Modern Bibles Don't Translates Greek Tenses Correctly

[Geremia]

Why do the gospel writers sometimes alternate between the narrative present tense and the past tense? Modern English translations just render it all in the past tense, even if they do directly translate the original Greek. Taking a random example (Mark 1:38):

And he saith to them

not

And he said to them

The Greek uses “λέγω,” which is the present indicative tense of “to say,” the same as the Latin ait. Why do modern bibles like the NAB, e.g., say “He told them”? The NAB contains copious examples of this same error of not preserving the correct tenses of the Greek. Why?

 

[Adam_Warlock]

Why do the gospel writers sometimes alternate between the narrative present tense and the past tense? Modern English translations just render it all in the past tense, even if they do directly translate the original Greek. Taking a random example (Mark 1:38):notThe Greek uses “λέγω,” which is the present indicative tense of “to say,” the same as the Latin ait. Why do modern bibles like the NAB, e.g., say “He told them”? The NAB contains copious examples of this same error of not preserving the correct tenses of the Greek. Why?

I have studied some Greek - not claiming to be an expert by any means, but I mention it because this very thing came up in class (more than once). If I remember correctly, it has to do with the way narrative is delivered in Koine. It’s not that the English translation is wrong; rather, it’s that “And Peter says to Andrew, and Andrew says to him” is such unwieldy English. So, since English story telling is in the past tense - and since Koine has different tenses than English which don’t always align as neatly as we would like - they just render things in the English past. Though it might not seem like a good move at face value, it is an accurate way to turn it into English. It certainly makes it more readable!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Why do the gospel writers sometimes alternate between the narrative present tense and the past tense? Modern English translations just render it all in the past tense, even if they do directly translate the original Greek. Taking a random example (Mark 1:38):notThe Greek uses “λέγω,” which is the present indicative tense of “to say,” the same as the Latin ait. Why do modern bibles like the NAB, e.g., say “He told them”? The NAB contains copious examples of this same error of not preserving the correct tenses of the Greek. Why?

The translators probably chose the narrative past because the historical present tense in modern English is usually associated with either certain types of very informal speech (“A man walks into a bar…”); news headlines (An Earthquake Hits California); or for some particular literary effect–as I recall, the book “Angela’s Ashes” is narrated in the historic present–though I could be wrong there. They may have concluded that the historical present wasn’t well suited for something like the Bible.

Maybe someone can provide more examples of the use of the historical present.

 

[Nooj]

Why do the gospel writers sometimes alternate between the narrative present tense and the past tense? Modern English translations just render it all in the past tense, even if they do directly translate the original Greek. Taking a random example (Mark 1:38):notThe Greek uses “λέγω,” which is the present indicative tense of “to say,” the same as the Latin ait. Why do modern bibles like the NAB, e.g., say “He told them”? The NAB contains copious examples of this same error of not preserving the correct tenses of the Greek. Why?

It’s called the historic present. Greek and Latin writers sometimes use the present indicative to state a historical fact. It’s not an erroneous translation.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Different languages use tenses, cases, grammar, and word order (i.e. all the elements of language) differently. So a translation that seeks accuracy of meaning must often use a different tense or case or word order (etc.) than a strictly literal translation would use.

 

[Geremia]

It’s called the historic present. Greek and Latin writers sometimes use the present indicative to state a historical fact. It’s not an erroneous translation.

Does this explain why the Greek alternates between present and past indicative?

 

[Geremia]

Another example:
Douay-Rheims:
[bibledrb]Mark 11:27-29[/bibledrb]
Clementine Vulgate:

27 Et veniunt rursus Ierosolymam. Et cum ambularet in templo, accedunt ad eum summi sacerdotes, et Scribæ, et seniores:
28 et dicunt ei: In qua potestate hæc facis? et quis dedit tibi hanc potestatem ut ista facias?
29 Iesus autem respondens, ait illis: Interrogabo vos et ego unum verbum, et respondete mihi: et dicam vobis in qua potestate hæc faciam.

Note verb tenses: “they come” or veniunt (present), “[the chief priests and the scribes and the ancients] come to him” or accedunt (present), “they say” or dicunt (present); then it switches to the aorist (past tense in Greek), εἶπεν, for “And Jesus answering, said to them…”, which the D-R translates more accurately than the Vulgate ait, which is present tense.

The RSV-CE, like the NAB, translates all the mentioned verbs into the past tense:

27 And they came again to Jerusalem. And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him, 28 and they said to him, “By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?” 29 Jesus said to them, "I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

NAB:

27 5 They returned once more to Jerusalem. As he was walking in the temple area, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders approached him 28 and said to him, “By what authority are you doing these things? Or who gave you this authority to do them?” 29 Jesus said to them, "I shall ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

 

[Nooj]

Does this explain why the Greek alternates between present and past indicative?

Yes. It’s a stylistic choice. You’ll find it mostly in historical works because the prose writers get bored of aorist tenses and perfect tenses (in Latin) one after the other, so they use historic present for a bit of variety. It also has the sense of vividness, which can be useful of course in connecting with the audience.