# Most Literal?



## arapahoepark (Apr 11, 2017)

I am curious as to the most literal yet, understandable translation? Is the KJV like that? I listen to James White ,though perhaps he goes against those who are KJV Onlyists and he makes it sound like KJV is in some sense like an equivalent translation. (Please no textual discussion or White in this thread).
I got the NET on my kindle and while Dan Wallace calls it the most accurate it is also not the most literal according to the notes which baffles me.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 11, 2017)

No translation is always literal, and often translations with a reputation for being literal will be less literal in places than others with a reputation for being more dynamic. As a general rule, the NASB tends to be most literal, but the NKJV, KJV, and ESV are also on the more literal end of the spectrum. Here is a good book that evaluates the various translations available. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0830...y+versions&dpPl=1&dpID=51l++gCDxTL&ref=plSrch


----------



## ZackF (Apr 11, 2017)



Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 11, 2017)

From the CSB site there is a nice chart and the following table:







Per this table, and the methodology used, looks like the ESV edges out the NASB or the KJV. Now, on the scale of word-for-word, the results at the site are different:




Here the NASB and ESV edge out the KJV.

Note from the methodology report that the KJV edges out all others when it comes to consistency in use of the same translated words. While we know that the same word can take on different senses and therefore meanings from context, I happen to like a translation that is consistent in word usage.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 12, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> I got the NET on my kindle and while Dan Wallace calls it the most accurate it is also not the most literal according to the notes which baffles me.



You might be making the common mistake of confusing "most literal" (meaning most word-for-word) with "most accurate." They are not necessarily the same.

Let's take an example from a Spanish-to-English translation. The Spanish phrase "tengo hambre" translates word-for-word as "I have hunger." This might cause an English reader to think it denotes having a strong urge, or to suspect the phrasing speaks of a particularly personal hunger. But neither is the case. It simply means, "I am hungry." So "I have hunger" is the most literal translation but "I am hungry" is probably the most accurate, or at least the most precise at communicating the original intent in most contexts.

Translators have to make these kinds of decisions all the time. There may be many reasons for choosing either a more word-for-word rendering or a more casual one. But whichever philosophy is followed, all translators will probably argue their choice made the translation most accurate, because accuracy does not necessarily come from word-for-word substitution.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 12, 2017)

The chart above is helpful. The CSB (or HCSB) aims to bring out the best of both accuracy and readability. For me personally I use both the ESV and the HCSB to bring out the best of both accuracy and readability. I also love the NASB.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 12, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The chart above is helpful. The CSB (or HCSB) aims to bring out the best of both accuracy and readability. For me personally I use both the ESV and the HCSB to bring out the best of both accuracy and readability. I also love the NASB.



Yes, but keep in mind that the chart was put together by the publishers of the CSB, so it's not all that surprising that they would find that their own translation ranked high in both categories.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 12, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> I am curious as to the most literal yet, understandable translation? Is the KJV like that? I listen to James White ,though perhaps he goes against those who are KJV Onlyists and he makes it sound like KJV is in some sense like an equivalent translation. (Please no textual discussion or White in this thread).
> I got the NET on my kindle and while Dan Wallace calls it the most accurate it is also not the most literal according to the notes which baffles me.



I want to repeat Jack's thoughts. The question, "What is the most literal translation?" and the question, " What is the most accurate translation?" are not at all the same questions. Most of the time, when people use the word "literal," they really mean "literalistic." To translate literally is to translate meaningfully into a target language.

An example of literal vs. literalistic would be to use the phrase "raining cats and dogs." A literalistic rendering of this into any other language would want to communicate that furry pets are actually falling from the sky onto the ground, while a literal rendering would want to communicate that it is raining particularly hard. Unfortunately, when most people want a "literal" translation, they are actually looking for the former, not the latter.

That is why when people discount the NIV or some other so-called "dynamic equivalence" translation because they are not "literal" translations, I get a little irked. The NIV, while not a literalistic translation, is certainly a literal translation. It communicates the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew meaningfully into the target language.

If you want a literalistic translation, I would suggest picking up Young's Literal Translation (which should really be called Young's Literalistic Translation; it is by no means a literal translation). Turn to the Ten Commandments in YLT and you will discover how ridiculous a principle literalistic translation is. It is an atrocity and completely misses the Hebrew.

However, if you mean by "literal" a translation that resembles the word order and vocabulary consistency of the original languages, and for the most part leaves idioms intact (a poor but understandable translation choice, in my opinion), then the charts AMR provided give you your answer, it seems: the ESV. Personally, despite some of its quirks (Why in the world does it say that Rahab the prostitute gave the spies a "friendly welcome" in Hebrews 11?), I have found that the ESV is indeed the most consistent of the modern translations in terms of this quality (i.e., translating the same word the same way in most instances).



Bill The Baptist said:


> Yes, but keep in mind that the chart was put together by the publishers of the CSB, so it's not all that surprising that they would find that their own translation ranked high in both categories.



