Hermeneutics and the goal of Concordance

[John of Japan]

If a Greek word has a range of meanings, and it is always translated into the same English word, with only one meaning that matches the Greek word, then that translation lacks correspondence. Thus Dr Nida's definition is without merit, absurd probably misrepresented by John's encapsulation.

Wow. My "encapsulation" of Nida's definition? I quoted it verbatim!!! If I thought you had Nida's book I'd tell you to look it up yourself and tell me where I'm wrong.

Do you have any sources at all other than a normal dictionary for your supposedly authoritative view of concordance? Any?

 

[John of Japan]

Wow. My "encapsulation" of Nida's definition? I quoted it verbatim!!! If I thought you had Nida's book I'd tell you to look it up yourself and tell me where I'm wrong.

Let me elaborate on the quote from Nida. First of all, it was in the glossary at the back of the book. And I quoted the whole defintion--every phoneme. So it is very clearly the definition of Eugene Nida and his co-author, two well respected scholars in the area of Bible translation. Secondly, lest anyone mistake the meaning, it was a referral from another entry in the glossary, and I quote, "concordance: see VERBAL CONCORDANCE" (p. 199).

Here again is the quote I gave from Nida and Taber, the verbatim entry in their glossary:

"verbal consistency, verbal concordance: quality resulting from the effort to translate a given word from the original consistently by a single word in the receptor language" (The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber, p. 208).

So here is the sequence of events.

(1) I started a thread on "Bible Translation Studies Definitions." On that thread, Van started a discussion on "coherence" (his word) that was not in line with the OP.

(2) I asked Van to start a new thread, where I would interact with him on the subject. In that same post I defined "concordance" for him as "Concordance: the process of translating every occurance of a given word in the original with the same word in the TL. The problem with this is that seldom does a given word in the TL have the same range of meaning as a word in the SL (source language)."

(3) Van started this thread with the title, "Hermeneutics and the Goal of Concordance." So, he got a technical term from me (which he evidently didn't know before reading my thread), used it in the title of his thread, apparently without even understanding the meaning of the technical term. (I would have gladly interacted with Van on that.)

(4) Van has shown in this thread that he doesn't agree with major players in the area of Bible translation theory. He'd rather have a definition of this technical term from a regular dictionary than a definition from a technical glossary.

(5) All this in spite of the fact that Van admits openly that he doesn't know the original languages and is not a translator.

I'm just sitting here shaking my head in amazement at such chutzpah! Wow! Then he says I've insulted him, apparently because I don't consider him and/or his dictionary an authority. The truth? I'm holding back quite a bit here!

 

[Van]

John of Japan, you are too kind, but hopefully you are done.

Returning to the topic, the lack of concordance in modern translations. If you look at any exhaustive concordance, you will see unnecessarily long lists of English words used to translate the same Greek word. Worse, you will see the same English word used to translate more than one Greek word. I think we can do better than that.

There is no need to quibble about the definition of "concordance" where the goal is to translate a Greek word's intended meaning with the same English word. But if the Greek word has three meanings, then concordance would require using three different English words.

The next problem with the lack of concordance in our modern translations is what I call overlap where the same English word is used to translate two or more different meanings from different Greek words.

We looked at the Greek preposition "ek" with about 8 differing meanings, and found it was needlessly translated into over 20 English words. But contextually, eight English words, or combinations thereof, would have worked in every case studied.

Why do we have this "concordance problem?" I think the reason is that before computer search and sort programs were available, they did not edit the translations with the goal of using the fewest English words to translate every usage of the Greek word in the text. But I think this is an important step. And would bring the original message into focus, rather than blurring the distinctions made in the inspired text.

 

[glfredrick]

Why is it that I have the feeling that Van's issue is not with concordance or Greek lexicon, but rather the "bring[ing] the original message into focus, rather than blurring the distinctions made in the inspired text..."

Rather well known around here and on other theological boards for heterodox doctrines that run askance to the orthodox positions of 2000 years of Scripture study and continually shut down by solid exposition of Scripture, Van has seemingly decided that it is the very "definition" of Scripture that is at stake, so he works to re-define the original languages into HIS own doctrine.

Van must know that this is precisely how every ancient and modern heresy and cult was started.

