Author Topic: Luke 14:27 NRSV  (Read 5221 times)

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #60 on: September 03, 2010, 09:25:57 PM »
While the older ones under ἄνθρωπος & ἀνήρ, when the words refer to humans, either male or female, gave "man" or "men" as a way of translating them. The newer ones I have, under that definition, do not give "man" or "men" as ways of translating the words, but "human being," "people". Only when it is clear that the words refer to a male human being, do they give the word "man" as a translation.


And once again you demonstrate the exact opposite of what you say you demonstrate.

John 9:41, spt+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Edward Engelbrecht

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2010, 10:23:25 AM »
Glad to see this thread. The NRSV and TNIV are falling more and more into disuse because of their translation philosophy. The translation committees thought they understood the cultural current and where Bible readers were headed but it turns out that they were wrong and made some poor decisions.

The people most dedicated to reading the Bible and teaching it seek accuracy and faithfulness in translation. This makes perfect sense when you consider that such readers believe that the teachings of the Bible should shape their faith and lives. Given those high stakes, who would commit to a less accurate approach for translation, one consciously conditioned by the culture of the moment?

People read the Bible for eternal purposes. Faith is at once extremely personal (hence Jesus' statement in Lk 14:27) and broad, eternal in its implications.

ddrebes

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #62 on: September 04, 2010, 11:49:37 AM »
I had a seminary friend insist that because the Bible is filled with patriarchal language and perspectives, it is necessary to translate the words as woodenly as possible--retaining masculine nouns, etc.  Cleaning up the language to match our current concerns for inclusivity would simply gloss over the male-dominated context of the culture in which the scriptures were written.

While I don't subscribe to that analysis of the Bible, I admired the approach because it attempts to let the scriptures stand on their own.  If they contain patriarchy, it becomes the reader's responsibility to deal with it--not the translator's.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #63 on: September 04, 2010, 11:57:34 AM »
While the older ones under ἄνθρωπος & ἀνήρ, when the words refer to humans, either male or female, gave "man" or "men" as a way of translating them. The newer ones I have, under that definition, do not give "man" or "men" as ways of translating the words, but "human being," "people". Only when it is clear that the words refer to a male human being, do they give the word "man" as a translation.


And once again you demonstrate the exact opposite of what you say you demonstrate.

It would seem that we speak different languages.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

edoughty

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #64 on: September 04, 2010, 12:09:00 PM »
I had a seminary friend insist that because the Bible is filled with patriarchal language and perspectives, it is necessary to translate the words as woodenly as possible--retaining masculine nouns, etc.  Cleaning up the language to match our current concerns for inclusivity would simply gloss over the male-dominated context of the culture in which the scriptures were written.

While I don't subscribe to that analysis of the Bible, I admired the approach because it attempts to let the scriptures stand on their own.  If they contain patriarchy, it becomes the reader's responsibility to deal with it--not the translator's.

That's an interesting approach and may have some merit, in fact, though sometimes I would think even a wooden translation takes work on the part both of the translator and the reader.  To what extent to you anglicize the word order?  Or do you simply point the reader to an online interlinear (such as this one: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk14.pdf) and say, "Go to it!"?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #65 on: September 04, 2010, 12:36:55 PM »
Glad to see this thread. The NRSV and TNIV are falling more and more into disuse because of their translation philosophy. The translation committees thought they understood the cultural current and where Bible readers were headed but it turns out that they were wrong and made some poor decisions.

The people most dedicated to reading the Bible and teaching it seek accuracy and faithfulness in translation. This makes perfect sense when you consider that such readers believe that the teachings of the Bible should shape their faith and lives. Given those high stakes, who would commit to a less accurate approach for translation, one consciously conditioned by the culture of the moment?

People read the Bible for eternal purposes. Faith is at once extremely personal (hence Jesus' statement in Lk 14:27) and broad, eternal in its implications.

"Accurate" in translation is a relative and flexible term. One approach to translation is "word-for-word". The most accurate translation with this approach is an interlinear. The one the centers most on this method is the New American Standard Bible.

The other approach to translation is "thought-for-thought". Rather than just asking, "What does this word mean and how do we say that in English?" Their question was, "What does this phrase mean and how do we express that in English?" The Message, Good News Bible, and Contemporary English Version are some translations that center more on this approach.

All translations fall somewhere on a line between "word-for-word" and "thought-for-though" with the translations I mentioned above being at opposite ends and all other translations fall in between.

A simple example of the difference. αἷμα (haima) is a Greek word that means "blood". A "word-for-word" translations is likely to translate it "blood" every time it occurs in the NT. However, it is clear in some phrases that the word refers to death. If it were just Jesus' blood that saved us, why couldn't he just prick his finger and bleed? The meaning of the word in those contexts is "death," and it will be translated that way by some translators. There are also phrases where the word means "to kill" or "to murder", e.g., "to pour out blood". To accurately express the meaning in those context, translators can use "kill" or "murder" rather than "blood".

Thus, accuracy in translation is hard to define. Translations that always uses "blood" for αἷμα is accurate in one way. Translations that use "blood" and "death" and "murder" and "kill" for αἷμα depending on its meaning within its contexts, is accurate in another way.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

ddrebes

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #66 on: September 04, 2010, 01:25:50 PM »
I had a seminary friend insist that because the Bible is filled with patriarchal language and perspectives, it is necessary to translate the words as woodenly as possible--retaining masculine nouns, etc.  Cleaning up the language to match our current concerns for inclusivity would simply gloss over the male-dominated context of the culture in which the scriptures were written.

