Linguistics and Bible Translation

[37818]

The meaningless rant is you changing the subject to my behavior but not addressing the fact JOJ claimed Greek participles were not accurately conveyed in English. I asked for a verse when this was the case and not one was presented. See post 52 and now the growing list of non-responses.

Did you see any example? Show me the verse with a Greek participle that needs knowledge to Greek grammar to grasp the message. The claim that a person needs to know Greek in order to understand God's word is false.

Certainly study of God's word can be enhanced by being able to consider the nuances presented by the original language, such as when a translation changes a noun to a verb to alter the message.

I'm going to answer this before Van does, to make sure I was not being offensive. I have to say that many of my Greek students (and English students when I taught that) do not know what a participle is when I get them. To be clear, a participle is a verbal adjective. Also, Greek does not have gerunds like English does, but only participles, but participial usage is much greater than in English.

Here is an answer to Van's request, which was, "Show me the verse with a Greek participle that needs knowledge to Greek grammar to grasp the message" in Post #52. One thing that is more complicated in the Greek verb system than in English is Aktionsart, which is a German term meaning "kind of action." In Greek, the perfect tense has Aktionsart not seen in the English verb system, which is that a Greek perfect depicts action usually in the past with continuing results. Thus, when Jesus said on the cross, "It is finished," (John 19:30; one word, tetelestai, τετέλεσται), it was a perfect activie indicative. So, Christ was indicating, "My death for sin is finished, but the results will continue." And we are saved as part of those results.

In James 1:15 we have the same apparent phrase in English, "sin, when it is finished...," (two words, ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα) but it is a participle instead, modifying "sin." Because it is a present active participle, it is translated with "when" instead of as a declarative sentence. Furthermore, the Greek word for "finished" is different. In John it is the normal word for finishing something (teleo, τελέω), but in James it involves bringing something to fruition (apoteleo, ἀποτελέω), thus emphasizing the end result of sinning, instead of a single action.

In the textbook I use for Greek 101-102, participles are difficult enough that they don't come until Ch. 20 in the 2nd semester, and even then it is the longest chapter in the book, 18 pages, so I take two days to teach it.

 

[Van]

Here is an answer to Van's request, which was, "Show me the verse with a Greek participle that needs knowledge to Greek grammar to grasp the message" in Post #52. One thing that is more complicated in the Greek verb system than in English is Aktionsart, which is a German term meaning "kind of action." In Greek, the perfect tense has Aktionsart not seen in the English verb system, which is that a Greek perfect depicts action usually in the past with continuing results. Thus, when Jesus said on the cross, "It is finished," (John 19:30; one word, tetelestai, τετέλεσται), it was a perfect activie indicative. So, Christ was indicating, "My death for sin is finished, but the results will continue." And we are saved as part of those results.

In James 1:15 we have the same apparent phrase in English, "sin, when it is finished...," (two words, ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα) but it is a participle instead, modifying "sin." Because it is a present active participle, it is translated with "when" instead of as a declarative sentence. Furthermore, the Greek word for "finished" is different. In John it is the normal word for finishing something (teleo, τελέω), but in James it involves bringing something to fruition (apoteleo, ἀποτελέω), thus emphasizing the end result of sinning, instead of a single action.

In the textbook I use for Greek 101-102, participles are difficult enough that they don't come until Ch. 20 in the 2nd semester, and even then it is the longest chapter in the book, 18 pages, so I take two days to teach it.

1) Is the concept of "Aktionsart" a Greek participle? Nope so non-germane.

2) Is "tetelestai" as found in John 19:30 a Greek participle? Nope so another non-germane response. The Greek word is an indicative verb in the "perfect" tense indicating a completed action with continuing results. Since Christ had not physically died yet, the "it" in "it is finished" refers to Christ's sinless life and therefore an acceptable sacrifice for the sin of the world.

3) Is apotelestheisa as found in James 1:15 a Greek participle? Yes! How is this "participle" used in the sentence? As an adjective modifying the noun "sin" telling us that when "sin" is fully consummated it (sin) brings forth death. Is the Greek participle a "present active particle?" Nope It is in the Aorist tense indicating a completed action.

Bottom line, not a shred of support of the claim that sin when fully consummated does not bring forth death. Thus the translation is adequate to convey the meaning.

 

[37818]

1) Is the concept of "Aktionsart" a Greek participle? Nope so non-germane.