Joseph Smith, founder of The Latter Day Saints (Mormonism) found the translation of the original Scriptures incorrect and though not at all knowledgeable in the original languages went on to offer a new translation that met his heterodox doctrines. Millions are now captive and slaves to sin because of this heretical teaching.

Mohamed, founder of Islam found the Bible used in OT form by those of the Jews and in complete OT and NT form by the Christians wrongly translated and set out to re-translate the text into the Q'ran. Millions remain captive as slaves to sin because of this great effort to "repair" the Scriptures.

Charles Taze Russell, founder of several cults including the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). Finding many errors in the grammar and translation of the Scriptures, Russell sought to correct those errors with his own misguided work. Millions have remained captive as slaves to sin by his efforts.

Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement found that the orthodox understanding of Scripture was marred by a misunderstanding of the original texts and that great powers of healing and wealth were to be found if only the Scriptures were rightly translated. Millions have remained captives to their slavery to sin because of her efforts.

There are countless others, historical and modern who have done likewise. Each leader decided that the original text of Scripture was mis-handled and they decided to go their own way, and as a result, they have led countless millions of people to remain captive in their sin unto death.

There is ONE common thread to all the cults and heresies that have been promulgated down through history -- each has said that they were better authorities of the Word of God than the people of God who made that Word their life study. Each has counterfeited the authentic Word of God in such a manner as to be pretenders to the throne of righteousness, and as a result, millions have been led by false gospels into perdition.

God let it be known -- and rightfully so -- that we should "check all things" in the Berean sense, to know that they are true and from God alone. In each case, a counterfeit has surfaced and the people so led failed to check to see if the teaching matched the true and only Word of God.

 

[Van]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but cults arise from "know it alls." Cult leaders consider themselves "experts" and like to tell others how they should think, what words mean, whether or not a person is qualified. They certainly do not think of others as more important than themselves. Nuff said.

 

[glfredrick]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but cults arise from "know it alls." Cult leaders consider themselves "experts" and like to tell others how they should think, what words mean, whether or not a person is qualified. They certainly do not think of others as more important than themselves. Nuff said.

'Nuff said indeed.

That is precisely what we have been trying to tell you in this thread. Only you are blind to the fact that YOU are the one who considers himself an expert.

Qualifications in biblical language are earned, not just something that someone desires then takes. Before one gets to be one of THE primary experts on the Greek lexicon and grammar, one must have proven himself worthy for decades first. You set all of that aside and decide that you know better than these experts, and worse, you refuse to even listen to a couple of brothers in the Lord who are trying to tell you just that.

Let me be an encouragement to you instead of ripping you up for a moment... (and this is not the first time I've said this to you)

GO AND SPEND SOME TIME AND EFFORT to learn the rudiments of Koine Greek and Hebrew. It will prove to be time well spent, for then you will at least grasp the difficulties and be able to reason through some of the reasons that things are as they are.

 

[Van]

Lets consider the Greek word (transliterated) procheirizo. "Pro" means before and cheirizo means to take or receive into one's hands. The NIV translates it once as appoint and once as chosen; the NKJV translates it once as "to make" and once as "chosen." The ESV, HCSB and NASB translate it both times as appoint. The meaning in context of both verses is that God "previously assigned" the person to know His will. So it appears that all the modern translations should have translated "procheirizo" as "previously assigned" in both usuages. See Acts 22:14 and Acts 26:16.

 

[Van]

Paul uses the Greek word (transliterated) "Kathizo" four times: 1 Cor. 6:4; 1 Cor. 10:7; Eph. 1:20 and 2 Thess. 2:4. The word means to "sit down," or to make to sit down, or to set down.

But rather than translate the word according to its meaning, 1 Corinthians 6:4 reads in some modern translations "do you appoint as judges...." It should read, according to the hermeneutic of concordance, "do you set down as judges...."

The interesting question is why have these scholars made the translation more distant from the basic meaning of the Greek words needlessly.

 

[glfredrick]

Paul uses the Greek word (transliterated) "Kathizo" four times: 1 Cor. 6:4; 1 Cor. 10:7; Eph. 1:20 and 2 Thess. 2:4. The word means to "sit down," or to make to sit down, or to set down.

But rather than translate the word according to its meaning, 1 Corinthians 6:4 reads in some modern translations "do you appoint as judges...." It should read, according to the hermeneutic of concordance, "do you set down as judges...."

