ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ

This one is my favorite: (T)NIV[i] 2011

Craig Blomberg has written about James 3, making a strong case for the translation of ἀδέλφοι should be translated as “brothers and sisters.”

One of many highlights:

Shouldn’t we still err on the side of a conservative translation if there is any reasonable doubt that James had both genders in mind. Isn’t that part of where translations differ from commentaries because of our high view of the inspired text of Scripture itself? This may be one of the most widespread and dangerous fallacies afflicting certain wings of evangelical scholarship and the conservative church in general in the U.S. today.

I’ve been waiting for someone to say that for some time now. Be sure to go read why its a fallacy.

By the way, the Holy Spirit is neuter in Greek and feminine in Hebrew.

Talk about idenity crisis.

or maybe grammatical gender is different than natural gender…

I went back to re-read an article by Mark Strauss this evening and I came across a paragraph that I had forgotten about. This was pretty humorous and it made both my wife and I laugh (my emphasis):

Ironically, P&G [Poythress & Grudem] inadvertently demonstrate the potential confusion of using masculine terms when they themselves misunderstand masculine generic “man” to be gender specific (i.e., male). In their discussion of Greek aner, they argue that the Greek lexicons do not recognize the sense “human being.” To prove this they cite various lexicons, including the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon. The first two entries for aner in Liddell-Scott are (1) man, opposed to woman, and (2) man, opposed to god. P&G use this data to deny that the term ever loses its distinctively male sense. But what is the sense of “man, opposed to god”? The first sense, “man, opposed to woman,” is clearly “male human being,” but the second is clearly “human being.” P&G have read the generic use of “man” in this second entry, and have misunderstood it to be gender specific (i.e., male). In this way they illustrate the potential for misunderstanding “man” for contemporary English readers!

Note: This is a separate issue from the comp/egal debate. The author of the article is a complementarian criticizing other complementarians.

A Reader’s Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition

I like the fact that the TNIV takes more seriously the LXX and the Dead Sea Scroll than the NIV did. That might have to do with the fact that so much work on Old Testament Textual Criticism has been done since the 80’s.

I finally put up the last of my posts examining the different between the NIV and the TNIV in the Old Testament. Its been nearly a year since I last posted on this project. The fact is that is rather time consuming to do. I do plan on completing the series, but I’m not sure how long it will take. When I first began, I was posting once a week. That was too much work and I cannot continue that pace. This series simply isn’t that high of a priority. And to a degree, doing that much in a week made it more of a chore than anything else.

From now on, I’ll shoot for once a month. But that’s a goal, not a promise. If that’s how it works out, I’ll probably be done either at the end of December or the beginning of January. Hopefully now that we’re in the section where I know the language, things will be easier too.

After a very long break (nearly a year), I’ve decided that I need to complete this series. What follows then, is a comparison of the Minor Prophets – Hosea through Malachi.

Let’s take a look at the stats:

Total Change from the NIV to the TNIV: 4.7%

Hosea: 3.8%

Joel: 3.1%

Amos 3.8%

Obadiah 1.6%

Jonah 8.0%

Micah 3.8%

Nahum 3.7%

Habakkuk 3.8%

Zephaniah 10.3%

Haggai 2.8%

Zechariah 4.9%

Malachi 9.2%

Hosea:

The first major change appears in 1:2:

NIV: When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the Lord.”

TNIV: When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”

I think this is a change for the better. The TNIV definitely reads much smoother than the NIV, especially since the NIV’s “take to yourself an adulterous wife” is rather archaic sounding – not to mention that the following phrase “children of unfaithfulness” suggests that the Lord wants Hosea to kidnap some children born out of wedlock. “Have children” is definitely more clear in that regard.

In verses 6 & 9, the meaning of the Hebrew names (Lo-Ruhamah [which means “not loved”] and Lo-Ammi [which means “not my people”]) is placed in parenthesis rather than in a footnote. This isn’t a completely necessary change, but it saves the reader a half a second of looking down at the footnotes.

