translation problems

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8026
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote:
DCHindley wrote:Personally, I take the part of verse 5 after ὧν οἱ πατέρες [to them belong the patriarchs] to be an interpolation by a later editor who merged the high Christology of the Christians of his day into a more or less genuine Pauline letter
I've been suspecting the exact same thing, DCH.
Must not be such a bad idea. Nobody's talking us off the ledge. ;)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: translation problems: Romans 16:25-27

Post by robert j »

This passage, and related comment, were posted in another thread (posted by Ben, but used here only as an example to begin this post)---
Romans 16.25-27 NASB:
"25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery [μυστηρίου] which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested [φανερωθέντος], and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen."

… it is through the prophetical writings that that the mystery is made known to the nations.
Yes, but it also seems that this NASB translation leaves the mode of manifestation of the long-secret mystery as unstated.

Some other bible translations, as well as some investigators, authors and commentators (though seemingly in the minority), use a different translation --- one similar to the NIV ---
25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith — 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen. (Romans 16:25-27, NIV)

This NIV translation seems more encompassing --- with the prophetic writings serving as the mode for BOTH the revelation of the long-hidden mystery, and for the Gentiles (nations) to come to the obedience of faith.

Here’s the extant Greek ---
25 Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου, 26 φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου Θεοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος, 27 μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν.

To anyone interested in commenting, based on the extant Greek, does it seem that the prophetic writings were intended by the author to apply to ---
--- only making the mystery known to the nations? Or,
--- both the revelation of the long-hidden mystery and to making the mystery known to the nations? Or,
--- is it just too unclear?

Certainly, the wording is confusing enough to have generated significantly different translations.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I briefly checked the Greek before posting the verse, and this is why I am most comfortable with the NASB translation. The δέ and τε, both postpositives (which means they stand after the first word in their clause), mark off two distinct clauses, each governed by a participle (underlined below):

...φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν
...but now revealed

διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου Θεοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος....
and through the prophetic writings according to the command of the eternal God unto the obedience of faith unto all the nations made known....

The word order suggests to me that all those prepositional phrases belong to the second clause. But I would not claim it to be impossible for them to go with both clauses.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: translation problems: Romans 16:25-27

Post by DCHindley »

robert j wrote:To anyone interested in commenting, based on the extant Greek, does it seem that the prophetic writings were intended by the author to apply to ---

--- only making the mystery known to the nations? Or,
--- both the revelation of the long-hidden mystery and to making the mystery known to the nations? Or,
--- is it just too unclear?

Certainly, the wording is confusing enough to have generated significantly different translations.
If you break it down clause by clause it goes like this:

Πρὸς Ῥωμαῖοι
Romans RSV (slightly modified)
16:25a *[Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου 16:25a *[Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel
16:25b καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 16:25b and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
16:25c κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις σεσιγημένου, 16:25c according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages
16:26a φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν διά τε γραφῶν προφητικῶν 16:26a but is now manifested through the prophetic writings,
16:26b κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ 16:26b according to the command of the eternal God,
16:26c εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωρισθέντος, 16:26c to make known to all nations the obedience of faith
16:27a μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 16:27a to (the) only wise God, through Jesus Christ,
16:27b *ᾧ* ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς *αἰῶνας*, ἀμήν.]* 16:27b *to whom* (be) the glory into the *ages*! Amen.]*

I, in my insanity, like to think that bolded stuff is interpolated, but if so, the manifestation is certainly related to "the preaching of Christ" and not to Paul's gospel, which the unbolded text would tell us is "the obedience of faith" that God had commended Paul to make known to all the nations (gentiles). Now, the attribution of glory "into the ages" belongs to "the eternal God" and not to (the) "only wise God," which is kind of silly. The asterisks indicate words for which variants exist in the "preserved text", which now appear to be attempts by scribes to make sense of the silliness caused by the introduction of the mystery of an "only wise god" into a narrative about Paul's God-ordained gospel of "obedience of faith" directed to all the nations.