The interesting question is why have these scholars made the translation more distant from the basic meaning of the Greek words needlessly.

Because, in context, the judges were "appointed" not "set down."

 

[Van]

Words have meaning! Paul used "kathizo." Why change it?

ESV: 4So if you have such cases,why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?

NIV: 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?

HCSB: 4 So if you have cases pertaining to this life, do you select those who have no standing in the church to judge?

NET: 4 So if you have ordinary lawsuits, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church?

The issue why would you set those to judge who are not esteemed in the church. Notice this nuance, the idea is not selecting non Judges to become official judges in a court of law, the issue is settling a dispute between church members using someone temporarily, so wise person within the church, to judge the matter. Appoint suggests a long term appoint as judge, whereas set those to judge conveys a shorter term duty. In context, this usage, set those, comes closer to the idea being presented.

 

[Mexdeaf]

This is an interesting thread to watch. I think Van has convinced himself that he is right. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Van]

Why do most posters offer opinions about me, but none about the topic? Just saying....

 

[Van]

Paul uses the Greek word transliterated "tithemi" 16 times. The word means to set, put, lay, place, fix or establish something. It is a unilateral action. Lets look at some of the verses where Paul uses the word.

Romans 4:17 says God established Abraham as the father of many nations.
Romans 9:33 says God put a stumbling stone.
Romans 14:13 says no man should put a stumbling stone.
1 Cor. 3:10 says Paul laid a foundation.

Modern translations, in 1 Corinthians 9:18, use the word in several ways: offer, present, and make, but the text should read "...lay out the gospel..." But instead a non-literal meaning is added to the text for what appears to me to be no good reason.

2 Corinthians 5:19 has "committed to us" or entrusting to us or put in us. Put in us the message of reconciliation provides the most literal translation. So the issue is why do the translators pull off the most common translation and add something not said? Saying they are making decisions based on criteria we cannot understand is no answer.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 says God has not "appointed" us to wrath, but not "established" us to wrath is a more concordant translation.

In 1 Timothy 2:7 Paul says God "ordained" him a preacher and an apostle, but should read God established his a preacher and an apostle. Ditto for 2 Timothy 1:11.

Many more examples of the concept could be provided. Modern translators, it appears made no or little effort to provide concordance and avoid overlap, which resulted in less than the best possible translation. And I have no idea why?

 

[Rippon]

Modern translators, it appears made no or little effort to provide concordance and avoid overlap, which resulted in less than the best possible translation.

The KJV is not a concordant translation.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Why do most posters offer opinions about me, but none about the topic? Just saying....

Because when we offer opinions about the topic, we are all wrong and you are right. Just saying... :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Van]

The KJV is not a concordant translation.

Right, and so the NKJV, which is a modern version, follows the same discordant word choices. The question is why have the translators with the powerful search and sort software not edited their translations to improve concordance and reduce overlap?

 

[Van]

One other point, yes I may be right about the need to improve modern translations, but who said they did not need to be improved? Me thinks Mexdeaf doth protest too much. Usually the comments simply disparge, devoid of content or a clearly stated position.

 

[David Lamb]

Why do most posters offer opinions about me, but none about the topic? Just saying....

I think it possibly results from a big discrepancy.

In your OP you freely admitted:

I make this charge not based on any expertise, I do not even understand basic Greek grammar. I simply look at my Exhaustive Concordance, which tells me how each Greek word is translated, and I see the same word being translated into dozens of English words, but it appears to me that only a few, 4 or less, could be used.

But in many of your following posts, you make statements that seem to presuppose that you are an expert in translation, and that you do know NT Greek. Indeed, in many of your posts, you haved disagreed with people who are expert translators and know Greek. (Not me - as I have said on this thread and elsewhere, I am no expert in Greek).

That is how it appears to me, anyway. (And no offence is intended to you or anyone else).

 

[Rippon]

The question is why have the translators with the powerful search and sort software not edited their translations to improve concordance and reduce overlap?

A fully concordant translation wouldn't work. Trying to use the same word or phrase each time would be terrible English and wouldn't express the particular nuance effectively from what I have read.

 

[David Lamb]

A fully concordant translation would work. Trying to use the same word or phrase each time would be terrible English and wouldn't express the particular nuance effectively from what I have read.

Did you mean "wouldn't work", Rippon?