What are things lost in translation that make the Bible make sense?

[bmonk]

Does he ever! He does the same thing with Spirit and wind in the talk with Nicodemus (Greek πνεῦμα), with “living water” and “flowing water” (Greek ὕδωρ ζωῆς), and a few other places.

Yes, I thought of those. I also thought of how, in the trial accounts, Pilate asks “What is truth?” when living Truth is standing in front of him unrecognized, he calls Jesus King in the Title on the Cross (which the priests and elders deny), and seats Jesus as judge, but nobody accepts him. (all from John 18). Also Caiaphas’ prophecy about “one man dying for the people” (Jn 11:49-50)–but those do translate pretty well, although they are perhaps not often noticed.

 

[patrick457]

Yes, I thought of those. I also thought of how, in the trial accounts, Pilate asks “What is truth?” when living Truth is standing in front of him unrecognized, he calls Jesus King in the Title on the Cross (which the priests and elders deny), and seats Jesus as judge, but nobody accepts him. (all from John 18). Also Caiaphas’ prophecy about “one man dying for the people” (Jn 11:49-50)–but those do translate pretty well, although they are perhaps not often noticed.

That’s dramatic irony at play.

Speaking of John:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know (oidas) that I love (philō) you.” He said to him, “Feed (boske) my lambs (ta arnia).”
He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agapas) me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know (oidas) that I love (philō) you.” He said to him, “Tend (poimane) my sheep (ta probata).”
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (phileis) me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love (phileis) me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know (oidas) everything; you know (ginōskeis) that I love (philō) you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed (boske) my sheep (ta probata).”

 

[patrick457]

I should also add that Mark seems to build his narrative around repetitions, not just of chiasms, phrases and words, but even syllables and sounds. For example:

Kai eisporeuontai eis Kapharnaoum,
kai euthys tois sabbasin eiselthōn eis tēn synagōgēn edidasken.
Kai exeplēssonto epi tē didachē autou;
ēn gar didaskōn autous hōs exousian echōn,
kai ouch’ hōs hoi grammateis.
Kai euthys ēn en tē synagōgē autōn anthrōpos en pneumati akathartō,
kai anekraxen legōn:
Ti hēmin kai soi, Iēsou Nazarēne?
Ēlthes apolesai hēmas?
Oida se tis ei, ho hagios tou Theou.
Kai epetimēsen autō ho Iēsous, [legōn]:
Phimōthēti, kai exelthe ex autou.
Kai sparaxan auton to pneuma to akatharton
kai phōnēsan phōnē megalē exēlthen ex autou.
Kai ethambēthēsan hapantes,
hōste syzētein autous legontas:
Ti estin touto?
Didachē kainē kat’ exousian;
kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei,
kai hypakouousin autō.
Kai exēlthen hē akoē autou euthys pantachou
eis holēn tēn perichōron tēs Galilaias.

Little fun with pronunciation here:

Ke isporevonde is Kafarnaum,
ke evthys tis savvasin iselthon is ten synaġoġen edidasken.
Ke exeplessondo epi te didakhe avtu;
en ġar didaskon avtus hos exusian ekhon,
ke ukh’ os y ġrammatis.
Ke evthys en en te synaġoġe avton anthropos en pnevmati akatharto,
ke anekraxen leġon:
Ti emin ke sy, Iesu Nazarene?
Elthes apolese emas?
Yda se tis i, o aġios tu Theu.
Ke epetimesen avto o Iesus, [leġon]:
Fimotheti, ke exelthe ex avtu.
Ke sparaxan avton to pnevma to akatharton
ke fonesan fone meġale exelthen ex avtu.
Ke ethamvethesan apandes,
oste syzetin avtus leġondas:
Ti estin tuto?
Didakhe kene kat’ exusian;
ke tys pnevmasin tys akathartys epitassi,
ke ypakuusin avto.
Ke exelthen e akoe avtu evthys pandakhu
is olen ten perikhoron tes Ġalileas.

And they go on to Capharnaum; and immediately on the sabbaths, having entered into the synagogue, he was teaching, and they were being awestruck at his teaching because he was teaching them as having authority and not as the scribes, and immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, “What to us and to you, Jesus the Nazarene? You have come to destroy us! I have known you who you are: the holy one of God,” and Jesus rebuked him, [saying,] “Be muzzled shut, and come out of him;” and the unclean spirit having torn him and having shouted a great voice came out of him, and they were all amazed that they debate among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching! With authority also the unclean spirits he commands and they obey him,” and the fame of him went out immediately everywhere to all the surrounding region of the Galilee.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Hapax legomenon basically means a word that only appears once within a certain context (in a single text, in the works of an author, or in the entire written record of a given language). Epiousios is a word that is found nowhere else in ancient Greek literature but only appears in Matthew and in Luke (to be specific, it can also be considered a dis legomenon - a word that appears twice in a certain context).

If that word only occurs once or twice within this context, how do we know what it means?

 

[patrick457]

If that word only occurs once or twice within this context, how do we know what it means?

Of course, in some cases we cannot know what a hapax precisely means (especially if it’s the only instance of the word in the entire literature of a given language!), so we’ll have to make some guesses. Usually we have to infer what it most likely means from the context. Another option is to compare similar-sounding words. Yet another avenue is to break the word down. (Especially in the case of Scripture, we can also compare different ancient translations and see how different people understood the word to mean back then.)

In the case of epiousios, we can see these attempts at play. Some early Christians inferred from the general context that epiousios must mean something like “for today,” which explains why we say “give us today our daily bread” (panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie). Other Christians thought that it might refer not so much to the time, but to the amount (“give us today the bread we need,” so in the Syriac Peshitta). St. Jerome rendered epiousios ultra-literally as supersubstantialem by breaking the word down into epi (=super ‘over’, ‘above’) and ousia (=substantia ‘substance’; cf. homoousion=consubstantial). Still others today try to link epiousios with the words epienai (‘regular’, ‘daily’, ‘appropriate’) or hē epiousa (‘for tomorrow’) based on the above suggestions. Jerome also mentioned once that he read in “the gospel of the Hebrews” that the phrase was rendered there as “give us our bread of tomorrow.”

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Thanks Patrick, that’s interesting.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thanks Patrick, that’s interesting.

:yup: Thanks Patrick!

 

[po18guy]

Proper context can also restore the original meaning and intent of the written word. From Palm Sunday, take Jesus’ riding the donkey into Jerusalem. Why was that? Well, it makes sense if we look at King David’s order that his son, Solomon, ride David’s own donkey into Jerusalem to establish that Solomon was the true son/successor, and not Adonijah, who aspired to succeed David. 1 Kings 1:29-34 An interesting article by Mark Shea on this subject.