J
John_Hiner
Guest
I shared the original poster’s irritation when I heard this translation read at Mass.
As is often the case, the translation is a sort of compromise and cannot capture the full texture of the Greek word being used. As has been noted, there are at least two versions of the Latin translation struggling with the scope of this Greek word. In some versions the Latin reads “dilectus” and in others “electus.” When the Greek word is considered, both of these are well within the range of its meaning.
The Greek word in question is “eklelegmenos” and according to the Perseus library tools it does not appear in this form in any other ancient Greek source. One of the difficulties in translating it is that it is a compound of two parts, “ek” which means roughly “out,” and “legawzd.” This second part has two possible root meanings: (1) to gather, pick up or to choose; (2) to say, speak, call, boast etc.
To complicate things the word is either in the middle or in the passive voice. The passive voice is easier to translate, since we use it in English, but we do not have a middle voice and so its flavor is difficult to capture in translation. Roughly speaking it means that the actor being described is also an object of the action. So both “I did it to myself,” and “I did it for myself” would have the feel of the middle voice in Greek.
Finally, the two separate meanings for the second part of the word in question, take on different meanings when in the middle or passive voice. For example, in the middle voice the meanings include: to gather for oneself, to choose for oneself, to speak of oneself, to speak for oneself. The passive meanings include: to be chosen, to be counted, to be said. And one of the meanings is to boast.
Now the trick in translation is that all of these echoes and hints are in the Greek, and the Greek word “eklelegmenos” does not decide among them. It trails them all along in the background.
So it is fair to translate it as “chosen.” However, in English this is a pretty flat word. One could use “elected,” but that has all sorts of democratic baggage that would be misleading. One could twist the reader’s tongue and say “boasted-of.” One could use the colloquial “choice.” One could use the word “excellent,” which also has the connotation of competition, but it is more remote in the English usage, and this has the advantage of carrying a bit of the “middle voice” flavor, since one who excels, in a sense, chooses himself for prominence. Another appropriate translation would be “favored,” which also has the hint of a choice, and might reflect the middle voice in that the choice was made “for the Father.”
So, all of these translations would be “accurate” to a degree, but none would capture the full texture of the Greek word, which brings all of these echoes with it.
I do not think there is any reason to accept the NAB’s choice as cutting off the scope of the meaning of the text. Rather, the word “chosen” when read in this context should be expanded from its ordinary English usage and allowed to take on more of the background that the Latin and Greek versions bring to it.
All of this has to be done with an eye to the context and to the literal meaning of what the Father was saying: Clearly Jesus was not chosen from among other possible candidates; rather He is the Son of whom the Father chooses, boasts, brags, announces, and favors for Himself, both for the Father’s and for the Son’s self (beloved or excellent, respectively), which in the translation of the middle/passive form of this Greek word are indistinguishable. Far from being a dilution of Jesus’ unique status, this seems to me to be a literary miracle. One of many in the multiple forms of the Scriptures – the Holy Spirit sure can write!
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
To access the Greek text in the Perseus system go to perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155:book=Luke:chapter=9:verse=1
As is often the case, the translation is a sort of compromise and cannot capture the full texture of the Greek word being used. As has been noted, there are at least two versions of the Latin translation struggling with the scope of this Greek word. In some versions the Latin reads “dilectus” and in others “electus.” When the Greek word is considered, both of these are well within the range of its meaning.
The Greek word in question is “eklelegmenos” and according to the Perseus library tools it does not appear in this form in any other ancient Greek source. One of the difficulties in translating it is that it is a compound of two parts, “ek” which means roughly “out,” and “legawzd.” This second part has two possible root meanings: (1) to gather, pick up or to choose; (2) to say, speak, call, boast etc.
To complicate things the word is either in the middle or in the passive voice. The passive voice is easier to translate, since we use it in English, but we do not have a middle voice and so its flavor is difficult to capture in translation. Roughly speaking it means that the actor being described is also an object of the action. So both “I did it to myself,” and “I did it for myself” would have the feel of the middle voice in Greek.
Finally, the two separate meanings for the second part of the word in question, take on different meanings when in the middle or passive voice. For example, in the middle voice the meanings include: to gather for oneself, to choose for oneself, to speak of oneself, to speak for oneself. The passive meanings include: to be chosen, to be counted, to be said. And one of the meanings is to boast.
Now the trick in translation is that all of these echoes and hints are in the Greek, and the Greek word “eklelegmenos” does not decide among them. It trails them all along in the background.
So it is fair to translate it as “chosen.” However, in English this is a pretty flat word. One could use “elected,” but that has all sorts of democratic baggage that would be misleading. One could twist the reader’s tongue and say “boasted-of.” One could use the colloquial “choice.” One could use the word “excellent,” which also has the connotation of competition, but it is more remote in the English usage, and this has the advantage of carrying a bit of the “middle voice” flavor, since one who excels, in a sense, chooses himself for prominence. Another appropriate translation would be “favored,” which also has the hint of a choice, and might reflect the middle voice in that the choice was made “for the Father.”
So, all of these translations would be “accurate” to a degree, but none would capture the full texture of the Greek word, which brings all of these echoes with it.
I do not think there is any reason to accept the NAB’s choice as cutting off the scope of the meaning of the text. Rather, the word “chosen” when read in this context should be expanded from its ordinary English usage and allowed to take on more of the background that the Latin and Greek versions bring to it.
All of this has to be done with an eye to the context and to the literal meaning of what the Father was saying: Clearly Jesus was not chosen from among other possible candidates; rather He is the Son of whom the Father chooses, boasts, brags, announces, and favors for Himself, both for the Father’s and for the Son’s self (beloved or excellent, respectively), which in the translation of the middle/passive form of this Greek word are indistinguishable. Far from being a dilution of Jesus’ unique status, this seems to me to be a literary miracle. One of many in the multiple forms of the Scriptures – the Holy Spirit sure can write!
Pax Christi nobiscum.
John Hiner
To access the Greek text in the Perseus system go to perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0155:book=Luke:chapter=9:verse=1