There are a number of stylistic changes where oil is clarified to be “olive oil” in verses 5 and 22, sky replaces air, etc. There are also other minor changes that I’ve already described else.

3:3 is clarified nicely as well:

NIV: Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will live with you.”

TNIV: Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will behave the same way toward you.”

I think contextually, its pretty clear that this change is justified. It makes explicit that the point of God’s words are faithfulness.

In 4:7, it is clarified that the NIV’s “Glory” really refers to God in the TNIV with, “glorious God.” There is also a note saying that they are following the Syriac rather than the MT.

Hosea 4:15 is much better English in the TNIV with the phrase “Do not let Judah become guilty” rather than the NIV’s archaic “let not Judah become guilty.”

In Hosea 6.5, the TNIV opts for a more literal rendering

“Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth— then my judgments go forth like the sun.

rather than the NIV’s

Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth; my judgments flashed like lightning upon you.

Also noteworthy in this verse is the fact that the TNIV adds a note pointing out that the Hebrew is uncertain in this verse, which is good to know. The TNIV is an honest translation in the greater number of footnotes it has compared to the NIV.

In Hosea 7:14, the TNIV follows a few Hebrew manuscripts & the LXX against the MT:

They do not cry out to me from their hearts but wail on their beds. They slash themselves, appealing to their gods for grain and new wine, but they turn away from me.

The NIV follows the MT:

They do not cry out to me from their hearts but wail upon their beds. They gather together for grain and new wine but turn away from me.

In Hosea 10:6, there is a rather large different in interpretation:

NIV: It will be carried to Assyria as tribute for the great king. Ephraim will be disgraced; Israel will be ashamed of its wooden idols.

TNIV: It will be carried to Assyria as tribute for the great king. Ephraim will be disgraced; Israel will be ashamed of its foreign alliances.

Likewise in Hosea 11:4:

NIV: I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them.

TNIV: I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love. To them I was like one who lifts a little child to the cheek, and I bent down to feed them.

According to Duane Garrett (224), the TNIV is following a repointing of the Hebrew here in the same way that the [N]RSV does (interestingly, the ESV goes back to the MT with the NIV).

Hosea 12.9 has a tense change between the NIV & the TNIV: “I have been the Lord your God ever since you came out of Egypt” rather than “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt.”

Joel:

There is an improvement at 1:8 where the NIV’s “Mourn like a virgin in sackcloth grieving for the husband of her youth.” is replaced in the TNIV with, “Mourn like a virgin in sackcloth grieving for the betrothed of her youth.” Now that’s a better description for a virgin, isn’t it?

In Joel 2:10, the “heavens tremble” in the TNIV whereas, the “sky trembles” in the NIV.

2.20 has major changes:

NIV: “I will drive the northern army far from you, pushing it into a parched and barren land, with its front columns going into the eastern sea and those in the rear into the western sea. And its stench will go up; its smell will rise.” Surely he has done great things.

TNIV: I will drive the northern horde far from you, pushing it into a parched and barren land; its eastern ranks will drown in the Dead Sea and its western ranks in the Mediterranean Sea. And its stench will go up; its smell will rise.” Surely he has done great things!

The exclamation at the end is a nice touch.

Finally, in Joel 3:21:

NIV: Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, I will pardon.” The Lord dwells in Zion!

TNIV: Shall I leave their innocent blood unpunished? No, I will not.” The Lord dwells in Zion!

There is not footnote here, but there should be. These are opposite meanings. Looking at commentaries Garrett provides a helpful footnote:

The clause וְנִקֵּיתִי דָּמָם לֹא־נִקֵּיתִי is literally “and I will leave unpunished their blood I did not leave unpunished.” This is perhaps intelligible but is harshly elliptical. Dillard aptly comments that “at first glance the verse appears to contain self-contradictory clauses” (Garret, 396).

Well, its helpful in that I now know the problem. My lack of Hebrew knowledge prevents me from saying more. Perhaps some other Hebrew scholar will read this and comment. I hope so.

