Blogs

The “etymological error” is defining a word by it morphemes, its little parts. There are times when context supports that a word still carries the meaning of its parts. εἰσέρχομαι (εἰς + πορεύομαι) means “to go into.” ἐξέρχομαι (ἐξ + ἔρχομαι) means “to go out.” But we can’t assume this is always the case. Context must support the etymological meaning. This is a common rule in exegesis, which is why the standard translation of our passage mystifies me.

Let’s have a little fun in the LXX. I have been especially interested lately in what it means to “wait on the Lord.” It seems to me that waiting is not passive; it is not going into neutral. It is a very active experience, often harder than “doing” something. It involves work and trust. Psalm 27:14 reads, ὑπόμεινον τὸν κύριον· ἀνδρίζου, καὶ κραταιούσθω ἡ καρδία σου, καὶ ὑπόμεινον τὸν κύριον.

The Jewish widows were being given preferential treatment over the Hellenistic widows, and the Apostles say, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God (καταλείψαντας τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ) in order to wait on tables (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις.)” (NIV). I guess they are drawing “ministry” from the later διακονεῖν and from v 4 (“the ministry of the word,” τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ λόγου) even though there is no Greek word behind “ministry” in v 2.

One of the debates in translation work is whether there is meaning in the form of a sentence. If one word is an infinitive, for example, and the next is a participle, does it matter?

Those in the dynamic camp (NIV, NLT) tend towards answering, “No.” The question is how do I express the same meaning regardless of how I say it. So if the meaning of the Greek infinitive is best expressed with an English finite verb, so be it.

This is one of the basic points we try to make in first year Greek, but in the rush to simplify the language sufficiently for a first year student, sometimes the subtly of this point is missed. Just to be clear, I still believe the augment indicates past time. I haven’t gone over to the other camp on this point. And yet the aorist is so much more than “past time,” and in fact time is significantly secondary to the real gist of the tense. Students need to be reminded of this periodically.

One of the more interesting expressions in the Pastorals is ἔργον ἀγαθόν. It presents a conundrum whether you translate it as “good deeds,” “‘good works,” or with a phrase.

Colossians 2:8 is often misunderstood to say that all philosophy is bad and Christians should not engage in the discipline. It is just two little words in Greek (or, actually, the absence of two little words) that can clear up this misunderstanding. The Greek is a tad difficult, so let’s start with a slightly wooden translation.

One of the problems of memorizing word glosses in first year Greek is that it is possible to miss the richness of a word’s meaning, especially its breadth of meaning (“semantic range”). 

I was reflecting on the NIV translation of Psalm 1:1, which reads: “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take (ἐν ὁδῷ ἁμαρτωλῶν οὐκ ἔστη, LXX) or sit in the company of mockers.”

Part of the challenge of teaching first year Greek is to simplify, but not too much. I remember when I started second-year Greek, it felt like I had to start relearning first-year Greek all over. My teacher had oversimplified in an attempt to help us understand the basics of Greek, but had not done so with an eye to the nuances of second-year Greek.

Today's blog is more a comment on our exegetical method, how we come to a conclusion on what passage means. This morning I was reading 1 Corinthians 10 and came across the well-known verse 13. “No trial has overtaken you that is not common to mankind. And God is faithful: he will not let you be tested beyond what you can bear, but with the trial will also provide the way through, so that you will be able to endure it.”

Every once in a while we come across the verse where almost everything seems to be out of order. In these cases, it is important to think grammatically and to phrase the verse. ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτως περιπατεῖν.

Because “you” can be either singular or plural, it does periodically present an interesting dilemma to the translator. Sometimes it doesn't matter if “you” is singular or if it is plural. Sometimes context makes it clear that “you” is singular or plural. But every once in a while, we come across the passage where it is absolutely essential that readers know whether “you” is singular or plural. And since Paul tells the Corinthians that “you” are God's temple, and if anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person, we probably should know a little more about “you.”

In the story of the healing of the ten lepers, there is an interesting interchange of verbs. In English, we tend to use synonyms for stylistic reasons; we don’t like to repeat the same word. Greek, however, isn’t like that. Repetition was not seen poor style. So when there is variation, perhaps it signals something.

In this parable, the master gives money to three of his servants: five talents, two talents, and one talent, “talent” of course being a unit of money. The master leaves on a journey, and when he returns, he asks for an accounting. The servant who received five talents earned five more, the servant who received two talents earned two more, and the servant who received one talent buried it in the ground and earned nothing with it.

In Greek for the Rest of Us, I give the definition of ἐν as “in, by, with.” The preposition is flexible in meaning, and often translation requires significant interpretation. I have often thought it strange that prepositions were introduced into the Greek language to bring clarity to the flexible and various meetings of the cases, and eventually the prepositions suffered the same fate of having a wide variety of meaning that requires interpretation.

I wish that people who do not know Greek would stop misusing it to prove a theological position. When I was writing Greek for the Rest of Us, friends warned me about misuse, so hopefully this last email I received doesn’t refer to those using my book.

I saw an atheists’ website that listed one of their favorite “contradictions.” God says he will punish “the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Exod 20:54; cf. Deut 5:9). However, in Ezekiel 18:4 God says, “The person who sins is the one who will die.” So which is it? Are children punished for the sins of their parents, or does the parents’ punishment end with them?

John says Jesus was taken to Annas before going to Pilate (John 18:13), while Matthew says he was taken to Caiaphas (26:57f.).

This is one of the more difficult apparent contradictions in the Bible. In one gospel it appears that Jesus said the disciples could take a staff, and in another gospel it appears that Jesus said they could not take a staff. The solution is somewhat complicated but it is satisfying.

Two different names are used for the same mountain in Exodus 3, 19, and elsewhere. What is its name, and can you trust a book who can't get the name of the mountain correct?

Before you get into a discussion of an apparent Bible contradiction, you should always make sure that your interpretation is correct. So many times, your interpretation of the texts might be wrong and there is no contradiction.

Matthew and Luke have two different genealogies for Jesus, not even agreeing on the name of his grandfather. Is this a contradiction? I will look at three possible solutions and the problems of each. The whole issue of genealogies is compounded by the fact that they can skip generations, the same person can have different names (or different spellings), and levirate marriage can result in a physical father and a legal father.

“Cornelius said, ‘Four days ago at this hour, I was praying at the ninth hour in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing.’” The challenge here is that it was only three days earlier that Cornelius had his vision. So is this an error?

The variations among the Gospel accounts of Peter’s three denials of knowing Jesus are a common example of biblical contradictions. Actually, it is a fascinating exercise in seeing how the Gospels vary in some of the details in ways that are complementary but are wholly consistent in the core of the story.

There are two stories in the Gospels about a woman pouring perfume on Jesus, and there are enough differences that some people argue Luke created the account and hence he is not trustworthy. But despite the similarities, there are so many differences that they must be two different accounts, and hence there is no contradiction.

In speaking of Judas’ burial, Matthew writes, “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me’” (Matt 27:9–10). The problem, it is claimed, is that the citation is from Zechariah and not Jeremiah.

As we all know, some information from Greek is often left out of an English translation. Usually, it is just nuances, but the information is a little more important in this passage.

Romans 13:9 provides several interesting points of discussion. Here is the verse with its critical apparatus.

Every once in a while, you have to guess as to what words have been omitted from a Greek sentence in order to explain the form of those that were included. Sentences are often abbreviated, and I have lost count of how many times I was stuck, trying to understand the form of a word, and the answer was that some word (or words) was assumed.