Well, to be completely fair, the study claims to be independently done by Andi Wu of the Global Bible Initiative, not LifeWay or Holman Bible Publishers.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 12, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> I am curious as to the most literal yet, understandable translation? Is the KJV like that? I listen to James White ,though perhaps he goes against those who are KJV Onlyists and he makes it sound like KJV is in some sense like an equivalent translation. (Please no textual discussion or White in this thread).
> I got the NET on my kindle and while Dan Wallace calls it the most accurate it is also not the most literal according to the notes which baffles me.


Would tend to see the NASB as being the most literal translation available at the present time, and the NKJV would fit that bill if one was into their textual sources!


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Per this table, and the methodology used, looks like the ESV edges out the NASB or the KJV.



It might depend on criteria. ESV and NASB regularly interpret the genitive in a specialised way which cuts off alternative possibilities present in the original. If statistics included things like the literal translation of the genitive I suppose the AV would move closer up the literal scale.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> That is why when people discount the NIV or some other so-called "dynamic equivalence" translation because they are not "literal" translations, I get a little irked. The NIV, while not a literalistic translation, is certainly a literal translation. It communicates the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew meaningfully into the target language.



I am sorry to cause you more uncomfortable feelings but the NIV does not translate the word of God into English. It adds words unnecessarily, fails in many instances to bring out the central meaning of the original, and tends to introduce ideas from nowhere.

Here is one example from Romans 1:17.

NIV: For in *the gospel* the righteousness of God is revealed--*a righteousness that is* by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

ESV: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

NASB: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

HCSB: For in it God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith.

AV: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## TylerRay (Apr 12, 2017)

Let's not forget the distinction of singular and plural second-person pronouns in the KJV, which more contemporary translations gloss over with a generic "you."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 13, 2017)

MW said:


> I am sorry to cause you more uncomfortable feelings but the NIV does not translate the word of God into English. It adds words unnecessarily, fails in many instances to bring out the central meaning of the original, and tends to introduce ideas from nowhere.



I never once argued that the CBT did _everything_ right in translating the NIV. However, to assert that "the NIV does not translate the Word of God into English" is, quite frankly, a little absurd. With all due respect, I don't know if your are conversant with the original languages, but I could only conceive of such a claim being made by someone who 1) has little to no familiarity with the original languages, or 2) is simply making a shocking statement for its own sake or the effect it will produce. The plain conclusion of your claim is that a person, when they read the NIV, is not reading the Word of God. This is a claim I doubt many people on the board would be comfortable with affirming. Even worse, it is a charge that the translators and proponents of the NIV (including several people I know and respect personally) are guilty of corrupting the Word of God—a charge I find to be both quite offensive and uncharitable.

Furthermore, _every_ translation "fails in many instances to bring out the central meaning of the original." The example you provided is minor. Allow me to provide a major example. Several translations (e.g., AV, NKJV, NRSV) fail to translate the anaphoric article in James 2:14. Such an omission is, in my view, one of the reasons why so many people read James 2:14 ff. and subsequently deny justification by faith alone. Simply translating the anaphoric article in 2:14 would eliminate this problem altogether. To argue against any translation because they "[fail]...to bring out the meaning of the original" is not, in fact, to argue against a singular translation, but to argue against the enterprise of translation itself.



MW said:


> Here is one example from Romans 1:17.
> 
> NIV: For in *the gospel* the righteousness of God is revealed--*a righteousness that is* by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
> 
> ...



I find it interesting that you complain that the NIV "fails...to bring our the _meaning_ of the original" (emphasis mine), yet the example that you provide is an example of the translators trying to do just that. Tell me, without consulting a commentary, what does it _mean_ that "the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for/to faith"? If I were to give an example of where the NIV fails in translation, I would not have chosen a passage where they are trying to deal with prepositions. Prepositions in Greek are some of the most variable words in the language, and simply translating them as whatever one was taught in Greek 101 is simply immature. This, again, gets back to my original argument. Such a translation that translates a preposition (or, in this case, a _set_ of prepositions, which complicates the interaction between them) as whatever the translators learned in Greek 101 is good at being _literalistic_, but they, in this instance, have failed to communicate clearly how the prepositions are functioning—in other words, what they _mean_. This, then, supports my original argument.

As for your complaint about the insertion of "the gospel" at the beginning of this verse, I actually find that the NIV here (along with the NET) does a better job at being literal and clear. This is because the Greek text contains something that is untranslatable in English—the relationship between the neuter pronoun and the neuter antecedent—because English, while it has neuter-specific pronouns (although they are almost always concordant with biological gender only), does not have neutered nouns. The NIV makes this connection unmistakable for the reader by translating the neuter pronoun as "the gospel." Because of the gender agreement in the Greek between "the gospel" and "it," the NIV rendering is what the text _means_ (which you have strangely argued that the NIV fails to show), to what is the complaint?