2) Is "tetelestai" as found in John 19:30 a Greek participle? Nope so another non-germane response. The Greek word is an indicative verb in the "perfect" tense indicating a completed action with continuing results. Since Christ had not physically died yet, the "it" in "it is finished" refers to Christ's sinless life and therefore an acceptable sacrifice for the sin of the world.

3) Is apotelestheisa as found in James 1:15 a Greek participle? Yes! How is this "participle" used in the sentence? As an adjective modifying the noun "sin" telling us that when "sin" is fully consummated it (sin) brings forth death. Is the Greek participle a "present active particle?" Nope It is in the Aorist tense indicating a completed action.

Bottom line, not a shred of support of the claim that sin when fully consummated does not bring forth death. Thus the translation is adequate to convey the meaning.

participles at DuckDuckGo

Participles | Koine Greek Wiki | Fandom

 

[Van]

Is apotelestheisa as found in James 1:15 a Greek participle? Yes! How is this "participle" used in the sentence? As an adjective modifying the noun "sin" telling us that when "sin" is fully consummated it (sin) brings forth death. Is the Greek participle a "present active particle?" Nope It is in the Aorist tense indicating a completed action.

Bottom line, not a shred of support of the claim that sin when fully consummated does not bring forth death. Thus the translation is adequate to convey the meaning.

Show me the verse with a Greek participle that needs knowledge to Greek grammar to grasp the message. The claim that a person needs to know Greek in order to understand God's word is false. ​

 

[John of Japan]

1) Is the concept of "Aktionsart" a Greek participle? Nope so non-germane.

2) Is "tetelestai" as found in John 19:30 a Greek participle? Nope so another non-germane response. The Greek word is an indicative verb in the "perfect" tense indicating a completed action with continuing results. Since Christ had not physically died yet, the "it" in "it is finished" refers to Christ's sinless life and therefore an acceptable sacrifice for the sin of the world.

3) Is apotelestheisa as found in James 1:15 a Greek participle? Yes! How is this "participle" used in the sentence? As an adjective modifying the noun "sin" telling us that when "sin" is fully consummated it (sin) brings forth death. Is the Greek participle a "present active particle?" Nope It is in the Aorist tense indicating a completed action.

Bottom line, not a shred of support of the claim that sin when fully consummated does not bring forth death. Thus the translation is adequate to convey the meaning.

Actually, I was the one who posted this not 37818. I answered your request right away. And you are correct that the participle in James 1:15 is aorist, though I said present. But it still has Aktionsart and verbal aspect, both important in interpretation. And so it is not just "completed action." So I believe I completely answered your request. And everything I wrote was germane, IMO. I'm sorry you don't see that.

And concerning participles, we have them in English as well as Greek. I asked if you knew what a participle was in order to ascertain your level of understanding of what I was going to say. I now know your level of understanding. Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

Hoping that the last of the sidetracks is finished (this is not a thread on why it is not helpful to learn Greek), I'll try t get back to the OP.

There are scholars who object to the use of modern linguistics in hermeneutics (and thus in Bible translation). In particular, Robert Thomas, formerly of the Master's Seminary (seems to be retired now) is one. And I plan to talk about that. However, first I want to give more background.

Language, by Leonard Bloomfield (1933), was a ground-breaking book in descriptive linguistics. My copy was my father's textbook at Wheaton College in the 1940s, when he was preparing to be a missionary. Descriptive linguistics is just what it sounds like: describing language for what it is.

However, even before that, Edward Sapir wrote a famous book on linguistics, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech (1921). His field was structural linguistics, which looks at a particular language as being self-contained. That's not important to this thread, but what is relevant is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Whorf was his student), which says that translation is ultimately impossible. All we can do is get an approximation of meaning from one language to another. This was linguistic relativism--the idea that language shapes culture rather than culture shaping language.

Do you agree? Is it impossible to correctly translate truth from one language to another?

 

[John of Japan]

Show me the verse with a Greek participle that needs knowledge to Greek grammar to grasp the message. The claim that a person needs to know Greek in order to understand God's word is false. ​

Why do you keep saying this? I have said already that I have never said this in my entire life.

And the odd thing is, you are the guy who has posted thread after thread after thread with your views on how the translation of various verses or words or sentences should take place according to the Greek semantics.

 

[Van]

Actually, I was the one who posted this not 37818. I answered your request right away. And you are correct that the participle in James 1:15 is aorist, though I said present. But it still has Aktionsart and verbal aspect, both important in interpretation. And so it is not just "completed action." So I believe I completely answered your request. And everything I wrote was germane, IMO. I'm sorry you don't see that.

