K A T A R G E O : A Word often Mistranslated

[asterisktom]

< K A T A R G E O >
a word often mistranslated
​

KATARGEO, a very interesting New Testament word, has not fared well at the hands of well-meaning translators.

Here are all twenty-seven occurrences (including some in passive) of the word in the New Testament, twenty-five or twenty-six* being in Paul's writing. The words underlined show the various ways this word has been translated in the NKJV. Notice that in 1 Cor.13:8 the word occurs twice, translated two different ways.

__________________________________________________________

Luke 13:7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’

Rom. 3:3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?

Rom. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Rom. 4:14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,

Rom. 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Rom. 7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.

Rom. 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

1 Cor. 1:28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,

1 Cor. 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

1 Cor. 6:13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Cor. 13:8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.

1 Cor. 13:10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

1 Cor. 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Cor. 15:24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.

1 Cor. 15:26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

2 Cor. 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,

2 Cor. 3:11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

2 Cor. 3:13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.

2 Cor. 3:14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.

Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.

Gal. 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Gal. 5:11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased.

Eph. 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

2 Thess. 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

2 Tim. 1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Heb. 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,



__________________________________________________________



I realize that, at this point, this seems to be just a tedious word-study. But follow along please, when we go a little further in this article I will hopefully demonstrate - among other things - that:

1. The choice of words translators employ to render the exact same word (though in different tenses) reveals more about their theology than the actual meaning of the text, and

2. When these twenty-seven occurrences are rendered more faithfully it will make clearer a more consistent interpretation of the texts.

Yes, I know that one single word may have various shades of meaning. But I maintain that a reader or translator of a text should always at least consider consistency of meaning before he allows his personal viewpoint to subtly suggest ways to nuance the sacred text. And that is exactly what is going on here, I believe, with KATARGEO; an a priori assumption of futurist eschatology biasing the translator away from the straightforward impact of these verses.

This will be demonstrated later when we get down to particulars and inconsistencies of some of these verse quoted above.

The first problem, I have noticed, is unwarranted variation on the part of translators when they come to this word. In many cases words are chosen that are not at all accurate. Other times the translators are plainly inconsistent, using two different words for this one word.

First, the variations. The King James Version translates KATARGEO, in all its forms, as:
abolish, cease, cumber, destroy, do, effect, fail, loose, nought, pass, put, sever, vanish, void. Yet the reason for using this considerable spread of words comes from without - from the translators perception of what ought to be in the text, not what is plainly signified. A futurist, for instance, expects Jesus to come with visible fire, clearly dealing with His enemies. Thus we have 1 Cor. 15:4:

"Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power."

But the real meaning becomes clear when we maintain consistency, keeping other KATARGEO passages in mind. Consider these from the same epistle, 1 Cor. 1:28 and 2:6:

"and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,"

"However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."

Just who are these rulers? They are the spiritual leaders of the Jewish age. Hardened in their antipathy toward their Messiah they were to feel the force of this word we are studying. They were coming to nothing, made irrelevant, rendered useless. They have lost all real power. Their rule is abolished.

But here is the point that is overlooked: 1 Cor. 2:6 and 1 Cor. 15:4 describe the very same event, the "rulers of this age" have their power "put to an end". Their "kingdom" that Christ delivers to the Father is the theocratic Jewish Kingdom, now obsoleted by the Kingdom of God. Spiritual Zion** now replacing Geographical Zion.

Continued in next post

 

[asterisktom]

Katargeo: A Word Often Mistranslated, part 2

Inconsistency in translation is perhaps most notable in 1 Cor.13:8:

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.


KATARGEO appears twice in this one verse. Can you guess which one? Read it over and give it your best shot.

Did you guess "fail"? Well, you are half right. Unbelievably, the two "fails" in this one verse are from entirely different words (PIPTO, "to fall", and KATARGEO). The second "fail" is our KATARGEO.

Also "vanish away" is the second appearance of KATARGEO. Now two questions come to mind:

1. Why did the translators needlessly limit themselves, rendering two different Greek words with the same English "fail"?

2. Why did the translators see fit to vary the same Greek term in the same verse into "fail" and "vanish away"?

I can only surmise, along with the previously mentioned theological preconceptions, a concern for Paul's style.