Amos:

The first big change is at 1:11:

NIV: This is what the Lord says: “For three sins of Edom, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. Because he pursued his brother with a sword, stifling all compassion, because his anger raged continually and his fury flamed unchecked…

TNIV: This is what the Lord says: “For three sins of Edom, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. Because he pursued his brother with a sword and slaughtered the women of the land, because his anger raged continually and his fury flamed unchecked…

There is no note on this change for either translation.

In 2.6, there is a change from righteous to innocent.

In 3.5, the NIV’s

Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground where no snare has been set? Does a trap spring up from the earth when there is nothing to catch?

is changed to

Does a bird swoop down to a trap on the ground when no bait is there? Does a trap spring up from the ground if it has not caught anything?

In Amos 4:9 a independent clause in English is changed to a dependent clause:

NIV: Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, I struck them with blight and mildew.

TNIV: Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards, destroying them with blight and mildew.

My understanding of the Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis (combined with a note in Logos Bible Software’s Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear) suggests that the TNIV’s rendering is probably the more accurate understanding of the Hebrew, though again, I would defer to those who actually know the language.

The TNIV’s rendering in Amos 5:3 makes it more explicitly clear that the cities & towns the Lord is referring to are specifically Israelite cities rather than simply random cities of other nations:

NIV: This is what the Sovereign Lord says: “The city that marches out a thousand strong for Israel will have only a hundred left; the town that marches out a hundred strong will have only ten left.”

TNIV: This is what the Sovereign Lord says to the house of Israel: “Your city that marches out a thousand strong will have only a hundred left; your town that marches out a hundred strong will have only ten left.”

The pronouns in Amos 5:7-12 are changed from the NIV’s 2nd person “you” to the impersonal 3rd person constructions. This is not a gender change, though. This translation change actually makes the TNIV more transparent to the Hebrew.

Amos 7:14, the delightful verse that has been made famous in the line (by D. A. Carson?), “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I am part of a non-profit organization” has been changed in the TNIV. Whereas the NIV read “son of a prophet,” the TNIV reads, “disciple of a prophet.” Reading Douglas Stuart in WBC, the TNIV follows the understanding that “son of a prophet” is an idiom for being part of the prophets guild (Stuart, 376).

Obadiah:

Not much change in this book. There’s stylistic change in verse 12 & 13, where the phrase “look down on your brother” is changed to the better sounding English “gloat over your brother.”

Jonah:

Comparatively speaking, there’s a good amount of change in Jonah, at least the percentage is higher.

In 1.17, Jonah is “in the belly of the fish” rather than simply inside the first.

And in his prayer at 2.8, the TNIV changes the NIV’s

Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs.

to

Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit God’s love for them.

This is an interesting change, which seems to be for the best, particularly since the concept of “grace” is not necessarily a completely understood one these days.

At 3.3, the TNIV changes the wording for the description of Ninevah:

NIV: Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days.

TNIV: Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important large city; it took three days to go through it.

And then in verse 4:

NIV: On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.”

TNIV: Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.”overthrown.”

Jonah’s response to God’s forgiveness is changed too in 4.1:

NIV: But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry.

TNIV: But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry.

And 4.2:

NIV: He prayed to the Lord, “O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

TNIV: He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.

Next, in verse 9:

NIV: But God said to Jonah, “Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?” “I do,” he said. “I am angry enough to die.”

TNIV: But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the gourd?” “It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

By the way, the vine is changed to a gourd earlier too. Personally, on that last line from Jonah, I prefer the NIV’s rendering, but I think that might be the first time in this entire series that’s happened.

Finally, in verse 11 we have one last change for the book:

NIV: But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?”

TNIV: And should I not have concern for the great city Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”

There are enough changes in this verse that I don’t think I need to highlight them. I do like this verse in the TNIV.

Micah:

As noted above, there is a 3.8% difference in this book. That’s not much and there are probably only 3 or 4 that are actually worth noting, such as Micah 2.7:

NIV: Should it be said, O house of Jacob: “Is the Spirit of the Lord angry? Does he do such things?” “Do not my words do good to him whose ways are upright?