All translations have to make these types of decisions. If you don't like the decisions a translation makes, don't use it; that's what I do. I personally don't use the NIV (at least for study) because I, like you, find many places where I think the NIV has failed to produce the _meaning_ (not just the words) of the original (Prov. 21:1, for example). However, since studying both Greek and Hebrew for two years (each!), I have found many places in _every_ translation (without a single exception) that fails to produce the original meaning. Now the choice is simply between which translation makes the least or least significant errors, which I for myself have yet to determine. In other words, this is not just a problem with one translation. To have issues with the NIV is fine and completely justified; I have my own grievances with it, and therefore do not use it as my primary translation. But to claim that it does not translate the Word of God into English is to rise (or sink) to a level from which it is difficult to converse reasonably and with sobriety.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Apr 13, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> However, to assert that "the NIV does not translate the Word of God into English" is, quite frankly, a little absurd. With all due respect, I don't know if your are conversant with the original languages, but I could only conceive of such a claim being made by someone who 1) has little to no familiarity with the original languages, or 2) is simply making a shocking statement for its own sake or the effect it will produce.



Not that it is directly relevant, but I read in the original languages every day. If this is the "only" idea you could conceive your judgment is somewhat narrow. The issue has to do with one's translation philosophy.



Taylor Sexton said:


> The plain conclusion of your claim is that a person, when they read the NIV, is not reading the Word of God. This is a claim I doubt many people on the board would be comfortable with affirming. Even worse, it is a charge that the translators and proponents of the NIV (including several people I know and respect personally) are guilty of corrupting the Word of God—a charge I find to be both quite offensive and uncharitable.



By your own admission your opinion is based on preference for persons rather than commitment to principles. You are entitled to your opinion, but such things only demonstrate prejudice.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Furthermore, _every_ translation "fails in many instances to bring out the central meaning of the original." The example you provided is minor.



The translator-traitor concept applies to bringing out the "full" meaning of the original, not the "central" meaning. The example I provided is typical. Some possible, peripheral idea becomes the central focus of the translation and the central idea is obscured. Moreover this particular text is generally considered to be of some importance for the understanding of Romans.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Allow me to provide a major example. Several translations (e.g., AV, NKJV, NRSV) fail to translate the anaphoric article in James 2:14. Such an omission is, in my view, one of the reasons why so many people read James 2:14 ff. and subsequently deny justification by faith alone.



This example is in Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. It is questionable whether it does in fact serve the interest of "justification by faith alone." To bring in the idea that faith without works saves a man at all would be contrary to the emphasis which runs through this passage in James. It is quite obvious that James and Paul speak of two different things. To make them speak of the same thing would create a further difficulty in trying to reconcile them.




Taylor Sexton said:


> Tell me, without consulting a commentary, what does it _mean_ that "the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for/to faith"?



Do you think I am unaware of what the commentaries say? Out of the various options I consider the best to be the one which sees 3:21-22 as explanatory -- from faith revealing to faith receiving. But this is beside the point. The translation should not include an explanation. It should translate the original and leave the interpreters to decide from the various options. NIV cuts off the other possibilities.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Sad 1


----------



## MW (Apr 13, 2017)

To reiterate, the issue with the NIV pertains to translation philosophy. I do not deny that the Lord might use the NIV in spite of its translation philosophy; but this does not remove the major problem of the NIV, that it is not a literal translation of the Word of God. Nor do I think it should cause offence to say so. Evangelicals have been saying so for quite some time. It is one of the reasons the ESV was created with the aim to promote a "literal translation." Says John Piper, "The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it."

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 13, 2017)

MW said:


> Not that it is directly relevant, but I read in the original languages every day. If this is the "only" idea you could conceive your judgment is somewhat narrow.



It is entirely relevant. It appears to me that someone who makes such a claim either does not know the original languages or is making a statement simply for its effect. I am glad to know that you are familiar with the languages; I assumed, based on your ease in biblical interpretation, that such was true. The fact that later on in your post you have moved from asserting the NIV to not be the Word of God to simply not being a literal translation (a significant move, by the way) indicates to me that the latter is true—you made the assertion simply for its effect. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.



MW said:


> By your own admission your opinion is based on preference for persons rather than commitment to principles. You are entitled to your opinion, but such things only demonstrate prejudice.



The point of what I am saying is to ask that you be fair to a certain translation methodology (not the NIV _per se_). Now, I ask even more that you be fair to me. Not once did I ever base my opinion on a certain translation methodology on affinities for personalities. In fact, I stated rather explicitly that I do not use the NIV for deep study (which, let's be honest, is why we study the original languages in seminary, to begin with) based upon some of the outworkings of its translation methodology, did I not? Rather, my opinion is based solely upon my knowledge of the original languages.

My purpose in mentioning certain persons was to show my offense that you would insinuate that they are corrupting the Word of God, even nullifying it (which seems to me to be the logical conclusion of your original assertion).

Again, it is difficult to converse when reasonableness (not to mention fairness) is not an agreed-upon approach. An unfounded accusation of prejudice simply to gain some sort of upper hand in this conversation (I pray I am wrong) is hardly honest.



MW said:


> Some possible, peripheral idea becomes the central focus of the translation and the central idea is obscured.