But that's just me ...

DCH
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: translation problems

Post by andrewcriddle »

FWIW There is a strong case that Romans 16:25-27 is post-Pauline.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: translation problems

Post by DCHindley »

andrewcriddle wrote:FWIW There is a strong case that Romans 16:25-27 is post-Pauline.

Andrew Criddle
Yes, Harry Gamble's The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (1979).

Gamble seems to think that chapter 16 was the original postscript to the letter. Verses 16:25-27 are found in mss that end at chapter 14, and mss that end at chapter 15. If chapters 15 and/or 16 were not transmitted on purpose, why these particular verses to end it? They may not have been the original ending of chapter 16 either.

I think what he has demonstrated is that, for whatever reason, the letter has been transmitted with and without some combination of chapters 15 & 16. I suspect that there had been some sort of mutilation of one or more exemplars, similar to what happened to Mark, only the full(er) versions of Romans also circulated, unlike the original ending of Mark. Chapters 15 & 16 of Romans have a very confused transmission history.

Unfortunately, I cannot seem to locate my copy in my quite unorganized library. <Sigh> :facepalm:

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:I think what he has demonstrated is that, for whatever reason, the letter has been transmitted with and without some combination of chapters 15 & 16. I suspect that there had been some sort of mutilation of one or more exemplars, similar to what happened to Mark, only the full(er) versions of Romans also circulated, unlike the original ending of Mark. Chapters 15 & 16 of Romans have a very confused transmission history.
IIRC, Gamble argued that Romans was shortened as part of a generalizing tendency, removing the personal notes of chapter 15 and the personal greetings of chapter 16 so as to make it an epistle for everybody, not just the Romans.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: translation problems

Post by robert j »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
DCHindley wrote:I think what he has demonstrated is that, for whatever reason, the letter has been transmitted with and without some combination of chapters 15 & 16. I suspect that there had been some sort of mutilation of one or more exemplars, similar to what happened to Mark, only the full(er) versions of Romans also circulated, unlike the original ending of Mark. Chapters 15 & 16 of Romans have a very confused transmission history.
IIRC, Gamble argued that Romans was shortened as part of a generalizing tendency, removing the personal notes of chapter 15 and the personal greetings of chapter 16 so as to make it an epistle for everybody, not just the Romans.
Instead of being shortened, based on the available evidence it's possible that a general 14-chapter (form) Pauline treatise was later used (adding personal notes or greetings) or modified at various times with the addition of the text in either/both of the last two chapters --- as well as with the later addition of the two addresses to Rome in chapter 1.

robert j wrote in another thread (emphasis added here) ---

The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, by Harry Gamble Jr. (1977), as far as I know, still seems to represent the definitive and most comprehensive work on the subject --- in terms of the body of evidence presented.

I find it as no surprise that Gamble comes down on the side of mainstream Pauline scholars in promoting an original Romans that included chapters 15 and 16, as well the two addresses to Rome in chapter 1. But, for free-thinking readers, Gamble provides ample evidence, statements, and admissions that allow the reader to reach quite different conclusions.

The available evidence does not allow for the definitive characterization of an original form of the letter. A decision on the original text can only be reached by incorporating one’s own opinions.

Gamble admits, early in his book, in relation to the textual history of Romans,
“Perhaps Hans Lietzmann was right when he ventured that for this problem, “a completely satisfying explanation … is not available.” (p. 13)

Some other noteworthy quotations ---

In relation to the omission of the two addresses to Rome at 1:7 and 1:15 in some MSS, Gamble writes,
“It may be said further that these two omissions belong initially to the fourteen-chapter form of the text.” (p. 33).