And concerning participles, we have them in English as well as Greek. I asked if you knew what a participle was in order to ascertain your level of understanding of what I was going to say. I now know your level of understanding. Thank you.

Once again, the English translation of the Greek participle was sufficient to convey God's message, thus your assertion was not and is not valid.

 

[Van]

Why do you keep saying this? I have said already that I have never said this in my entire life.

And the odd thing is, you are the guy who has posted thread after thread after thread with your views on how the translation of various verses or words or sentences should take place according to the Greek semantics.

Here is where JOJ said what he now disavows:

I believe pastors and believers all over the world can benefit from a knowledge of New Testament Greek. There are some things that simply do not come through in a translation, such as the Greek participial usage.

And my reply: Show me the verse with a Greek participle that needs knowledge to Greek grammar to grasp the message. The claim that a person needs to know Greek in order to understand God's word is false.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is where JOJ said what he now disavows:
And my reply: Show me the verse with a Greek participle that needs knowledge to Greek grammar to grasp the message. The claim that a person needs to know Greek in order to understand God's word is false.

"Grasp the message," which you said, is a general statement. Any Christian can grasp the message of a passage, meaning the truth taught in a passage. I have said nothing different. However, there are nuances that cannot be understood unless it is from the source language in any translation effort, not just Bible translation. I stand by my statement, your misinterpretation of it not withstanding.

In James 1:15, the verbal aspect of the aorist participle "it is finished" is that the Greek looks at the complete action. The semantic fact that a different verb is in this passage for "finished" than that used in the cry of Jesus on the cross is also significant.

By your denying that there are any nuances in the verse that cannot be understood, you are de facto showing that I am correct. Your lack of understanding does not prove your point, it proves mine.

Now, due to the fact that I have answered you already, I'll not answer again on this point if you continue to belabor the point.

 

[Van]

"Grasp the message," which you said, is a general statement. Any Christian can grasp the message of a passage, meaning the truth taught in a passage. I have said nothing different. However, there are nuances that cannot be understood unless it is from the source language in any translation effort, not just Bible translation. I stand by my statement, your misinterpretation of it not withstanding.

In James 1:15, the verbal aspect of the aorist participle "it is finished" is that the Greek looks at the complete action. The semantic fact that a different verb is in this passage for "finished" than that used in the cry of Jesus on the cross is also significant.

By your denying that there are any nuances in the verse that cannot be understood, you are de facto showing that I am correct. Your lack of understanding does not prove your point, it proves mine.

Now, due to the fact that I have answered you already, I'll not answer again on this point if you continue to belabor the point.

Folks, there you have it, a person unwilling to admit error.
Did I say there are not "any nuances in the verse that cannot be understood?" Nope I said "grasp the message."
Does a person need to have studied Greek to discern that the phrase "it is finished" reflects the KJV using the same English phrase to translate two different Greek expressions? Nope, a reverse interlinear provides that information.

John 19:30 KJV
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


James 1:15 (KJV)
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.​

Here is the NET version of James 1:15,
James 1:15
Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.

Thus the problem is not an understanding of Greek, but failing to use a variety of translations and study tools to discern God's message.

 

[John of Japan]

Aaaaaaand, once again I've put Van back on ignore. There's a great Japanese word I think about him whenever he shows up: 煩い！

P. S. Don't look for this Japanese word on Google translate. It gets both the pronunciation and meaning wrong.

 

[John of Japan]

To try to get back to the OP, I talked about linguistic relativity in Post #66, and asked if you think truth can be translated.

There is a great book on that very theme, Translating Truth, by Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, C. John Collins, Vern S. Poythress, and Bruce Winter (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005). The book promotes "essentially literal" Bible translation, and makes the point that an essentially literal translation is a better vehicle for declaring God's truth than a dynamic equivalent (functionally equivalent) one is.

"'Essentially literal' does not mean totally literal. It means that a translation strives to find the English word or combination of words that most accurately corresponds to the words of the original text. It does not mean translating that original in a way that makes no sense in English. Furthermore, retaining the syntax of the original, though not an irrelevant consideration, is nonetheless not a high priority, inasmuch as Hebrew and Greek syntax is [sic] so different from English syntax" (p. 58).