But I would rather have the Bible's at times admittedly inelegant style, with all of its occasional unstylistic repetitions (as here) and seeming non-sequiturs to find out what the Spirit of God is actually saying. Amen?

Katargeo, part two

This is the whole purpose of studies like this, to peel away needless editorial meddling in order to get to the Truth.

The next step is for me to group the usages of this word according to category in order to move on to what these verses are actually saying, not just how they are currently misconstrued. This will take a little more time and will be a separate article.

In all of these studies of mine please don't think that I see myself as infallible. I have been wrong many times on the past. But usually my errors have come from relying too much on books and authors. The slower but safer approach is always to carefully sift over the Biblical text, including the Greek, at the same time keeping up a personal neutrality concerning the tenets being investigated.

I appreciate any and all insight from fellow lovers of God and His Word. What a wonderful blessing it is to be digging into this Word of Life![/SIZE]

 

[Deacon]

I guess it depends upon the translation.

New American Standard is rather consistent.

Another guess.... I see this thread being moved to the translations forum.

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

But here is the point that is overlooked: 1 Cor. 2:6 and 1 Cor. 15:4 describe the very same event, the "rulers of this age" have their power "put to an end". Their "kingdom" that Christ delivers to the Father is the theocratic Jewish Kingdom, now obsoleted by the Kingdom of God. Spiritual Zion** now replacing Geographical Zion....

I have thought along these lines concerning these passages (1 Cor 15:24 not 15:4). It's definitely a FP take on it.

 

[preachinjesus]

As one possessing higher qualifications in the study of biblical languages than the average layman, it is always interesting to come across threads such as this one. Thanks to Asterisktom for laying out so much data and provoking a conversation.

The first point I will make is something that will inform the rest: the challenge of translation is that we must understand words in their context and usage rather than a straight lexical form.

Though others will likely add to this and refine the point, the reality of translation, especially when it comes to verbs, is that we must understand the word as it is used, who is using it, how that author using this and other similar terms, and then also keep in mind the developing critical thought from linguistics studies.

As it is used in the NT, καταργεω has varied uses and meanings. One of the best places to start in studying this word is to consult a good lexicon. BDAG (4th ed) is generally agreed to be the most solid lexicon for NT studies. In this work, it provides four primary meanings, and then subsequent nuance.

Since καταργεω is a verb, the various tenses and voices will ultimately impact its meaning. Now, to the questions.

1. Why did the translators needlessly limit themselves, rendering two different Greek words with the same English "fail"?

You'll need to consult varying translations to see how their respective committees handle the challenge of handling καταργεω. Different translations have a different methodology and the ones that approach their task more from the dynamic equivalence perspective are often more apt to provide differing terms for the same word.

2. Why did the translators see fit to vary the same Greek term in the same verse into "fail" and "vanish away"?

What difference is there between these two renderings? There is some nuanced difference, but ultimately they both mean the same thing. Keep in mind not everyone who reads the NT reads it on a 10th grade level. Most translations aim for 5th-7th grade comprehension. To achieve this translators will often opt for a variance in style which breaks up the monotony of a passage.

I can only surmise, along with the previously mentioned theological preconceptions, a concern for Paul's style.

I know some of the translators who have worked on varying modern versions and they are good Christians and devout scholars seeking to better work out the text of Scripture for use by all English speaking peoples. They don't have a negative agenda in their work, nor do they approach the text maliciously.

Frankly, translation is hard work. Achieving a sense of the original language and bringing it into an utterly foreign language is perhaps the hardest part. Of course at some point you need to make theological decisions in your translation, but these are a natural part of that process.

But I would rather have the Bible's at times admittedly inelegant style, with all of its occasional unstylistic repetitions (as here) and seeming non-sequiturs to find out what the Spirit of God is actually saying. Amen?

I respectfully disagree. I desire a readable translation that accurately expresses the intent of the original texts in a way that is smooth and helpful for the modern student or reader. You can go get a rough, stilted rendering (like Young's Literal Translation) and be edified if you desire. For me and my house (and church) we choose something that is able to be embraced by all people.