In relation to an early fourteen-chapter form, Gamble again,
“We have now canvassed all the evidence for the existence at one time of a form of Romans in fourteen chapters. The evidence is geographically widespread … and this form of the letter can be traced back with confidence at least as far as the second century … “ (p. 33)

In relation to the last doxology of Romans (now 16:25-27), Gamble writes,
“An original position after 14:23 can also account for the strong manuscript attestation for this placement. There is, further, no reason why the doxology should have been placed at the end of ch. 14 unless the letter actually ended there … “ (p. 123).

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Savior or a saved one?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Emanuel Contac, The Reception of Zechariah 9:9 in the New Testament ...
In the Hebrew sequence wǝnôšāʻ (“and having salvation”, KJV) the participle of yāšaʻ is in the Niphal form, meaning “saved” or “delivered” (cf. Deut 33:29 and Ps 33:16 for similar usage of the same form). Although it would have been appropriate to speak of a human king that he is “saved” by God (and therefore victorious), the attribute does not fit the context of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. The Greek text of the LXX contains a different idea (the king is σῴζων, “saving” or “salvific”), ...
Sacharja 9:9
hin-nêh mal-kêḵ yā-ḇō-w lāḵ, ṣad-dîq wə-nō-wō-šā‘ hū;
I saw the meaning "saved one" also in other literal translations of the MT.

See Deut 33:29, Ps 33:16 and Isa 45:17 for "nō·wō·ša‘", all with the meaning "saved"

I think Contac is correct about the LXX. "σῴζων" is active.
LXX-Zacharias 9:9
ἰδοὺ ὁ βασιλεύς σου ἔρχεταί σοι δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός
see the king (of) you (he) comes (to) you, righteous and saving (is) he
Is this correct? In the Mt "a saved one", in the LXX "a saving one"?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: translation problems

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

.
Mark 14:7 (and also Matthew 26:11, John 12:8, Barnabas 21:2)
For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me.
πάντοτε γὰρ τοὺς πτωχοὺς ἔχετε μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν, καὶ ὅταν θέλητε δύνασθε αὐτοῖς εὖ ποιῆσαι, ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε ἔχετε.

The translation problem is that "with you" would be usually "μεθ’ ὑμῶν" (as in Matthew 17:17, 26:29, 28:20). The literal translation of "μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν" would be "with themselves" (as in Matthew 15:30, 25:3). It's third person plural.

But it seems that it was not wrong to use "μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν" with the sense of "with us" or "with you" in some cases.

LSJ via perseus
II. in Att., Trag., and later, αὑτοῦ, etc., is used for the 1st or 2nd pers., as for “ἐμαυτοῦ, αὐτὸς καθ᾽ αὑτοῦ τἄρα μηχανορραφῶ” A.Ch.221, cf. S.OT138, etc.; for “σεαυτοῦ, μόρον τὸν αὑτῆς οἶσθα” A.Ag.1297, cf.1141, Pl.Phd.101c (v.l.), Ph.Bel.59.16, etc.: so in pl., τὰ αὑτῶν ( = ἡμῶν αὐτῶν)“ ἐκποριζώμεθα” Th.1.82; “δώσομεν ἑαυτούς” Epicur.Sent.Vat.47; ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς by ourselves, LXX 1 Ki.14.9, cf. PPar.47.26 (ii B. C.), 2 Ep.Cor.7.1, etc.; ἑαυτῶν, = ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, PPar. 63.128 (ii B. C.).
III. pl., ἑαυτῶν, ἑαυτοῖς, etc., is sts. used for ἀλλήλων, ἀλλήλοις, one another, “διάφοροι ἑωυτοῖσι” Hdt.3.49; “παρακελευόμενοι ἐν ἑαυτοῖς” Th.4.25, etc.; καθ᾽ αὑτοῖν one against the other, S. Ant.144 (anap.); “πρὸς αὑτούς” D.18.19; “περιιόντες αὑτῶν πυνθάνονται” Id.4.10, cf. Pl.Ly.215b.
In which case a writer would prefer "μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν" instead of "μεθ’ ὑμῶν". Is there a special meaning or emphasizing?
Post Reply