I have something that is more of a personal reflection I want to share today. Greek will be back next week.

I am in Bowling Greek visiting my folks. My son Hayden was missing playing golf with his grandpa, and I had a free air ticket; so we flew here for the weekend.

Eph 2:1-3 is a great example of anacoluthon, and seeing this explains some of questions raised about the translation of ὄντας.

“Anacoluthon” is a technical term for a change in syntax. To my 9th grade English teacher, it would just be a grammatical error.

My pastor preached his last of an 80 part sermon series on John today. (Now I don’t feel so bad about preaching for 2 1/2 years on the Sermon on the Mount.) There were so many interesting things in John 21, I am not sure where to start.

John 21:5 has a couple. The ESV translates, “Jesus said to them, ‘Children, do you have any fish?’ They answered him, ‘No.’“ ”Children” is an awkward translation of the vocative plural of παιδίον (see the ESV, NASB, NRSV, NET, KJV).

<p>In Eph 6:14-17 we have a series of genitives. We are to take up:</p><ul><li>the breastplate of righteousness (τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης),</li><li>the shield of faith (τὸν θυρεὸν τῆς πίστεως),</li><li>the helmet of salvation (τὴν περικεφαλαίον τοῦ σωτηρίου),</li><li>and the sword of the Spirit (ρὴν μάχαιραν τοῦ πνεύματος).</li></ul><p>The question was asked, can the last genitive be appositional, which would mean that the Sword is the Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit that we are to take up in battle.

I heard some really discouraging and sobering news the other day, and I wanted to take a break from Greek instruction to share it with you.

A friend of mine just left the ministry. This is a young man who felt the call of the Lord, and committed his undergraduate education to Biblical Studies. His wife and he made an additional commitment to go to seminary, a decision that involved major sacrifice on their part. It was interesting, they said, to live with all the hookers in their town. But the rent was cheap.

Having heard the the resurrection story today at church, I reminded of the translation issues in this verse. Peter ran into the tomb and saw “the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen” (NIV 2011).

This is a change from the NIV 1984. “The burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.”

The ESV has the cloth “folded up” (also HCSB, NLT). The RSV has “rolled up” (also NRSV, NASB, NET).

There are some fascinating differences in translation between the KJV and other versions on Galatians 2:20.

First of all, the versification of the Textus Receptus that I have in Accordance lists Χριστῷ συνεσταυραύρωμαι as part of v 19, and yet the KJV translates it as part of v 20. The NRSV and HCSB (also TEV, NJB) are the only translations I checked that keep “I have been crucified with Christ” in v 19; the rest put it with v 20. Even the NKJV moves it to v 20.

<p>At the end of the parable of the Prodigal Son, the father signals his acceptance of his younger son with the bestowal of a ring, which is placed on his χεῖρα (Luke 15:22).</p><p>Many translations translate χεῖρα as &ldquo;finger&rdquo; (NRSV, NIV, HCSB, NET, NLT, NJB), while some go with &quot;hand&quot; (ESV, RSV, NASB, KJV); after all, where else does on put a ring? (Notice the change from RSV to NRSV.)</p><p>If you look at the entry in BDAG, it gets a little interesting. It gives three basic meanings:</p><p>1.

Predicate adjectives can be a bit tricky to translate. Since there is no verb, you have to supply one that is consistent with the verse and the immediate context. But that is a matter of exegesis and hence personal interpretation.

Take for example Heb 13:4. Word for word it says, “Held in honor the marriage among all, and the (marriage) bed undefiled. The verse concludes that those who do not obey this teaching will be judged by God. The author uses predicate adjectives. τίμος ὁ γάμος. ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος. τίμος and ἀμίαντος are not preceded by the article; they are therefore in the predicate position, and the verbs have to be supplied. But what verb?

Interestingly, v 5 also uses a predicate adjective construction. “Keep your life free from love of money” (᾽Αφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος). So whatever we do in v 4 needs to be done here.

Most translations see the implied verb as imperatival. This is certainly justified from the imperatives that surround these two verse. “Let brotherly love continue” (v 1). “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers” (v 2). “Remember those who are in prison” (v 3). “Remember your leaders” (v 7). The ESV sees an imperatival relationship, as do most translations. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled.” The KJV is alone is seeing an indicative verb implied. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled.”

We teach that the imperfect designates an action normally occurring in the past that is continuous in nature. “Jesus walked by the sea” is aorist; “Jesus was walking by the sea” is imperfect.

And we also teach that there are different kinds of imperfects. “Descriptive” is the catchall. “Ingressive” focuses attention on the beginning of the action. “Iterative” is repeated action. “Customary” leaves a sense of time behind. But in all these, the action is continuous, ongoing.

Someone asked the other day about αρσενοκοιτης. They asked, “I see the argument that arsenokoitai is a made up word and could not possibly mean homosexual. How do we come about knowing what this word really means?”

First of all, all words are made up. God made up a lot at Babel, and humans have been making up words every since. Paul loves to make up words; “God-breathed” in 2 Tim 3:16 is perhaps the most famous. So just because a word is made up doesn’t say anything about whether or not we can know its meaning.

