Posted on 10/24/2008 2:10:58 PM PDT by Teófilo
Sometimes dynamic translations do cause unforeseen problems.
A Word Study.
Folks, some times you have to hand it to Bible translators because in their quest to make the Bible understandable and relevant to today, they in fact may make it too understandable and too relevant.
Consider how the New American Bible translates
Anyone who is so "progressive" as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.Now the footnote that accompanies this verse explains is as follows:
Anyone who is so "progressive": literally, "Anyone who goes ahead." Some gnostic groups held the doctrine of the Christ come in the flesh to be a first step in belief, which the more advanced and spiritual believer surpassed and abandoned in his knowledge of the spiritual Christ. The author affirms that fellowship with God may be gained only by holding to the complete doctrine of Jesus ChristPhew! So the passage refers to the Gnostics and their quest for greater degrees of esoteric knowledge and not to certain kind of voter or political activist who, as the dictionary defines it, is
one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action.We know who those are and we Bible students are appreciative to the NAB translators for the clarification.
The NAB is an example of a
dynamic translation. I want to make a big deal out of this because I think this is a great example to illustrate why dynamic translations often obfuscate instead of clarify meanings. You may also be surprised which other English versions of the Bible contain this kind of rendering. See for example how other English versions translate the same verse:Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son (NIV).Now, this is the same passage in Greek:
Anyone who goes too far and (A)does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. (
NASB)
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (
KJV)
Whoever transgresses[a] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. (
NKJV)
Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. (
Douay-Rheims)
pπᾶς ὁ προάγων καὶ μὴ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει: ὁ μένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ, οὗτος καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει.The operative word here is "προάγων" which a standard lexicon translates as
1) to lead forward, lead forth 1a) one from a place in which he has lain hidden from view, as from a prison 1b) in a forensic sense, to bring one forth to trial 2) to go before 2a) preceding, prior in time, previous 2b) to proceed, go forward 2b1) in a bad sense, to go further than is right or properNow take a look at how the two "traditional" Protestant and Catholic versions, the KJV and Douay-Rheims translate "προάγων."
The KJV's rendering is"transgresseth" which back in 1611 may have been a literal translation of "προάγων" but that today is mostly taken to mean "to violate the law" or "to sin." The NKJV is good at dropping all those archaic "-eth" endings and also adding clarifying footnotes, which in this instance it does, stating that "2 John 1:9 NU-Text reads 'goes ahead'."
The Douay-Rheims, the "traditional" Catholic translation of the Bible, translates "προάγων" as "revolteth"
which means "to rebel." Here's 2 John 1:9 in the Vulgate:omnis qui praecedit et non manet in doctrina Christi Deum non habet qui permanet in doctrina hic et Filium et Patrem habetwhere "praecedit" is a literal - not dynamic - rendition of "προάγων" as defined in the lexicon. This is meaningful because the Douay-Rheims is supposed to be a translation from the Latin Vulgate.
Let me wrap it up for you: the modern NAB as well as the traditional KJV and Douay-Rheims versions of the Bible obscure the meaning of 2 John 1:9. The NAB does it by importing a charged contemporary word into the text. The KJV got it right in the beginning by using an English word, "transgress" which once literally meant "to go further than is right. or proper" but that now means "violation" or "sin." The Douay-Rheims goes beyond by importing a word of Italian origin ("revolt") with a clear legal meaning but one that loses completely the original meaning of the Greek term "προάγων." "Revolteth" is no longer a literal rendition of "προάγων." Therefore we lose something, literally, in the translation. What we lose is the connection to ancient Gnosticism and their system of "transitions" or "progressions" to greater spheres of gnosis which John was opposing when he wrote his epistle.
Furthermore, in their rush to catch this gnostic "progression" and describe its adherents as "progressives," the NAB translators forgot their version is the one designed to be read in the English vernacular Mass and at other liturgical functions. Read 2 John 1:9 according to the NAB, put yourself in the pew and then ask yourself what the verses would mean to you without the very helpful explanatory footnote. I am sure that you would agree that most of the congregation will think that most Democrats and some liberal Republicans are going to hell. I believe that the NIV and the NASB translations of 2 John 1:9 are better renditions of the original thought.