 

[John of Japan]

Eugene Nida, famous inventor of the dynamic equivalence theory of translation, embraced the code theory of communication. He wrote, "Language is a code, in the sense that it consists of signs and arrangement of signs. The signs consist largely of lexemes [words seen as lexical units, or entries in a lexicon-JoJ] which serve to represent something to someone" (Nida and Johannes Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. Society of Biblical Literature, 1992, p. 21).

Code theory is largely passe. A recent book depicts codes as a possibility within a language, rather than the nature of a language itself (Stephen W. Littlejohn & Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., 2011). Instead, something called relevance theory has taken its place. The seminal work on this is Relevance Theory, by Ernst-August Gutt (Dallas: SIL, 1992), which completely debunks code theory. Put very simply, the idea of relevance theory is that communication is inferential. That is, a sentence is not simply a code that you say and I have to decode, but it is important to know what you are inferring.

Here's an example. One of our team wanted to make our Japanese translation more honorific, or in American terms, politer. However, as our Japanese partner taught me, a very polite statement in Japanese can actually be an insult. So, you might mean me to infer that I am respected by your polite language, but if I know Japanese respect language well enough, I'll infer that you are insulting me despite the seeming politeness of your statement. Clear as mud?

 

[John of Japan]

A similar linguistic discipline to relevance theory is called sociolinguistics, defined as, "Any study of language in relation to society (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 372). I recommended to our linguistics professor that our interns read the little book Sociolinguistics, by Bernard Spolsky (Oxford U. Press, 1998), but she already discusses that in a class, so she didn't see the need. (Shucks! ) However, if you are interested in how translation is influenced by society, this is a good little book (a little over 100 pp.).

Along that line, consider this. There is a huge controversy among translators regarding the use of Allah for "God" in a translation for a Muslim people group. Our Farsi translator completely opposes that, but fortunately for him, there is a different word for "God" in Farsi that is generic. Others think Allah is just a generic name for "God." Any opinions?

 

[Salty]

Clear as mud?

AKA - between a rock and hard place

 

[37818]

Others think Allah is just a generic name for "God." Any opinions?

There is the interpertation that Allah is an Arabic contraction for Th'God.

 

[John of Japan]

There is the interpertation that Allah is an Arabic contraction for Th'God.

I didn't know that. The sources I've seen claim that it was the name of the moon god when Mohammed was alive.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm currently reading Experiencing God (rev.), by Henry and Richard Blackberry, and Claude King. This is the best book I've ever read on the will of God, and I highly recommend it.

Anyway, it quotes Galatians 2:20, so I took a look at it, thinking I knew the grammar. So I'm pretty sure Van would reject this as proving my point (knowing him), but I thought I would share this anyway, because it's a blessing! The verb "crucified" is a perfect passive, though not a participle. (Van got all hung up on the participles, which are certainly more complicated in Greek.) The verbal aspect of the Greek perfect tense is that it represents action in the past with the results carrying on until now. So the verse is saying in essence (an explanation, not a translation), "I was crucified with Christ, and it has affected me since then, so that Christ lives in me."

There are many other examples of Greek verbs I could give, including participles, of how the Greek verbal system is different from English, Japanese, Chinese, or any other language.

 

[John of Japan]

Going back to descriptive linguistics, after Bloomfield's textbook I mentioned that my Dad used in college, H. A. Gleason wrote, An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, rev. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston: 1961). I know, I know, this thread is not that well organized. I'll probably go back to transformational grammar if I mentioned that before. (I think I did.)

Anyway, Gleason defines descriptive linguistics in his preface as "the discipline which studies languages in terms of their internal structures" (p. iii). Then he defines linguistics: "Linguistics is the science which attempts to understand language from the point of view of its internal structure" (p. 2).

From this it should be obvious that descriptive linguistics is a primary tool for the Bible translator. If you know the internal structure of the source language, translation becomes easier. Then, the better you can describe the internal structure of your target language, the easier it is to translate into it.

Thus, the popular Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, by William D. Mounce, has a lot of English grammar in it to help the student grasp Greek grammar. And I have found that the better a student knows English grammar, the easier Greek grammar is for them, though some things are very different between the grammars.

In my case, I loved learning Japanese, because it wasn't my first rodeo. I had taken classes in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and was an English minor in college. But the hard parts about Japanese are not the grammar, which is comparatively easy, but the honorifics (polite language) and the 1000s of Chinese characters. I didn't care, I loved it--the gift of God. The two years learning Japanese full time in Saitama and Tokyo were two of the best years of my life.