According to your own interpretation of the interaction of the two prepositions in the example you provided, of course.



MW said:


> It is questionable whether it does in fact serve the interest of "justification by faith alone."



It is hardly questionable. The anaphoric article there is crucial to maintaining justification by faith. Without it, it is rather easy to see James as pitting faith against works—the rest of the passage notwithstanding. I have seen it happen for too often. What is questionable is why a translator would _not_ translate it. Why omit something that is so detrimental to erroneous doctrine? It is beyond me.



MW said:


> To bring in the idea that faith without works saves a man at all would be contrary to the emphasis which runs through this passage in James.



A fact which would be rendered absolutely certain if translations would translate the anaphoric article there. Besides, whether or not you or anyone else sees the article there as crucial to justification by faith, it still remains that it is an anaphoric article. Since we are so interested in accurately translating the Word of God, why not translate it as such?



MW said:


> It is quite obvious that James and Paul speak of two different things. To make them speak of the same thing would create a further difficulty in trying to reconcile them.



They speak of two _different_ things, yes; they do not speak of _contradictory_ things. The anaphoric article maintains the former, and excludes entirely the latter. That is the point.



MW said:


> Do you think I am unaware of what the commentaries say?



Did I say that?



MW said:


> The translation should not include an explanation. It should translate the original and leave the interpreters to decide from the various options. NIV cuts off the other possibilities.



It does not appear to me at all to be explanation. It seems to me to be a genuine attempt to render the meaning of the interaction of the two prepositions (which, I would like to emphasize again, can have wildly varying meanings depending on the context) meaningfully into English. That they cut off other interpretation (I absolutely grant this) is irrelevant.



MW said:


> To reiterate, the issue with the NIV pertains to translation philosophy. I do not deny that the Lord might use the NIV in spite of its translation philosophy; but this does not remove the major problem of the NIV, that it is not a literal translation of the Word of God.



As I said above, this is a big leap from the original intimation that the NIV is not even the Word of God. This is progress, at least.

Again, I agree with you about the translation philosophy. That is not the issue. The issue is fairness.



MW said:


> Says John Piper, "The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it."



This statement is as extreme as it is absurd. The NIV is most certainly not a paraphrase. I am disappointed to see someone with a Ph.D. in New Testament make such a ridiculous claim. I cannot be convinced that this statement was made solely in an effort to produce truth.

—————

Rev. Winzer, I do not intend for this to be a heated argument. I realize far too much how prone I am to make it such. However, just as you said, I am entitled to my opinion, and so are you. But we both have to realize that they are just that: opinions. Neither one of us have a monopoly on the truth. We both have preferences, opinions, and convictions—and these disagree sometimes. That's absolutely fine. I respect your learning and your undeniable contribution to this board and to my own thinking as a Christian. My only request is that, in everything we say—even if at the level of conviction—that we be fair and sober-minded. _That _has been the point of what I have said.

That said, I have tried to make my case. Whether or not it is convincing is up to others to decide. Perhaps I have not been convincing at all to anyone. If that be the case, it only means that I need to refine and express my thoughts more carefully. Regardless, I so very much appreciate and admire the passion you have for the Word of God, a passion no doubt placed by God himself.

Thanks for the conversation. All the things you say are things for me to seriously ponder and consider; I want you to know that I appreciate that. But, for the sake of keeping things civil (which, again, I am more than prone _not_ to do), I should probably no longer respond. I don't think there is much else I can add to what I have already said.

I look forward to your reply!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Apr 14, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The fact that later on in your post you have moved from asserting the NIV to not be the Word of God to simply not being a literal translation (a significant move, by the way) indicates to me that the latter is true—you made the assertion simply for its effect. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.



I never asserted the NIV is not the Word of God, so I haven't moved. I stated, "the NIV does not translate the word of God into English." You should pay closer attention to what another says.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Rather, my opinion is based solely upon my knowledge of the original languages.



If that is the case you should stop making emotional appeals based on people you know and how it will impact them. Stick with the principles and everyone will avoid the "offence" you easily expressed in your previous post.



Taylor Sexton said:


> It is hardly questionable. The anaphoric article there is crucial to maintaining justification by faith.



And as I stated, James does not teach justification by faith. He is speaking of an altogether different justification. He is speaking of the justification of faith itself. That is why James and Paul are reconcilable. But if you make James to speak of justification by faith, when he includes works in his criteria it will be impossible to reconcile his statement with what Paul presents.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Since we are so interested in accurately translating the Word of God, why not translate it as such?



The article before "faith" usually carries the sense of "the faith" as an objective thing to be believed. To regard it as a demonstrative adjective is interpretative.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 14, 2017)

We're taking a pause on this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 15, 2017)

Re-opening. Moderators' reminder: Please discuss the topic of the thread, not the person you are differing with, and do not presume or assign motives. Also, be mindful of the duties of the fifth commandment. http://files.puritanboard.com/confessions/wlc.htm#126

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 15, 2017)

In essense, I suppose my question is what is the most accurate? Does that typically mean most literal? It seems I have found some answers though from this thread.