One surprising finding, which should not surprise us Catholics at all is this: the Vulgate's is a word-for-word translation of the Greek original which still manages to read well and idiomatic, at least in 2 John 1:9. I wonder why the Douay-Rheims translators went for "revolteth" to translate praecedit. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
My personal conclusions: the NAB is good to have for study if you have the notes in front of you, but not so good as to proclaim aloud in the liturgy whereas the Douay-Rheims may drift too far from both the Latin and the Greek so it may not be good at capturing the original meaning of the Scripture. The KJV shows a similar drifting. The NIV and the NASB got it right. So if we could get something like the NIV or NASB with Catholic notes, something akin to the Revised Standard Versions for Catholics -not reviewed here - we will have in hand a good Bible fit for Catholic study and public proclamation.
Yes, I know, these are sweeping conclusions to draw from one single verse and I grant you that. So don't take these conclusions as proven "facts" but as hypotheses needing further substantiation, further study. At least, I hope that I've helped clarify to your satisfaction that, as the NAB would have, "progressives" are not necessarily stranged from God, tempted as we might be to say that indeed they are...
PING!
Why do you post stuff like this? It makes Christians look like looney tunes who are scanning the Bible for election insight.
Second, you make sweeping generalizations, as you admitted. How is that helpful?
So ... the conclusion is, unless you understand its meaning, a Bible verse can be misleading.
Duh. That’s why people engage in Bible “Study” ... and not simply Bible reading.
H
Not only that, but it’s equally open to interpretation on both sides. Check out the “Divine Appointment” Obama video. The One as foretold by scripture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbe9ei_0Uwo
Makes sense to me. Progressive means communist... communist suck.
>Makes sense to me. Progressive means communist... communist suck.
lol
It should be mentioned that socialism is founded on breaking the Commandments against lies, coveting and theft.
Additionally, economist Ludig von Mises explained that people could interact economically with others by only two means: peaceful and not peaceful. He called them, the “social means” and the “political means”.
Since government, as George Washington said, is only power, anytime someone chooses to address a need or issue via government instead of seeking a private solution, he has chosen to use compulsion instead of peaceful and voluntary interaction.
Which is why the whole counsel of God must be preached, and scripture compared against scripture.
Personally, I believe we can glean political understanding from scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God ... and is profitable ... (among others) for instruction in righteousness.
"[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
We can learn our thought processes and thus actions by knowing the Word of God.
Politics included.
Second, you make sweeping generalizations, as you admitted. How is that helpful?"
No shit. A serious case can be made for economic liberalism from the bible (NOT social liberalism) , and it would include a hell of a lot more than one or two verses.
This makes us all look like loonies, and does nothing to the political cause or...sadly....to the cause for Christ.
I think the verb you want is ‘estranged’, not ‘stranged’. While one can verb adjectives (or nouns, for that matter) in English, one tends avoid such neologisms when there is a serviceable word with the same import.
Thank you! I’ll fix it on the original!
-Theo
It was my convoluted attempt at critiquing what the NAB translators were thinking - or not - when they were translating the NT.
I also meant it to be somewhat funny but I suppose that it came out way too dense to make people laugh.
Oh well.
-Theo
To go further than is right, or proper??? That doesn't make any sence no matter what language it's in...You suggests that it means if you go too far, you are too right, or too proper...Goofy...
I suspect the definition of 'transgress' hasn't changed since it's creation...
One surprising finding, which should not surprise us Catholics at all is this: the Vulgate's is a word-for-word translation of the Greek original which still manages to read well and idiomatic, at least in 2 John 1:9.
Jerome never laid his eyes on the original Greek...Jerome translated from the Old Latin which was translated from the 'real' original Greek...AND, the Old Latin lines up nicely with the Received Texts...The Majority Texts...(Those manuscripts which were used to translate the KJV)...
But 'ole Jerome didn't care much for the old Latin...That's why he came up with a new Latin Translation...But even with that, 'ole Jerome isn't used much by the Catholic church any more...Even with the many changes, Jerome was still too close to the Old Latin for your church...So you guys come up with some 'new' stuff that says progressive instead of the plain, easy to understand, transgression...
But there seems no evil whatsoever in the universe until humanity brings it forth and demonstrates it.
Hence, evil would seem to require conscious, abstract thought in order to be actuated.
Us...and just perhaps a few others about the cosmos....
Thus we seem the very center of expression....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.