This is the whole purpose of studies like this, to peel away needless editorial meddling in order to get to the Truth.

And I would like to point out that this is, ultimately, an impossibility. In translating an inflected language (such as koine Greek) into a non-inflected language (English) an editor must use a steady and noted hand. The languages are entirely different in nature and how they approach their fundamental functions. The accusation of editorial meddling is both inappropriate and unreasonable. In all our English versions (from Wycliffe to NLT and beyond) there is always an editorial hand guiding us. When it is the hand of a bona fide follower of Christ, we can be thankful it is one, hopefully, led by the Spirit.

Though I do not have the time today to touch on how each instance of καταργεω might be best translated, my goal will be to return and discuss.

Keep in mind, this is a discussion of a Greek verb that is loaded with nuance. A quick glance at BDAG's possible renderings provides a range of applications in both NT usage and Classical Greek as well. Translation is difficult work, but I believe the usages in these various instances are legitimate and helpful for Christians. They do not rob the text of its intent nor do they overtly implicate an editorial hand in a manner that is improper.

 

[tyndale1946]

WOW!... It is so refreshing to see scholarly brethren on here comparing scripture and both coming to an understanding. Compared to those beating each other over the head with scripture to prove their points. Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. I do not possess the talent that you two have but will be watching the conversation towards seeking the truth.:thumbsup:

 

[beameup]

< K A T A R G E O >
a word often mistranslated
​

KATARGEO, a very interesting New Testament word, has not fared well at the hands of well-meaning translators.

"However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing."

Just who are these rulers? They are the spiritual leaders of the Jewish age. Hardened in their antipathy toward their Messiah they were to feel the force of this word we are studying. They were coming to nothing, made irrelevant, rendered useless. They have lost all real power. Their rule is abolished.

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 Cor 2:6-8

Christ died for the sins of the entire world (mankind). None of the leaders/rulers knew who he really was. NONE.

Nevertheless, at the end of the Tribulation, a "remnant" of Israel will be saved to serve their Messiah in Jerusalem. :thumbsup:

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness,
have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:3
The Jewish Religious leaders did not understand the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God at the time.

 

[Deacon]

As one possessing higher qualifications in the study of biblical languages than the average layman, it is always interesting to come across threads such as this one. Thanks to Asterisktom for laying out so much data and provoking a conversation.

The first point I will make is something that will inform the rest: the challenge of translation is that we must understand words in their context and usage rather than a straight lexical form.

Though others will likely add to this and refine the point, the reality of translation, especially when it comes to verbs, is that we must understand the word as it is used, who is using it, how that author using this and other similar terms, and then also keep in mind the developing critical thought from linguistics studies.

As it is used in the NT, καταργεω has varied uses and meanings. One of the best places to start in studying this word is to consult a good lexicon. BDAG (4th ed) is generally agreed to be the most solid lexicon for NT studies. In this work, it provides four primary meanings, and then subsequent nuance.
Since καταργεω is a verb, the various tenses and voices will ultimately impact its meaning. Now, to the questions.

[[Originally Posted by asterisktom
1. Why did the translators needlessly limit themselves, rendering two different Greek words with the same English "fail"?]]

You'll need to consult varying translations to see how their respective committees handle the challenge of handling καταργεω. Different translations have a different methodology and the ones that approach their task more from the dynamic equivalence perspective are often more apt to provide differing terms for the same word.

[[Originally Posted by asterisktom
2. Why did the translators see fit to vary the same Greek term in the same verse into "fail" and "vanish away"?]]

What difference is there between these two renderings? There is some nuanced difference, but ultimately they both mean the same thing. Keep in mind not everyone who reads the NT reads it on a 10th grade level. Most translations aim for 5th-7th grade comprehension. To achieve this translators will often opt for a variance in style which breaks up the monotony of a passage.

[[ Originally Posted by asterisktom
I can only surmise, along with the previously mentioned theological preconceptions, a concern for Paul's style.]]