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 15, 2017)

I did a google search on that precise question some months ago. At that time one result I came up with was the NRSV. It was noted that it is the version used by 'academia' in most schools of higher learning. I ran across this interesting article by J.J.M. Roberts, one of the men on the translating committee of the NRSV. http://www.bible-researcher.com/roberts1.html

For anyone interested in the vagaries of translation I recommend chapter 3 of D.A. Carson's, "The Inclusive Language Debate." Chapter 3 is titled 'Translation and Treason: An Inevitable and Impossible Task.'

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 16, 2017)

Just a quick note on "most literal" is the fact that translation ultimately requires sound theology. When you study Greek it helps you to understand the role that Biblical theology and even Systematic theology plays in properly understanding what a verse is communicating.

A simple exaple is the use of a genitive in Romans 3:22

The AV translates:


> 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is *by faith of Jesus Christ* unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference



The ESV (and other modern translations):



> 21 But now athe righteousness of God bhas been manifested apart from the law, although cthe Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God dthrough *faith in Jesus Christ* for all who believe. eFor there is no distinction



Which is "most literal"?
The Greek rendered "faith of Christ in one translation and "faith in Christ" in another is based upon the same Greek:
διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Is πίστεως a subjective genitive or an objective genitive? The syntax does not tell you. It requires theology.

Simply because a translation is preferred by academic readers does not indicate whether those who study the language have sound theology. The same is true of any translation committee.


----------



## MW (Apr 16, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Is πίστεως a subjective genitive or an objective genitive? The syntax does not tell you. It requires theology.



Just to bounce this example back to Trent's enquiry, -- the original readers would have been faced with the same question, and they may have answered it as a both/and rather than an either/or. Some interpreters regard Christ as the "author" as well as the "object" of faith.

This raises an important question so far as the scope of translation is concerned. Why should the translation decide a matter for the English reader when the text in the source language did not decide the matter for its original readers?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 17, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> In essense, I suppose my question is what is the most accurate? Does that typically mean most literal? It seems I have found some answers though from this thread.


Important to realize that there are no translations that are 100 % formal/literal in their translation, as there are indeed times when to have real understanding of the intended meaning, might have to be more dynamic. Would also add into this that the versions such as NASB/KJV/NKJV would be preferred for serious studying of the text, as they on a whole do get more to the intended meaning as was originally penned down to us, due to them not being as much into commenting/trying to interprete the meaning of the text as some more dynamic translation so, Also, there is far too much of the inclusive renderings in some revisions such as the2011 Niv for my own personal tastes. PS David Tennett my favorite one!


----------



## ZackF (Apr 17, 2017)

Tyler's point seemed to get buried. If seeking literalism, one should at least be familiar with the second person plural. The writers were inspired to use it.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 17, 2017)

MW said:


> Why should the translation decide a matter for the English reader when the text in the source language did not decide the matter for its original readers?



Because in some cases it simply cannot be avoided, such as Romans 3:22 (as has already been pointed out). English does not have a genitive case except in the case of some pronouns (e.g., "My [a possessive pronoun functioning attributively] dog is brown. What is *yours* [a genitive pronoun]?"). In the case of Romans 3:22, the nature of translating from the surface-level mechanics of the Greek genitive into the more limited (for lack of a better descriptor) surface-level mechanics of English, a decision _must_ be made. The only way to get around this, it seems, is to either translate it as "faith in/of Jesus Christ" (i.e., actually putting "in/of" _in the text_) or, as most translations do, put one option in the text and the other in a footnote.

Unfortunately, no language is a one-to-one transfer into another—not because of either language's deep structure, but because of surface structure. Language all say have the capabilities of communicating the same things (deep structure), but many times in wildly different ways (surface structure). This is basic linguistics, and it is exactly why the question of "literal" and "accurate" is not at all a simple question to answer.

In the case of the Greek genitive, the meaning of which can vary wildly, the traditional rendering of it into English as "_of_ X" does not, in some cases, have the simultaneous multiplicity of meaning that makes Greek so rich. In the case of Romans 3:22, there is no preposition in the English language that has the possibility of communicating the objective and subjective genitive at the same time; "of Jesus Christ" is possessive in English, "in Jesus Christ" is objective in English. Speaking again of deep and surface structure, πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in what it is communicating (deep structure), as you say, a "both/and" situation; that is entirely plausible. Because the original documents are in Greek, this "both/and" communication can be effectively communicated in the surface structure (i.e., the genitive). English, on the other hand, has no surface structure morphemes (or what have you) to communicate this deep structure "both/and" without 1) using more than one word for the genitive (i.e., something other than "of" or "in") or 2) giving a footnote.

That is why translation is so difficult, and difficult choices must be made, despite the possible deficiencies.


----------



## MW (Apr 17, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Unfortunately, no language is a one-to-one transfer into another—not because of either language's deep structure, but because of surface structure. Language all say have the capabilities of communicating the same things (deep structure), but many times in wildly different ways (surface structure). This is basic linguistics, and it is exactly why the question of "literal" and "accurate" is not at all a simple question to answer.