TNIV: House of Jacob, should it be said, “Does the Lord become impatient? Does he do such things?” “Do not my words do good to those whose ways are upright?

Or in 5.5-6:

NIV: And he will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. 6 They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders.

TNIV: And he will be our peace when the Assyrians invade our land and march through our fortresses. We will raise against them seven shepherds, even eight commanders, 6 who will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land and march into our borders.

The rest of the changes are very small, about half of which involve gender changes – none of which actually affects the meaning of the text by any means.

Nahum:

With only three chapters, 3.7% is a very small number. The “big” changes include the change from oracle in the NIV to the TNIV’s prophecy in 1.1, counsels of wickedness in the NIV to “devises wicked plans in the TNIV at 1.11.

In 2.7, we have an interesting gender change form neuter to feminine:

NIV: It is decreed that the city be exiled and carried away. Its slave girls moan like doves and beat upon their breasts.

TNIV: It is decreed that Nineveh be exiled and carried away. Her female slaves moan like doves and beat on their breasts.

At 3.4, harlot is changed to prostitute and at 13, the NIV’s “women” is changed to “weaklings,” a rendering which is actually less literal than a very large number of the TNIV’s changes. But its also much less demeaning to women as well!

Finally, at 3.15, grasshoppers are changed to locusts.

Habakkuk:

Once again we have a 3.8% difference. You really have to appreciate the consistence in the amount of change in these books. For example the very first change is the same “oracle” to prophecy” we saw in Nahum.

Probably the biggest and most notable change is at 2.15, where the TNIV add an entire phrase:

NIV: Drink and be exposed!

TNIV: Drink and let your nakedness be exposed!

My guess is that the NIV was attempting a more “word-for-word” translation of the verse, but the TNIV is actually the more accurate representation of the Hebrew according to HALOT on this particular Hebrew word:

nif: impv. הֵעָרֵל Hab 216 to show the foreskin (Rudolph KAT 13/3:218, 221 and TOB with MT :: cj. הֵרָעֵל to stagger with Sept., Vulg., Pesh., 1QpHab, see Elliger HK 56; Segert ArchOr. 22 (1954):455f, cf. BHS) (HALOT, 885).

It should also be noted that both include a note pointing to the alternative text in the Septuagint, et al.

At 3.6, while the NIV says that the Lord’s “ways are eternal.” The TNIV says rather than the Lord “marches on forever.” There is no note explaining the difference between the two. Christo van der Merwe provides a footnote in the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear, which states that the Hebrew is literally, “ancient ways are his.” Keil and Delitzsch provide the paraphrase, “He now goes along, as He went along in the olden time” (Keil & Delitzsch, 10:420). But more helpful in terms of explaining why there are two different renderings is A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Habakkuk, which states:

The last line, His ways were as of old, may be understood in two ways. First, it may be taken as a separate statement about God (compare niv “His ways are eternal”). Second, it may be taken as in apposition to the previous statement about the mountains and hills. His ways then refers to the mountains and hills as the route by which God moves over the earth. This would be another allusion to the giving of the Law, when the Lord appeared to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai amidst storm and earthquake (Exo 19.16–20). This second interpretation fits the context better and is preferable. tev accepts it and translates “the hills where he walked in ancient times” (compare jb, frcl, gecl) (Clark and Hatton, 121).

And that’s really it for major changes in Habakkuk.

Zephaniah:

This book had some serious changes to it, though most of them are small or have been discussed in previous sections of this survey.

At 1.3, we see the following change:

NIV:  I will sweep away both men and animals; I will sweep away the birds of the air and the fish of the sea. The wicked will have only heaps of rubble when I cut off man from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord.