I know some of the translators who have worked on varying modern versions and they are good Christians and devout scholars seeking to better work out the text of Scripture for use by all English speaking peoples. They don't have a negative agenda in their work, nor do they approach the text maliciously.
Frankly, translation is hard work. Achieving a sense of the original language and bringing it into an utterly foreign language is perhaps the hardest part. Of course at some point you need to make theological decisions in your translation, but these are a natural part of that process.

[[ Originally Posted by asterisktom
But I would rather have the Bible's at times admittedly inelegant style, with all of its occasional unstylistic repetitions (as here) and seeming non-sequiturs to find out what the Spirit of God is actually saying. Amen?]]

I respectfully disagree. I desire a readable translation that accurately expresses the intent of the original texts in a way that is smooth and helpful for the modern student or reader. You can go get a rough, stilted rendering (like Young's Literal Translation) and be edified if you desire. For me and my house (and church) we choose something that is able to be embraced by all people.

[[Originally Posted by asterisktom
This is the whole purpose of studies like this, to peel away needless editorial meddling in order to get to the Truth.]]

And I would like to point out that this is, ultimately, an impossibility. In translating an inflected language (such as koine Greek) into a non-inflected language (English) an editor must use a steady and noted hand. The languages are entirely different in nature and how they approach their fundamental functions. The accusation of editorial meddling is both inappropriate and unreasonable. In all our English versions (from Wycliffe to NLT and beyond) there is always an editorial hand guiding us. When it is the hand of a bona fide follower of Christ, we can be thankful it is one, hopefully, led by the Spirit.

Though I do not have the time today to touch on how each instance of καταργεω might be best translated, my goal will be to return and discuss.
Keep in mind, this is a discussion of a Greek verb that is loaded with nuance. A quick glance at BDAG's possible renderings provides a range of applications in both NT usage and Classical Greek as well. Translation is difficult work, but I believe the usages in these various instances are legitimate and helpful for Christians. They do not rob the text of its intent nor do they overtly implicate an editorial hand in a manner that is improper.

Bravo! That was a graceful response and a succinct description of the difficulties of translation.
I'm going to copy that for future reference.

It could be re-posted in just about any thread of the translation forum.

As was mentioned, the preface of each version provides a wealth of information regarding the methodology translators used in the process of converting the text from one language to another.

Authorized Version Preface. (1611)
REASONS INDUCING US NOT TO STAND CURIOUSLY UPON AN IDENTITY OF PHRASING

…we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?

The New King James Version Preface. (1982).
In harmony with the purpose of the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators, thus unlocking for today’s readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures.

I'm eagerly looking forward to your continued presentation Tom.
The Westminster Confessions (1646) were composed after the Authorized Version (1611) but might be used to compare version choices with doctrinal positions.

Rob

 

[asterisktom]

I have thought along these lines concerning these passages (1 Cor 15:24 not 15:4). It's definitely a FP take on it.

Thank you for the correction. And, yes, it is a FP take. This particular verse, especially, was a puzzle piece which previously never settled in smoothly in any of my previous -ologies.

 

[asterisktom]

As one possessing higher qualifications in the study of biblical languages than the average layman, it is always interesting to come across threads such as this one. Thanks to Asterisktom for laying out so much data and provoking a conversation.

Thanks, preachinjesus. I hope this will continue to be a fruitful conversation.

The first point I will make is something that will inform the rest: the challenge of translation is that we must understand words in their context and usage rather than a straight lexical form.

Agreed ... mostly. Now who gets to determine this? For me, I always start with a starting working assumption that any term, katargeo here, should have the same definition, especially when used by the same author in near context. That is, unless clear theological truth or logical necessity requires otherwise. For instance we have two "dead" definitions in Christ's "Let the dead bury the dead."

Logic tells us that the first "dead" must be spiritual - unless we believe in zombies! - and the second are physically dead.

But I don't see the same necessity in slitting up katargeo in the same way, making it "nullified" in one instance and "outright destroyed in another". I stand by my contention that the editors and lexicons allow their preset theology to influence their definitions.

As it is used in the NT, καταργεω has varied uses and meanings. One of the best places to start in studying this word is to consult a good lexicon. BDAG (4th ed) is generally agreed to be the most solid lexicon for NT studies. In this work, it provides four primary meanings, and then subsequent nuance.

