Sometimes translators will change the order of Greek phrases for the sake of clarity but often at the expense of emphasis. Which is more important to you?
Narrative literature tends to follow the normal Greek rules of grammar, but Paul is famous for often writing in a very compact style that may appear to be incorrect grammar. This is why we always need good commentaries that deal with the Greek.
This verse gives us two examples of how translation is often a compromise. Do you translate the words even though they don't mean anything, or do you help the reader understand? Do you keep concordance to help the reader see the play on words, or do you translate with proper English imagery? These are difficult issues.
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.”
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.
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)?
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.
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.