You are using the language of a school of linguistics which has specific presuppositions concerning the structure of the human mind (Chomsky) and has been sytematised to justify a particular method of Bible translation undermining literal translation (Nida's dynamic equivalence). This is not "basic" linguistics. It requires the unquestioned adoption of one point of view and predetermines the issue being discussed.

Do we believe in the word of God? Is the word important as a symbol of meaning? Jesus and His apostles could argue a theological point on the basis of one word. The Christian pulpit has regularly expounded the meaning of a word. The fact there is no "one to one transfer" from one language to another is not to the point. There is a transfer which takes place, and the fact the word of God is being transferred makes certain demands upon the translator. Hence the demand for a "literal" translation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 17, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Language all say have the capabilities of communicating the same things (deep structure), but many times in wildly different ways (surface structure).


Not sure what the typo is here but if your point was to say that all languages have the capacity of communicating the same things then this is actually false. Words are symbols for concepts that some cultures do not possess.

Good example of a dynamic equivalence vs a literal approach. Does a translator on an island translate the words "like a shepherd" to a people who have never seen a shepherd or a sheep or does he use another analogy that the people have in their "idea bank"? Does he translate "whiter than snow" into "whiter than ivory"?

The problems grows even more sticky when a culture lacks whole categories for thinking of words like propitiation. One of the effects of the Christian faith is that it creates whole new categories of thinking that may require brand new words in the language for concepts that a culture has never even encountered until the Gospel comes to them. We take this for granted because we live in a culture enriched by the Christian faith.

Some of these translation philosophies, in my opinion, assume that the reader is supposed to be able to pick up the Word of God in his own language and that the translators job is to bridge the world of the Bible to the words of the person who has no knowledge thereof. It assumes that the person has enough "dynamic equivalent" ideas in his mind in order to apprehend the world of the Scriptures. Even the Eunuch told Philip (in effect): How can I understand what I'm reading without a teacher?

My conviction, then, is not to translate concepts into concepts that a person can understand but to leave the concepts intact and then bring the individual to the concepts. This is what a literal translation is trying to accomplish. It still requires a teacher but it goes into the translational enterprise assuming that the concepts should not be altered to suit the reader and that a teacher will do the work to bring understanding.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 17, 2017)

MW said:


> You are using the language of a school of linguistics which has specific presuppositions concerning the structure of the human mind (Chomsky) and has been sytematised to justify a particular method of Bible translation undermining literal translation (Nida's dynamic equivalence). This is not "basic" linguistics. It requires the unquestioned adoption of one point of view and predetermines the issue being discussed.
> 
> Do we believe in the word of God? Is the word important as a symbol of meaning? Jesus and His apostles could argue a theological point on the basis of one word. The Christian pulpit has regularly expounded the meaning of a word. The fact there is no "one to one transfer" from one language to another is not to the point. There is a transfer which takes place, and the fact the word of God is being transferred makes certain demands upon the translator. Hence the demand for a "literal" translation.



Keep in mind that my entire comment was centered around the issue of the genitive in Romans 3:22, which, oddly (and, if I am honest, a little frustratingly), has been ignored completely in your reply, which seems to be to have led to a misunderstanding. The context of my remarks regarding linguistics had nothing to do with "undermining literal translation" (although that does, again, beg the question: What _is_ "literal"?).

As for the second paragraph emphasizing words, keep in mind, as I say below, that I am talking about syntax, not vocabulary. These are different things. Again, I think that this could have been avoided had my comment been responded to without ignoring the context (which had to do with syntax, not vocabulary).



Semper Fidelis said:


> Not sure what the typo is here but if your point was to say that all languages have the capacity of communicating the same things then this is actually false. Words are symbols for concepts that some cultures do not possess.



It seems you misunderstood what I was saying. As I said to Rev. Winzer above, I was not talking about vocabulary; I was talking about syntax.


----------



## MW (Apr 17, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> In the case of Romans 3:22, there is no preposition in the English language that has the possibility of communicating the objective and subjective genitive at the same time; "of Jesus Christ" is possessive in English, "in Jesus Christ" is objective in English.



As you desire a specific answer to this point, -- "of" has multiple uses and is fitting for expressing the ambiguity as it stands in the Greek. You are not properly distinguishing things that differ.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 17, 2017)

MW said:


> As you desire a specific answer to this point, -- "of" has multiple uses and is fitting for expressing the ambiguity as it stands in the Greek. You are not properly distinguishing things that differ.



How? I cannot conceive of a way to read the English phrase "faith _of_ Jesus Christ" as anything other than a possessive genitive. Perhaps I need it explained to me.


----------



## MW (Apr 17, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> How? I cannot conceive of a way to read the English phrase "faith _of_ Jesus Christ" as anything other than a possessive genitive. Perhaps I need it explained to me.



