Translate This

[Martin Marprelate]

You are confused. I had said that no major translation goes word-for-word in any sentence. That means, none do.

I gave you a verse which is translated word for word; I'm sorry if you don't like it.
If you ever take the trouble to learn Greek so that you can argue more coherently and do not have constantly to refer to your home boys Fee and Strauss, you will find that the prologue of John's Gospel is given as an early exercise for beginners for the precise reason that it is very simple and parts of it are pretty much word for word.
FYI, Mark and John are the easiest Biblical writers to translate because they are less idiomatic than Matthew and Luke and do not have horrendously long sentences like Paul.
But no one pretends that one can translate a foreign language word for word. This is a straw man argument produced by Fee and Strauss which you parrot incessantly. You merely made an incorrect statement and I corrected you.

 

[Origen]

Leaving aside the article, which works differently in Greek, they almost all do
John 1:1.
En arche en ho logos.
In the beginning was the word.
kai ho logos en pros ton theou.
and the word was with God.

I gave you a verse which is translated word for word

I am not saying there are no verses which could be translated word for word but this example really does not fit.

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
In [the] beginning was the word (no article in the Greek text)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
and the word was to the God (the noun θεός has an article, the preposition πρός means "to\toward" as in direction)

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the word (if one follows the Greek word order then θεός comes before ὁ λόγος, however ὁ λόγος is the subject)

 

[Rippon2]

I gave you a verse which is translated word for word;

But no one pretends that one can translate a foreign language word for word. This is a straw man argument

You have contradicted yourself MM.

 

[Rippon2]

Allow me to quote from my homeboys, Doctors Fee and Strauss :

"Consider the Greek phrase that begins Mark's Gospel: Arche tou euangeliou Ie sou Christou (Mark 1:1). Most beginning Greek students would consider this to be simple Greek, which can be translated, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ'....Yet even this is not a 'literal' translation. The Greek grammatical forms are NOUN + GENITIVE PHRASE + GENITIVE PHRASE. The grammatical forms of the English translation are DEFINITE ARTICLE + NOUN + PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE + PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE. Almost all of the grammatical forms were changed to produce this supposedly 'literal' translation....What seems at first to be a simple and direct translation is in fact an interpretation using different English forms to express the same meaning. This kind of interpretation occurs in almost every sentence in the Bible." (p.28)

 

[John of Japan]

I am not saying there are no verses which could be translated word for word but this example really does not fit.

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
In [the] beginning was the word (no article in the Greek text)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
and the word was to the God (the noun θεός has an article, the preposition πρός means "to\toward" as in direction)

Actually, it is simplistic to say that πρὸς only "means 'to/toward' as in direction." That is only a gloss. This word actually has three whole columns of meanings in BAGD, pp. 709-711. Meaning #7 is "with someone."

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the word (if one follows the Greek word order then θεός comes before ὁ λόγος, however ὁ λόγος is the subject)

Translating "word for word" does not usually mean you have to follow the word order of the original--except in the minds of those who do not like literal methods. Word order in Greek is sometimes changed for the purpose of emphasis. The savvy and knowledgeable literal translator will take it that way.

 

[Origen]

Actually, it is simplistic to say that πρὸς only "means 'to/toward' as in direction."

I never said "only."

This word actually has three whole columns of meanings in BAGD, pp. 709-711. Meaning #7 is "with someone."

That is what the 2nd editions has. The 3rd edition does it a bit differently. The meaning is given under the heading:

3. w. acc. (pseudepigr. and apolog. throughout) marker of movement or orientation toward someone/someth. (p. 874)

Then subjection:

g. by, at, near πρός τινα εἶναι be (in company) with someone (p. 875)

Translating "word for word" does not usually mean you have to follow the word order of the original

I never claimed otherwise.

 

[John of Japan]

I never said "only."

Okay, noted.

That is what the the 2nd editions has. The 3rd edition does it a bit differently. The meaning is given under the heading:

3. w. acc. (pseudepigr. and apolog. throughout) marker of movement or orientation toward someone/someth. (p. 874)

Then subjection:

g. by, at, near πρός τινα εἶναι be (in company) with someone (p. 875)

Noted, but my point still stands. You can't simply say that this preposition means that gloss and be accurate.

I never claimed otherwise.

Okey dokey.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not saying there are no verses which could be translated word for word but this example really does not fit.

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
In [the] beginning was the word (no article in the Greek text)

The article works differently in Greek as compared with English. I noted this in my post.

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
and the word was to the God (the noun θεός has an article, the preposition πρός means "to\toward" as in direction)

The semantic range of Greek prepositions is huge, and pros is no exception. Part of that range is 'with' in the sense of 'in close proximity to. I think every Bible version translates it as 'with.'

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the word (if one follows the Greek word order then θεός comes before ὁ λόγος, however ὁ λόγος is the subject)

Correct, but I didn't quote that.

 

[Origen]

The article works differently in Greek as compared with English.

Never said it didn't. Moreover, the same can be said for other parts of speech, for example participles.

The semantic range of Greek prepositions is huge, and pros is no exception.

Again, never said it wasn't. Nevertheless there are limits.

Correct, but I didn't quote that.

I notice you left it out.

 

[Rippon2]

I will be quoting snips from Robert Alter's book The Art Of Bible Translation. He is not a Christian, but a consideration of his thoughts are valuable. He is a Hebraist, so he comes with a great deal of knowledge.

"The practice of translation, as I have learned from experience, entails an endless series of compromises, some of them happy, some painful, and not quite right because the translator has been unable to find an adequate English equivalent for what is happening --often brilliantly --in the original language." [p. ix]

"A translator's successes, which inevitably occur in the midst of half successes and partial failures, are occasionally quite visible to readers, as, for example, when he gets lucky and manages to find a happy English equivalent for a pun in the original. Successes of rhythm, however, are likely to be invisible to most readers, and they will be chiefly gratifying to the translator himself, though I think at least subliminally they contribute in some way to the satisfying experience of the narrative of the narrative for the reader." [p.85]

"As a translator, you find yourself constantly weighing sound against meaning, fidelity to the original against idiomatic aptness in the target language, and you are often not entirely sure that you have made the right decision....it is not feasible or even desirable to produce an exact replication of the rhythmic patterns of the Hebrew, but some evocation in English of the strong rhythms of the Hebrew is indispensable in order to convey an adequate sense of what is compelling about biblical literature." [p.102]

"Translations, as I have conceded several times, are inevitably approximations of the original, but all of us engaged in the enterprise need to aspire to closer approximations." [p.121]

 

[Rippon2]

The following passages are taken from D.A. Carson's The Limits Of Functional Equivalence In Bible Translation found in the larger work The Challenge Of Bible Translation.

"...translation is an inexact discipline that involves compromise -- give and take -- and that there are subtleties in the source text that demand the most careful evaluation about how best to preserve them without introducing too many extraneous notions." (p.81)

"The aim of a good translation is to convey the total content, or as much of it as possible in roughly equivalent compass -- informational, emotional, connotational, etc.--- of the original message to the reader (or hearer, where the translation is publicly read) in the receptor language. (p.96)