I take issue here. I do not believe that katargeo is that varied. Neither do I believe that BDAG (or the earlier BAGD) is as solid as it seems. I can't get into details on this because, iunfortunately, now being back in China, most of my lexical tools are not on hand.

This is all I have time for now. Since you mentioned BDAG I would like to also write on them. This is still in keeping with the OP, as I hope to show.

 

[asterisktom]

BAGD has BAGGAGE - like all of us.

A few words on the authors of BDAG. I have great respect for the hard work they did, but there needs also to be a willingness to suspect their conclusions. To use Luther's terminology (in a different context) we must maintain a magisterial respect for God's Word and relegate any other comments and commentary to a minsterial role.

To say, "well, these are Greek scholars. They should have the final say in what katargeo must mean" is to forget that they are also just men. Like all men, they are prone to presuppositions. They - and all of us - are like the blind Indians who approached an elephant and came up with different definitions of what they were handling; the man who felt the trunk said it was a snake, the man who felt the leg said it was a tree, and so on.

Likewise the liberal approaches the Bible with a liberal bent, the dispensationalist approaches it allowing his futurist framework to stay intact, etc.

In other words BAGD, has baggage -like all of us.

Walter Bauer - not sure of his theological views but Wiki has this:
"Through studies of historical records Bauer concluded that what came to be known as orthodoxy was just one of numerous forms of Christianity in the early centuries. It was the form of Christianity practiced in Rome that exercised the uniquely dominant influence over the development of orthodoxy and acquired the majority of converts over time."

From Jstor.org (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1509492?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104583219437):

Bauer "tried to prove that in many regions what came to be known as "heresy" was in fact the original manifestation of Chritianity. The "good guys"of Chritianity, in Bauer's view, included Marcion and Mani! Through the countering opposition of others like Polycarp and Clement, the goalposts of were moved, settling us into a new orthodoxy.

William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich were, respectively, Lutheran and United Evangelical Church (Brethren). This is not meant to dismiss their studies, but just to remind us that this background can cloud - I believe does cloud - their lexical judgments. More on this later.

Frederick Danker - Lutheran pastor from Concordia & University of Chicago, wrote some great works on the Greek classics.

I like this quote from him:
"Good scholars must be both honest and accurate....in my profession, no matter what we say, someone disagrees with us."

More problematic is his redifining the term "Jew" as merely "Judean". This greatly alters the veracity of many passagfes in the OT and NT when it speaks of God's promises and judgments concerning them. IMO Danker's eschatology, not to mention his background, insinuated a smoother definitions to Jewto allow for an easier verdict on the actions of these "Judeans" (sic) who rejected Christ.

One website has this:
"But he determined that "Jews" should be translated as "Judeans," referring to the proper name of the people who then lived in southern Palestine.
"Over the centuries, the word 'Jew' in translations got so distorted and caused so much unnecessary acrimony, causing such tragedies between Christians and Jews," the Rev. Danker told the Post-Dispatch in 2001, in an interview about his lexicon."

All of this is just a reminder that, when it comes to studying the Bible, the best tool is the Bible itself, study and prayer. This is not to say that Greek and Hebrew lexicons aren't helpful, just that they are ministerial tools.

 

[preachinjesus]

Tom, thanks for the reply, I hope we can continue healthily challenging each other and refining our arguments.

TAgreed ... mostly. Now who gets to determine this? For me, I always start with a starting working assumption that any term, katargeo here, should have the same definition, especially when used by the same author in near context. That is, unless clear theological truth or logical necessity requires otherwise. For instance we have two "dead" definitions in Christ's "Let the dead bury the dead."

What is intriguing about your position is that you claim to be against the heavy theologically oriented editorial hand yet in your own attempt to understand the term, you have brought your own theological assumptions and predilections to the text.

In fact, I would suggest that, in a brief survey of other translations where καταργεω is used they appropriately translate the term with respect to its context, authorial usage, and meaning appropriately.

That these various translations don't provide you with a translation that suits your theological viewpoint is more a statement about your theological viewpoint than it is the nature of translation.

Logic tells us that the first "dead" must be spiritual - unless we believe in zombies! - and the second are physically dead.