The Concise Oxford Dictionary lists nine uses of which the possessive is but one. See especially the use of the objective relation.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 17, 2017)

MW said:


> The Concise Oxford Dictionary lists nine uses of which the possessive is but one. The use of the objective relation is seen in "love of virtue," "search of knowledge," and applies to "faith of Christ."



Of course "of" can have ambiguity _in other contexts in the presence of other words_. That much is obvious, and is a fact I have not denied or contradicted even for a moment. However, we all know that, in English, "of" does not function in any possible way at any given moment. That is a fallacy akin to an illegitimate totality transfer, and thus citing there merely plethora of _possible_ meanings does not really help your argument. In fact, it actually doesn't really say anything other than the fact that "of" can simply function in a great number of ways _in a great number of contexts_; but this is true of many, if not all, prepositions.

In reality, "of" functions differently in the presence of different types of words (i.e., in different contexts). For example, how does the preposition function when the object is personal? One of the problems with the examples you gave (in your original comment, which you edited, and which I quoted above) is that none of them you gave have a person as the object of "of." Virtue, being impersonal, cannot possess love, so the fact that "love of virtue" is an objective genitive is more because of the impossibility of possession than because of the preposition. However, when the object of "of" is a _person_, we begin to have a problem, because a person, unlike a concept (e.g., "virtue") is capable of both possession and exercise of a verbal noun. Thus, ambiguity is introduced, not necessarily because of the nature of the preposition, but the possibilities introduced by the situation introduced by the functioning of the concepts communicated _by all the words in context_.

Another question is this: How does the function of the preposition change with the presence of different verbal nouns? In English, there is indeed ambiguity, for example, in the phrase "love of God": it could be objective ("love for God") or subjective ("God's love"). Again, this is because the object of "of" is personal, as opposed to impersonal. Just like in Greek, certain English verbs and verbal nouns take on different meanings in the presence of different prepositions. "Faith" is one of these verbal nouns. I have never heard anyone say, when they want to communicate, for example, their objective faith in the sturdiness of the chair in which they sitting, say, "I have faith of this chair." Such a statement is non-English, and communicates only that the speaker does not have total command of the English language. Rather, to communicate their objective faith, they would say, "I have faith _in_ this chair." The reasonable conclusion: "Faith in" and "faith of" communicate different things in English. I would dare to assert that I highly doubt if even a single English speaker, being presented with the phrase "faith of Jesus Christ," would interpret it in _any_ other way than possessive. It just simply is not how English functions in this scenario, given these particular words joined together by this particular preposition.

That is why "word-for-word," while it is perfectly fine most of the time, is not acceptable in some instances. This is because words are not _merely_ (notice my very deliberate word choice) symbols packed with meaning. Rather, they are symbols packed with meaning strung together to _function_ a certain way. The vast majority of the time, the function of words strung together in one language maintains well when translated into another language; this is when "word-for-word" works well (which is, again, most of the time). However, this is not always the case. Many times, the _function_ (without which there is no meaning) cannot be maintained through a "word-for-word" rendering. It is my argument that πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Romans 3:22 is one of these occasions. Not only this, but it is a particularly difficult situation because of the fact that the limitations of English force translators to make a choice.


----------



## MW (Apr 17, 2017)

You are basically importing the full idea of the English translation "in" back onto the Greek genitive. Interpreters who use "in" are only using it in the sense of objective relation.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 17, 2017)

MW said:


> You are basically importing the full idea of the English translation "in" back onto the Greek genitive.



I am importing nothing. Many verbs (and their verbal nouns) in biblical Greek take genitives as their objects (direct, objective, or otherwise). This is the farthest possible thing from a controversial statement. It is one the first things students of Greek learn! Find me a single grammar which states otherwise.

That is the problem. English does not have a surface structure that can communicate the ambiguity present in many Greek genitives. Hence, difficult choices must be made; it simply cannot be avoided, complain as we might.



MW said:


> Interpreters who use "in" are only using it in the sense of objective relation.



Exactly, because that's what "in" _means_ in the English language when preceded by "faith" and followed by an object, just like "of" preceded by "faith" and followed by an object _in the English language_ is possessive in the passage in question. you keep making comments based upon the _assumption_ that "of" in this English phrase contains the same ambiguity as the Greek construction, and that is simply not true under any conceivable circumstance or to any English speaker. That has been my point this whole time.


----------



## MW (Apr 17, 2017)

You were saying "of" and "in" were two different concepts. I was saying the "in" concept was covered by the use of "of." Now what are you saying? If you say, "exactly," then you agree precisely with my statement that interpreters use "in" as an objective relation. Since "of" is used as an objective relation this means "exactly" what I have argued, contrary to what you argued.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 17, 2017)

MW said:


> You were saying "of" and "in" were two different concepts. I was saying the "in" concept was covered by the use of "of." Now what are you saying? If you say, "exactly," then you agree precisely with my statement that interpreters use "in" as an objective relation. Since "of" is used as an objective relation this means "exactly" what I have argued, contrary to what you argued.