TNIV: “I will sweep away both people and animals; I will sweep away the birds in the sky and the fish in the sea— and the idols that cause the wicked to stumble.” “When I destroy all people on the face of the earth,” declares the Lord,

Both translations have a note that says that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. The major change is apparently not in the LXX, according to the NET Bible. Basically what it seems to come down to is that the Hebrew behind the NIV’s “rubble” could also be translated as “stumbling block.”

And there is more change in 1.4:

NIV: I will stretch out my hand against Judah and against all who live in Jerusalem. I will cut off from this place every remnant of Baal, the names of the pagan and the idolatrous priests—

TNIV: I will stretch out my hand against Judah and against all who live in Jerusalem. I will destroy every remnant of Baal worship in this place, every remembrance of the idolatrous priests—

The first change appears to be stylistic, but the second, well, I’m not entirely sure what is going on.

At 1.14, the NIV’s “shouting of the warrior,” is changed in the TNIV to “The Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry.” The reason for the capitals being the divine referent of God.

The style of verse 1.17 is improved so that now the people don’t merely “walk like blind men,” but now “grope about like those who are blind.”

At 3.4, Jerusalem’s prophets are described as “unprincipled” and “cannot be trusted” in the TNIV rather than “arrogant” and “treacherous” in the NIV.

At 3.17, whereas the NIV has “The Lord your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing” the TNIV instead translates the verse as “The Lord your God is with you, the Mighty Warrior who saves. He will take great delight in you; in his love he will no longer rebuke you, but will rejoice over you with singing.”

Regarding the first change, the TNIV appears to be (with my inadequate understanding of Hebrew and the tools I have) a more literal rendering, retaining the nominalization of the verb translated “save.” With that said, there is really very little difference between the two renderings.

On the second change, Clark and Hatton write,

Various attempts have been made to find a meaning for this, but none are convincing, and the mention of silence here clashes with the loud singing in the next clause (compare “Sing aloud … shout” in verse 14). Accordingly most modern translations follow the ancient Septuagint and Syriac versions and translate as he will renew you in his love or something very similar (200).

Other than that, I don’t know what to say about the TNIV’s rendering. The NIV is very similar to the marginal reading of the RSV.

Verses 18 and 19 of this chapter also have a large number of changes:

NIV: The sorrows for the appointed feasts I will remove from you; they are a burden and a reproach to you. 19 At that time I will deal with all who oppressed you; I will rescue the lame and gather those who have been scattered. I will give them praise and honor in every land where they were put to shame.

TNIV: I will remove from you all who mourn over the loss of your appointed festivals, which is a burden and reproach for you. 19 At that time I will deal with all who oppressed you. I will rescue the lame; I will gather the exiles. I will give them praise and honor in every land where they have suffered shame.

Most of these changes seem to mainly be minor, though the first change is definitely the most significant. Grammatically, the clause translated as, “who mourn over the loss of your appointed festival/sorrows for the appointed feasts,” is a participial clause, functioning as the object of the verb “remove.”

So in this verse, the TNIV does two things: 1) the TNIV adjusts the word order of the English to make it more natural (i.e. objects follow their verbs in English) and 2) they translated the participle in a different, but as far as I can tell, completely legitimate manner.

Haggai

There isn’t much change here, only 2.8%. These include changes in the English transliteration of proper names, oil to olive oil (a good clarification in the oil rich Middle East), and the change of cattle to livestock. All of these changes happen a couple of times and constitute the majority of the percentage.

Zechariah:

This book weighs in with a middle weight 4.9% difference. This is slightly heavier than the majority of the minor prophets, but no where close to Jonah or Zephaniah. And in 1.2, 3, 4, 6, we seen the same change four times in a row: forefathers to ancestors. This is a change we saw a lot in the historical books and in the Pentateuch. There are also plenty of places in the text where the NIV’s American measurements are replaced with the ancient measurements. We once again have cubits rather than feet. And we see the same proper name changes of previous books as well.