But I don't see the same necessity in slitting up katargeo in the same way, making it "nullified" in one instance and "outright destroyed in another". I stand by my contention that the editors and lexicons allow their preset theology to influence their definitions.

Well lexicons aren't using "preset theology" to determine these meanings. In fact, if we consider the range of meanings that καταργεω has in the NT, there are different uses depending on place.

In providing the varied options of meaning, as BDAG does here, we can better see how precisely the term is used in a particular passage. I don't disagree with your point about the logic that this mean spiritual deadness. Yet, in a particular passage καταργεω might not carry that explicit meaning.

Also at issue is how your desired translations are more than just nuance between fairly synonymous terms. I pointed this out above. At some point we can just choose words that are fairly congruous in meaning. Then we are just discussing semantic differences for the sake of a semantic discussion.

I take issue here. I do not believe that katargeo is that varied. Neither do I believe that BDAG (or the earlier BAGD) is as solid as it seems. I can't get into details on this because, iunfortunately, now being back in China, most of my lexical tools are not on hand.

I do believe καταργεω has somewhat varied meaning because I've done work and examined the various instances in which we are discussing.

This happens in English too. Let's all think about the difference in meanings of LIVE, RUN, SET. Depending on the context that word can have a different meaning but it is the same word.

With καταργεω there is a semantic range of meaning and all the functional meanings causing something to cease, end, or be done with. How we understand the particular nuances of these meanings is, ultimately, a decision of context and overall usage.

A few words on the authors of BDAG...

I entirely disagree with this thought. I also entirely disagree with your points attempting to discredit BDAG. It is considered by scholars both religious and secular to be the standard lexicon in the English language. Perhaps you have another one that you might recommend. Yet when it comes to who has provided the most update, informed textual discussions this is the lexicon to use.

All of this is just a reminder that, when it comes to studying the Bible, the best tool is the Bible itself, study and prayer. This is not to say that Greek and Hebrew lexicons aren't helpful, just that they are ministerial tools.

And to this I challenge you. Interpret this passage, from the Greek, using your Bible, prayer and the Holy Spirit.

ΟΥΤΩΣΓΑΡΗΓΑΠΗ
ΣΕΝΟΘΕΟΣΤΟΝΚΟ
ΣΜΟΝΩΣΤΕΤΟΝΥΙ
ΟΝΤΟΝΜΟΝΟΓΕΝ
ΗΕΔΩΕΝΙΝΑΠΑΣΟ
ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩΝΕΙΣΑΥΤ
ΟΝΜΗΑΠΟΛΗΤΑΙΑ
ΛΛΕΧΗΖΩΗΝΑΙΧΟΝ

Since this is the way the original koine was written, if your theory about interpretation is correct, then all you need is the tools you've limited yourself to above.

My point is this: one needs not limit themselves to these tools since it is not possible to bring the ancient text to the modern reader without them. We have been blessed greatly with such things as BDAG, TDNT, other lexicons and grammars that all help us with our task of drawing the NT text into the present day. To say that our best tool is prayer and the Bible is to exclude the other best tools that God has created expressly to bring His words to His creation.

Your point is shortsighted and, imho, one that is failing.

 

[Yeshua1]

Isn't those working in lexicons and dictionaries though often the least likely tp preread own theology into their definitions?

As Thayer belive was a Unitarian who denied jesus was God, yet he did say the Bible terms did reflect they thought was divine?

Same way, Bdag/Bagd would really list what was known to be the various ways a word was used, and then need to use the contex for each time word was actually used to go from there?

 

[asterisktom]

Tom, thanks for the reply, I hope we can continue healthily challenging each other and refining our arguments.

Thanks. That is my wish too.

What is intriguing about your position is that you claim to be against the heavy theologically oriented editorial hand yet in your own attempt to understand the term, you have brought your own theological assumptions and predilections to the text.

I take great issue with this. My "theological assumptions and predilections" were opposed to my current positon. Of course, there is no way to prove this, so I merely state it here.

All I brought to the text ... was the text. I started with a working assumption (as I stated earlier) with the assumption that the range of meaning of any Bible word was tighter than our Bible helps tell us.