While I don't subscribe to that analysis of the Bible, I admired the approach because it attempts to let the scriptures stand on their own.  If they contain patriarchy, it becomes the reader's responsibility to deal with it--not the translator's.

That's an interesting approach and may have some merit, in fact, though sometimes I would think even a wooden translation takes work on the part both of the translator and the reader.  To what extent to you anglicize the word order?  Or do you simply point the reader to an online interlinear (such as this one: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk14.pdf) and say, "Go to it!"?


Well, any translation includes some interpretation.  My friend's perspective, though, was to lean more heavily on presenting the cultural context for the scriptures rather than on what the scriptures would say if they were written in our cultural context. 

Examples are tricky, but here is one anyway: If "brothers" meant "men and women believers," do you translate it for what it means or for what it literally says?  You can capture the meaning by going with the more inclusive translation, but then you miss the fact that the culture-of-origin for this text considered the word "brothers" suitable for addressing a crowd that included men and women. 

That's the sort of headaches translators face--darned if you do and darned if you don't.

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #67 on: September 04, 2010, 01:32:13 PM »
What I think many of us find a tad silly is that the exact same way that "Adelphoi" would function in Greek IS the way that "brethren" functions in English.  It wasn't because the phrase was unclear and women were being excluded from it that it needed to change; the argument for changing it is that it is not politically correct in the current situation to assume the female under the male reference and so we have all sorts of awkward renditions, when we really don't need them. 

Edward Engelbrecht

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #68 on: September 04, 2010, 02:30:04 PM »
Leaving words out/untranslated because they do not fit a modern cultural trend is an inaccurate translation by anyone's standard, no matter what one's philosophy of translation. It is in fact a failure to translate. It is indefensible.

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #69 on: September 04, 2010, 04:17:36 PM »

It would seem that we speak different languages.

Indeed.

Pax, Steven+
Resisting a snarky retort.
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #70 on: September 04, 2010, 04:46:13 PM »
Examples are tricky, but here is one anyway: If "brothers" meant "men and women believers," do you translate it for what it means or for what it literally says?  You can capture the meaning by going with the more inclusive translation, but then you miss the fact that the culture-of-origin for this text considered the word "brothers" suitable for addressing a crowd that included men and women. 

That's the sort of headaches translators face--darned if you do and darned if you don't.

Good example. The headache can go beyond just the translation. There can be the issue of what to include in the text of the Bible and what to put in a footnote. NRSV opted to put "brothers and sisters" or "fellow believer" or something like that in the text, then indicate in a footnote: "Gk, brothers". Others may put "brothers" in the text, then indicate in a footnote that this word includes male and female believers.

The same issue arises with variant readings: which do you include in the text with a footnote that says "not found in some ancient manuscripts" or omit from the text with a footnote that indicates "some ancient manuscripts have ."

Another issue that a nephew is dealing with. He is preparing an interlinear OT for Zondervan with the ESV translation. At times the translation uses the LXX or Syriac or Latin translations because it makes more sense than the Hebrew; but since he is dealing with the Hebrew text, it will not match the ESV text in the margin. How much should such differences be explained in a footnote -- or a general comment in a preface, etc.?
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

DCharlton

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 6831
    • View Profile
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #71 on: September 04, 2010, 04:54:19 PM »


Esteemed Moderator the Merciful!!!!   All Hail! 


of course....it is still hell.    :-\

What, you mean Forum Online?   :o

Never would I say such a sacrilegious thing, although reading the back and forth between certain posters does feel like at least a dip of a toe into the lake of fire. 

What I was merely suggesting is that even mercy from one level of hell to another it is ultimately still hell.   

All joking aside, I got a little bit of a chill when you wrote that.  It reminded me of something C.S. Lewis said.  It was to the effect that being allowed to continue in the sin of pride or wrath for eternity might literally be a description of hell. 
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

shelmrei

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #72 on: September 07, 2010, 02:42:00 PM »
The Greek says very explicitly "his own cross" (heautou). So it isn't some generic or transcendental cross here, but one's own. I think that does make a difference, and I'm disappointed that the NRSV permits confusion.

What puzzles me about the verse is that the use of the word "cross" is pretty clearly metaphorical -- I assume to mean a burden or suffering of some sort, at least that's how it would be understood today. Clearly not everyone at the time was crucified or even martyred for their discipleship, so the meaning isn't literal. And while "crucifying" can be used metaphorically to mean put to death, it seems too early (to me) for the cross itself to have taken this kind of metaphorical meaning. I think it wasn't until much later that the cross was used as a symbol for the Christian faith. Wouldn't the hearers of this text have understood something like, "Everyone must sit in their own electric chair if they wish to become my disciple."?

Steve Helmreich
Las Cruces, NM

Edward Engelbrecht

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #73 on: September 07, 2010, 06:43:41 PM »
Emphasis on suffering for one's faith is well illustrated in 2 Maccabees 7, which is one of the most important texts for Christian ideas about martyrdom. The fourth brother states, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by Him" (7:14). Paul referred to crucifixion numerous times. It is likely that this way of thinking and speaking was part of the times and not a much later development.

LutherMan

  • Guest
Re: Luke 14:27 NRSV
« Reply #74 on: September 07, 2010, 06:53:20 PM »
Is that a tease for the forthcoming ESV Lutheran Apocrypha?   ;)