The next “big” change is at 2.7, where the NIV’s “After he has honored me and has sent me against the nations that have plundered you” is changed to “After the Glorious One has sent me against the nations that have plundered you. Again there is no note, so this isn’t a textual problem. Simply put, in the Hebrew text, all we have is a prepositional phrase literally meaning, “after glory” (cf. Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis). The NIV and TNIV simply take two different interpretations – and there, according to David Clark, eleven different options with varying levels of likelihood. But Clark and Hatton also says that the route followed by the TNIV is probably the best.

With so many different views available, it is impossible to give firm guidance to translators. Probably the first of the choices listed above is best. As Meyers & Meyers point out, the word translated sent me occurs again in the following verse with “the Lord of hosts” as subject, and this increases the likelihood that the Lord is also the subject here. So it seems best to interpret glory to refer to the Lord himself (Clark and Hatton, 111).

Our next significant change is at 4.10.

NIV: “Who despises the day of small things? Men will rejoice when they see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel. “(These seven are the eyes of the Lord, which range throughout the earth.)”

TNIV: “Who dares despise the day of small things, since the seven eyes of the Lord that range throughout the earth will rejoice when they see the chosen capstone in the hand of Zerubbabel?”

The TNIV has a note at “chosen capstone” that says, “Or ‘plumb line.’” I really don’t have a clue about the changes in these verbs. Maybe someone else can shed some light on the Hebrew.

Malachi:

Lastly, Malachi has a 9.2% difference from the NIV, just between Jonah and Zephaniah. And in all honesty, none of these seem to be very large changes. The majority of them are only stylistic changes than only affect a word or two. As far as I can see, there are no textual changes or reinterpretations at all. And I’d say that the majority of the changes are ones that I’ve already covered elsewhere. The Bible is too large for me to continue to repeat myself. If I did, I would never finish this series.

Bibliography:

Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes. The Hebrew Bible : Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis. Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press, 2006.

Clark, David J., and Howard Hatton. A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Habakkuk. Helps for translators. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.

Clark, David J., and Howard Hatton. A Handbook on Zechariah. UBS handbook series. New York: United Bible Societies, 2002.

Garret, Duane A. Vol. 19A, Hosea, Joel. electronic ed. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1997.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M.E.J Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999, c1994-1996.

Smith, Billy K., and Franklin S. Page. Vol. 19B, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. electronic ed. Logos Library System; The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1995.

Stuart, Douglas. Vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary : Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002.

van der Merwe, Christo. The Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible; Bible. O.T. Hebrew. Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004; 2004.

Waard, Jan de, William Allen Smalley, and William Allen Smalley. A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Amos. Helps for translators. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1979.

I decided to pick up my NIV/TNIV comparison series again. Its been way too long and its time to begin again. I’ll put up the Minor Prophets by the end of this week.

There are some very interesting changes in the Minor Prophets, even though it’ll be a long post, I’d encourage you to just skim through and look for the bigger changes.

To many things had gotten in the way of completing it, particularly being a student full time and working too much.

What follows are mainly some thoughts I’ve had about terminology and also the way certain argument for and against different views are formed.

Often times “Dynamic” translations are viewed as dumbed down. This is often on the basis that their reading level is lower than the more “literal” translations. But could it be that often times (though not always) the reason that the reading level is lower is not because of translators dumbing down the text, but rather that the “Dynamic” translations are simply better and less awkward English. A great example of this is very easily seen in TC’s blind comparison. In that case, the unknown dynamic translation (which is really the TNIV) is easier to read and not dumbed down at all in comparison with the unknown literal translation (the NRSV).

The terms “Literal” and “Dynamic” are thrown around in ways that they shouldn’t be. More often than not, literal really just means awkward (and often times over against accurate), What should literal mean? Well how about the maintaining in the translation of metaphor and imagery, word play, word order (when it does not violate the semantics of the clause, sentence or discourse as a whole – Psalm 1.1 in the KJV tradition), and the linguistic register (kind of like literary ability) of the author? It should also accurately transfer into the target language the rhetorical strategies and discourse structure of the author.