I have more to add later, but it is time for breakfast.

 

[asterisktom]

Isn't those working in lexicons and dictionaries though often the least likely tp preread own theology into their definitions?

As Thayer belive was a Unitarian who denied jesus was God, yet he did say the Bible terms did reflect they thought was divine?

Thayer's Lexicon was the first one that I had, back in the 70s. I thoroughly studeid it even before I went to BJU. But he was, as you said, a Unitarian. And his liberalism did show up in his work - and in the underlying work of Willibald Grimm, whose work Thayer built upon.

Just one example:
"p. 287, column b “Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; 20:28; I John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8ff; etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians.”"

No, the Trinity is not in dispute!

More can be seen from this interesting article:
http://sharperiron.org/article/doctrinal-error-thayers-lexicon

 

[asterisktom]

And to this I challenge you. Interpret this passage, from the Greek, using your Bible, prayer and the Holy Spirit.

ΟΥΤΩΣΓΑΡΗΓΑΠΗ
ΣΕΝΟΘΕΟΣΤΟΝΚΟ
ΣΜΟΝΩΣΤΕΤΟΝΥΙ
ΟΝΤΟΝΜΟΝΟΓΕΝ
ΗΕΔΩΕΝΙΝΑΠΑΣΟ
ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩΝΕΙΣΑΥΤ
ΟΝΜΗΑΠΟΛΗΤΑΙΑ
ΛΛΕΧΗΖΩΗΝΑΙΧΟΝ

Since this is the way the original koine was written, if your theory about interpretation is correct, then all you need is the tools you've limited yourself to above.

Aah, the other shoe drops.

I should have known that this would be coming from someone "possessing higher qualifications". As far as qualifications are concerned, I try to keep from announcing mine. I figure if they are there they will be evident in what I wrote. If not, then not.

But your use of the above snippet is, I assume, a means of putting me in my place and - assert an authority that I seem unwilling to grant to your position. But it only proves my point. It is just a trick that is beside the point I am making. More below.

My point is this: one needs not limit themselves to these tools since it is not possible to bring the ancient text to the modern reader without them. We have been blessed greatly with such things as BDAG, TDNT, other lexicons and grammars that all help us with our task of drawing the NT text into the present day. To say that our best tool is prayer and the Bible is to exclude the other best tools that God has created expressly to bring His words to His creation.

Your point is shortsighted and, imho, one that is failing.

I don't know much about you, preachinjesus, but I assume you did not mean to come off as insulting when you made that assertion in the above paragraph.

One of your problems is the blurring of the line between the Greek (and Hebrew), on the one hand, and those lexical helps that purport to aid in understanding that original language.

At times you seem to see them as one. And then you argue that I am against both. But I am not. I am just prioritizing them according reliability: The original text is always far above commentary and glosses on the original text.

You say "it is not possible to bring the ancient text to the modern reader without them." But God says that this is indeed possible.He knows that the vast majority of Christians will never have the tools that we have. It is not an "ancient text", but the Living Word. God is able by His Spirit to help us in our study. Do I even need to cite verses to prove this?

Admittedly, I have changed my views on Greek studies seen my university days. But I believe that there is a special danger that those who involve themselves too much in the nuts and bolts of the Bible - and I can attest this from experience (which I will not get in to). I wish I could find a good article on this very topic. Perhaps I had read it in Wallace's Beyond the Basics.

But, no, people like Bauer and Thayer, the Unitarian, are not included in the "best tools that God has created expressly to bring His words to His creation."

The best tools are the Bible, the Holy Spirit working in us as new creatures, prayer, the checks and balances that come from fellowship with like-minded believers. Also, a knowledge of the original languages. But below this - in a distinctly ministerial position - are the helps provided by those whose theological views are not like-minded. In many cases, not even believers.

 

[Yeshua1]

Aah, the other shoe drops.

I should have known that this would be coming from someone "possessing higher qualifications". As far as qualifications are concerned, I try to keep from announcing mine. I figure if they are there they will be evident in what I wrote. If not, then not.

But your use of the above snippet is, I assume, a means of putting me in my place and - assert an authority that I seem unwilling to grant to your position. But it only proves my point. It is just a trick that is beside the point I am making. More below.