I have had a couple interesting experiences lately, and they culminated in my thinking about 1 Tim 6:17, which says that God “richly provides us with everything to enjoy.” Nothing special in the Greek. All things (παντα) are not just given but richly (πλουσιως) given for (εις) enjoyment (απολαυσις).

απολαυσις only occurs elsewhere in the NT in Heb 11:25, where the author says that Moses chose “rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures (απολαυσιν) of sin.”

I saw the strangest wording today. The pastor was reading passages on joy out of the NIV (1984), and he came to James 1:4. “Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” It was the “must” that caught my eye.

Why “must’ it finish? In what sense is there a necessity that perseverance finish? I pulled out my phone and started checking other translations.

Came across a great illustration in church today about the nuances and complexities of translation.

The pastor was preaching on John 17:17-19. “Sanctify (αγιασον) them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify (αγιαζω) myself, that they too may be truly sanctified (αγιασμενοι) ” (NIV).

In church today we sang the song, “the name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous run into it and they are saved.” I checked the updated NIV text, and it has been changed from “strong tower” to “fortified tower.” (The change is in the TNIV as well).

This brings up an interesting issue. It is one thing to change people’s “favorite verse,” but to change a song’s text, now that’s serious.

I am only half joking. “The name of the Lord is a fortified tower” doesn’t quite fit the cadence.

We teach students in first year Greek that the subjunctive mood carries the idea of “should” or might.” But then they come to a verse like John 3:16 and read, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that (ινα) whoever believes in him should (αποληται) not perish but have eternal life” (ESV).

<p>I can’t remember if I have blogged on this before, but I was thinking about it today during church.</p> <p>I remember the first tie I heard someone say that there was a “normal” word order in Greek. I was shocked since I had not observed any patterns, but they are there.</p> <p>The normal word order is conjunction, verb, subject, object, and modifiers.</p>

<p>My brother-in-law asked me a question that came up in his Bible study the other day, and it illustrates several interesting points of Greek grammar. Thanks Terry.</p> <p>1 Cor 11:24 in the ESV reads, “and when he had given thanks, he broke (εκλασεν) it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you (το υπερ υμων). Do this in remembrance of me.’” The interesting phrase is, “which is for you.”</p>

My brother-in-law asked me a question that came up in his Bible study the other day, and it illustrates several interesting points of Greek grammar. Thanks Terry.

1 Cor 11:24 in the ESV reads, “and when he had given thanks, he broke (εκλασεν) it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you (το υπερ υμων). Do this in remembrance of me.’” The interesting phrase is, “which is for you.”

I never got a chance to reflect on some of things that happened at the last ETS in Atlanta, but there is one thing of a personal nature I wanted to share.

<p>Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved (σωζεσθε), if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain” (ESV). </p>

<p>I was in a strange situation the other day. I ran into a couple who had been part of a difficult situation in my past. For the wife’s part, she had been actively involved in slandering me.</p>

Someone asked me a while back about the word that begins Heb 2:11, ὅ (smooth breathing and accent). It looks like a relative pronoun, which is generally translated as “who(m),” “that,“ or “which,” but his translation used the personal pronoun “he.” He didn’t know if this was a possible way to translate the relative pronoun, or if it was possible for ὅ to be a personal pronoun.

<p>One of the dangers of learning Greek is that after a while you feel like you have a handle on things and don’t need to keep reviewing grammar. Then over time you lose some of the nuances of the language and start letting a broad, general understanding govern everything you read. </p>

<p>I can still remember when I first came across Rom 2:28-29 (RSV) and wondered what a “real” Jew is, and is there such a thing as a “fake” Jew.</p> <p>“For he is not a real Jew [ο ... Ιουδαιος] who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God.”</p>

Heard a fascinating piece of bad exegesis the other day. The Holy Spirit is a she.

The basis of this claim was that the Hebrew word for “spirit” (ruach) is feminine. The short answer is that if this is true, then the Spirit is also an “it” since the Greek word for “spirit” (πνευμα) is neuter.

<p>We normally teach passives in a straight forward way. The subject of a passive verb receives the action of the verb. "The answer was given by Paul."</p> <p>But the other day I was translating with my son and we came across one of those weird passives. In Matt 8:26 we read, "Then getting up (εγερθεις) he rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm." In what sense was Jesus "was raise" (passive)?</p> <p>Lets talk about passives. There are several types.</p>

<p>My son Tyler is learning Greek at Biola University. Not many dads get to spend Skype time helping their son translate Greek. And who says knowing Greek isn’t practical?</p> <p>We covered a passage this week that had me scratching my head. In Matt 8:23 we read, “Then he got (εμβαντι αυτω) into the boat and his disciples followed him” (αυτω). Why is the first αυτω in the dative? The second αυτω is easy; ακολουθεω takes a direct object in the dative. By why the first?</p>

<p>Jude writes to his church that they are to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” He wanted to write to them about their common salvation, but because evil people had snuck into the church, he was forced to write a different kind of letter.</p>

<p>Functional equivalent translations are used to taking exegetical positions. After all, they are committed to trying to convey the meaning of a passage, at least the meaning they see in the text.</p><p>Formal equivalent are less comfortable doing this. They tend to try and replicate the ambiguity of the original Greek/Hebrew and let the reader decide as to meaning.</p><p>What is really frustrating for formal equivalent translations like the NASB and ESV is when they have to make a decision.