I can tell you right off the bat that with the exception of maintaining metaphor, imagery and word order (often to an incomprehensible extreme) the NASB fails on most of these.

And in fact translations like the TNIV tend to get the most of these done much better though I by no means claim that they are perfect. As far as I know, linguistic register is never translated. It should be though. I want to see John’s very simple Greek shown through in simple English and I want to see Hebrews’ rich and complex Greek shine through the English text as well. I haven’t yet. But I want to. One of the problems is that such translation requires an incredible amount of sensitivity in both Greek and English – and perhaps even a linguistic awareness of English beyond simply native speaker intuition.

So there are some thoughts to chew on. I hope my summer away hasn’t caused my English bible translation readers to disappear…

[11] And he gifted some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers [12] for the effective training of God’s people – toward building up Christ’s body [13] until we all attain unity in faith and knowledge of the Son of God and until we reach completion – the standard of maturity that is the fullness of Christ. [14] He gifted these people so that we might no longer be children who are carried and tossed about by waves and every wind of teaching by the craftiness of people and their deceitful cleverness, [15] but instead by speaking the truth in love, we might grow toward that one perfectly whole person, who is the head – Christ. [16] Because of him the whole body, joined and held together by all the supporting ligaments, by the operation of each individual part, produces growth, building itself up in love.

17 Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω καὶ μαρτύρομαι ἐν κυρίῳ,
So now I must urge you in the Lord

μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν,
not to walk

καθὼς καὶ τὰ ἔθνη περιπατεῖ ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν,
as those gentiles walk with their empty heads,

18 ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ
[18] blinded by their own thoughts

ὄντες ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς . . .
and alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them . . .

. . . διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν 19 οἵτινες ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ.
. . . and their calloused hearts. [19] These people, having lost all feeling, have betrayed themselves to sensuality with all kinds of sexual perversion and greed.

This section marks another transition to exhortation. The previous section of the text focuses on the theology of the unity of the church as the body of Christ. But here with the words Τοῦτο οὖν λέγω (therefore, I say this), Paul shifts to challenge and exhort his audience to action. They’ve got two options. They follow God or the unbelievers. Paul wants them to choose God’s way, but he begins with the negative. μαρτύρομαι (I exhort/urge [you]) can mean either testify/bear witness or exhort/implore. In this case, its the latter.

The ἐν κυρίῳ (in the Lord) is an adjunct prepositional phrase. The phrase is intended to express Paul’s earnestness. By bringing Christ to his audiences’ mind, Paul brings them back to the previous verses where Christ is the standard of spiritual maturity and growth to which they are to seek. The infinitival clause, μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν (not to walk), functions as the content of Paul’s exhortation. It is the complement of the verb, μαρτύρομαι (exhort/urge). The point, of course, deals with the manner of life Paul seeks for his audience to live.

Paul’s use of περιπατέω (walk) functions as a conceptual metaphor, which was very popular throughout all of Jewish Literature, especially in the Old Testament Wisdom and Prophets. Though a growing number of English translations provide the translations of live for this verb, there is good reason to believe that its basic meaning of walk should be used. For one, the metaphor in of itself, is easily understandable to the English reader without significant difficulty. Secondly, the fact that this is a conceptual metaphor (rather than a simple one used once and dropped by the way side) makes it incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to translation. The walking metaphor goes well beyond the use of this word and is implicit throughout the cotext of the next several chapters. Conceptual metaphors function at a discourse level and must be translated at a discourse level. Since some of the other parts of the metaphor would not be recognizable in English (cf. below) it becomes even more necessary for the translation to maintain the concept of walking in English. Translations that do not, such as the [T]NIV, NRSV, and NET, loose connections within this passage itself through much of chapter 5 and also important connections with the Wisdom Literature and Prophetic Literature traditions of the Old Testament where the paths of wisdom/righteousness and folly/wickedness are so visibly present.