I don't know much about you, preachinjesus, but I assume you did not mean to come off as insulting when you made that assertion in the above paragraph.

One of your problems is the blurring of the line between the Greek (and Hebrew), on the one hand, and those lexical helps that purport to aid in understanding that original language.

At times you seem to see them as one. And then you argue that I am against both. But I am not. I am just prioritizing them according reliability: The original text is always far above commentary and glosses on the original text.

You say "it is not possible to bring the ancient text to the modern reader without them." But God says that this is indeed possible.He knows that the vast majority of Christians will never have the tools that we have. It is not an "ancient text", but the Living Word. God is able by His Spirit to help us in our study. Do I even need to cite verses to prove this?

Admittedly, I have changed my views on Greek studies seen my university days. But I believe that there is a special danger that those who involve themselves too much in the nuts and bolts of the Bible - and I can attest this from experience (which I will not get in to). I wish I could find a good article on this very topic. Perhaps I had read it in Wallace's Beyond the Basics.

But, no, people like Bauer and Thayer, the Unitarian, are not included in the "best tools that God has created expressly to bring His words to His creation."

The best tools are the Bible, the Holy Spirit working in us as new creatures, prayer, the checks and balances that come from fellowship with like-minded believers. Also, a knowledge of the original languages. But below this - in a distinctly ministerial position - are the helps provided by those whose theological views are not like-minded. In many cases, not even believers.

Ag gain, though, while true that some of the best Hebrew/greek study tools were done by those hold to a "less than" views as to inspiration and theology of the Bible, they also though did compile and bring to their texs what was the actual definition and understanding of the various hebrew/greek words used to write down the biblical record!

 

[asterisktom]

Ag gain, though, while true that some of the best Hebrew/greek study tools were done by those hold to a "less than" views as to inspiration and theology of the Bible, they also though did compile and bring to their texs what was the actual definition and understanding of the various hebrew/greek words used to write down the biblical record!

The only way to determine what these words mean is, ultimately, how they were used in context, Yes these lexicons are helpful in giving us examples of usages. But this is more helpful with words that occur only rarely or only once in the Bible like σπερμολόγος, "seed-picker", KJV "babbler" (I think it was).

However those words that are theologically significant, like καταργέω (katargeo) usually already have a sufficient body of Biblical attestation to draw upon. In fact, going outside the Bible for these words many times leads us away from the true Bible meaning.

Even going to the LXX for an understanding of NT words can be problematic. I remember reading about an incident in the LXX, the rape of Tamar. That violation was called agape!

No, I stand by what I originally asserted. By far, the best tool we have for understanding any Bible word is how the Bible uses it - especially in nearest context - not what some supposed impartial authority might insist it means.

And this conclusion only came after years, from one who himself loves delving into those tools (lexicons and such), though not as avidly as before.

 

[Van]

If interested, my effort to do a word study of katargeo, can be found in the Bible Translations forum.

 

[Yeshua1]

The only way to determine what these words mean is, ultimately, how they were used in context, Yes these lexicons are helpful in giving us examples of usages. But this is more helpful with words that occur only rarely or only once in the Bible like σπερμολόγος, "seed-picker", KJV "babbler" (I think it was).

However those words that are theologically significant, like καταργέω (katargeo) usually already have a sufficient body of Biblical attestation to draw upon. In fact, going outside the Bible for these words many times leads us away from the true Bible meaning.

Even going to the LXX for an understanding of NT words can be problematic. I remember reading about an incident in the LXX, the rape of Tamar. That violation was called agape!

No, I stand by what I originally asserted. By far, the best tool we have for understanding any Bible word is how the Bible uses it - especially in nearest context - not what some supposed impartial authority might insist it means.

And this conclusion only came after years, from one who himself loves delving into those tools (lexicons and such), though not as avidly as before.

The Bible itself is the primaty text for study, as it only was inspired rvealtion from God, but the lexicons and other original language tools given to us by gifted men and scholars have been a God send to the church...

main problem has been not in their use, but their misuse, as some have ignored contex/syntax/grammar and just used what the lexion/dictionay gave to them!