Please notice the exact statement to which I replied "exactly," Rev. Winzer. I did not say, "Exactly," to what you have argued, because it does not appear to me that you have argued much of anything. Rather, you simply keep asserting (which is not arguing) that somehow the phrase "faith of Jesus Christ" can be understood objectively, but is exclusively subjective (or possessive). What I am arguing (and have argued at rather great length in comparison to the volume of words I usually use in a forum) is that this is simply not true; in no conceivable way can "faith of Jesus Christ" be understood objectively to any English speaker. I have spent many words explaining in detail why this it is not so.


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> in no conceivable way can "faith of Jesus Christ" be understood objectively to any English speaker.



Now you are denying the "dictionary" use of objective relation. Would it not be easier to admit you were wrong and move on? Why waste all these words trying to give the appearance that you are right?


----------



## Taylor (Apr 18, 2017)

MW said:


> Now you are denying the "dictionary" use of objective relation. Would it not be easier to admit you were wrong and move on? Why waste all these words trying to give the appearance that you are right?



Why are you constantly so easily provoked and aggressive in these conversations, and for no reason? Have I said something offensive, insulting, or otherwise out of line? Or is the very thought of someone differing with you and trying to have a fruitful conversation (even, heaven forbid, a debate!) _that_ intolerable to you?

I explained the problems with the citation of the dictionary you made above (see Post #33). Did you read my remarks? You certainly have not addressed them in any meaningful way. I get the feeling—due to your very short responses to my long and labored comments—that I am angering you. This should not be so, brother. After all, we are talking about the function of a genitive, not justification by faith alone.

My heavens...


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Why are you constantly so easily provoked and aggressive in these conversations, and for no reason?



Is showing that Taylor Sexton is wrong to be regarded as aggressive? It looks to me like Taylor Sexton has a problem with being wrong.



Taylor Sexton said:


> I explained the problems with the citation of the dictionary you made above (see Post #33).



And as I explained, the interpreters only use the English "in" as an objective relation. Since the Dictionary uses "of" as an objective relation, your problems are made up.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 18, 2017)

MW said:


> Is showing that Taylor Sexton is wrong to be regarded as ipso facto aggressive?



No, because you haven't "showed" it at all. That assumes you have actually made arguments and responded to remarks in a meaningful fashion. Rather, you have merely asserted (not argued) my "error," asked me why I cannot accept it, and then asked why I can't just "move on." That is aggression, and it is utterly uncalled-for.



MW said:


> And as I explained, the interpreters only use the English "in" as an objective relation. Since the Dictionary uses "of" as an objective relation, your problems are made up.



So, that's it? All you have to do is say, "You're making it up," and the matter is as good decided, just like that? That allows you to completely dismiss and ignore my arguments, just that easily? Man, I wish I could get away with that in my research papers...

I gave you _so many_ reasons why merely citing a dictionary entry for this is lacking severely. Rev. Winzer—brother—do you have an actual _argument_, or is this going to be the pattern from now on?


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Rev. Winzer—brother—do you have an actual _argument_, or is this going to be the pattern from now on?



I gave you the argument. The Dictionary says objective relation is an use of "of." Interpreters of the Greek genitive use "in" as an objective relation. It is quite obvious that "of" includes the idea conveyed by "in." It is simple and it is obvious. It is there in black and white. You should take a moment, Taylor, and collect yourself.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 18, 2017)

MW said:


> I gave you the argument. The Dictionary says objective relation is an use of "of." Interpreters of the Greek genitive use "in" as an objective relation. It is quite obvious that "of" includes the idea conveyed by "in." It is simple and it is obvious. It is there in black and white. You should take a moment, Taylor, and collect yourself.



So what? "A racial slur for white people" is a use of "cracker," but that doesn't mean that it carries that meaning in every, or even most, context(s). That's the reason I gave you a very long explanation—involving problems such as context, function of various verbal nouns, and common (even universal) usage—as to why simply citing a dictionary entry is inadequate (Post #33).


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2017)

You must know context, function, and usage better than the Dictionary.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 18, 2017)

MW said:


> You must know context, function, and usage better than the Dictionary.



Your responses are becoming silly, Rev. Winzer. I know you are far too intelligent than to stoop to this kind of rhetoric. Am I so contemptible, so low in your eyes, that I am not even worth engaging with comments of actual substance? You and I both know that dictionaries list a possibility of meanings, but are not exhaustive lists of every possible meaning in every possible context. I know you know this.


----------



## MW (Apr 18, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You and I both know that dictionaries list a possibility of meanings, but are not exhaustive lists of every possible meaning in every possible context. I know you know this.



My spare time has run out. This will be my last response to you. Whether it is exhaustive or not is beside the point. It lists the objective relation as an use of "of." My original point was that the word "of" allows the ambiguity of the Greek genitive. Interpreters mean an objective relation when they use the preposition "in." The conclusion is undeniable that the English "of" includes the sense in which "in" is used by interpreters; and therefore my original point stands. Have a good day (or night), Taylor.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 18, 2017)

Moderator note:
Sticking a fork in this discussion. It's done.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------