καθὼς καὶ τὰ ἔθνη περιπατεῖ ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν (as those gentiles walk with their empty heads) is a adverbial clause denoting the manner of walk Paul desires his audience to avoid with the prepositional phrase describing the manner in which they walk. The following two participial clauses in verse 18 (#1: ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ & #2: ὄντες ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν) function in the same way: … the gentiles walk:

• with their empty heads (ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν)
• blinded by their thoughts (ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ)
• as foreigners of the life of God because of their own ignorance and the calloused hearts (ὄντες ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν).

Whether there is any significant semantic difference on the basis of Paul’s use of one prepositional phrase as an adjunct and two participle clauses as adjuncts cannot be determined. All three seem quite clearly function in the same manner (no pun intended).

The first participle is a passive verb, which means that the grammatical subject is the semantic patient of the verb. Passives are a more marked construction. The agent of the clause is marked in the prepositional phrase. Since typically the agent does not need to be expressed in the passive voice, I have taken it to be slightly emphatic, which I have tried to represent in translation (blinded by their own thoughts).

The second adjunct participle is also a periphrastic construction, using the participle form of εἴμι & another participle (ὄντες ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι [lit. being alienated/separated]). This particular clause has its own adjuncts as well in the form of two prepositional phrases: διὰ. . . διὰ. . .

The first of these, διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, (because of their ignorance that is in them), consists of the head noun ἄγνοιαν (ignorant) followed by a participle clause: τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς (roughly: that is in them) in the 2nd attributive position. This is a rather unusual construction. For one, the copula is generally not even necessary here. Paul could have simply written: τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς or even simply: τὴν ἄγνοιαν αὐτῶν to express the same meaning. These different options Paul had are roughly equivalent to “by their ignorance,” “by the ignorance in them,” and “by the ignorance that is in them.” So why would Paul choose the most drawn out construction? It seems likely that Paul is developing his extended metaphor of walking. As I argued previously (cf. Here), this grammatical construction (article noun article participle clause) is regularly and quite nearly universally used to point to a location – the ones who are in this place. If this understanding is correct, then Paul’s purpose and concern for her audience goes beyond merely the manner in which they walk, but also where they walk, figuratively speaking. This would suggest that we should maintain the idea of walking translation, instead of the simply glossing over the metaphor with the literal English “live,” represented by the [T]NIV.

The Gentiles, according to Paul, are foreigners, separated from the life of God (ὄντες ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ). To put it simply, they are in the wrong place, walking on the path of ignorance with clouded minds (ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ). All of this, the imagery and the syntax, it all resonates well with the wisdom tradition we find in Proverbs, particularly 1-9. For example, in Proverbs 8 we find personified wisdom calling out at the crossroads (verse 2) to everyone who is simple and foolish to join and walk with her on the path of righteousness (verse 20).

οἵτινες ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ (lit. who, having lost all feeling, have betrayed/handed themselves over to sensuality with all kinds of sexual perversion and greed), is a relative clause that ends this somewhat long sentence. It connects to the αὐτῶν, to provide a more detailed description of the Gentiles and the result of their actions. The semantics of the verb, “παρέδωκαν,” requires the roles of agent, theme, & recipient . That is, for the clause to be grammatical, these three semantic slots must be filled. In this case, the agent is filled by the relative pronoun, “οἵτινες,” referring to the Gentiles. The theme slot is filled by the reflexive pronoun, “ἑαυτοὺς .” The recipient is personified sensuality, “τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ.” The language is figurative, but the meaning is clear. In their callous blindness, they’ve betrayed themselves to sensuality.

Conclusion: Thus, the Gentiles are walking with empty heads and cloudy thinking on the wrong path, the path of ignorance, separated from the life of God. Their hearts are so calloused that they indulge themselves in sensuality – all sorts of impurity and all kinds of greed.

Translation:
[17] So now I must urge you in the Lord not to walk as those gentiles walk with their empty heads, [18] blinded by their own thoughts and alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and the calloused hearts.  [19] These Gentiles, having lost all feeling, have betrayed themselves to sensuality with all kinds of sexual perversion and greed.