov 21:21 this morning in church. “Whoever pursues righteousness (צדק) and love finds life, prosperity (צדק) and honor (NIV).” Two things should jump out at you.