April 03, 2007
That Depends On What The Definition Of "Is" Is
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
An orthodox Catholic writer wrote:
''How are these words of Jesus [in the consecration of the Eucharist] to be understood? In the New Testament, the Greek word estin that is used in Jesus' saying 'This is my body', could mean either 'is really' or 'is figuratively' (or 'signifies'). Both senses of the word occur in the New Testament."
Then he goes on to explain the supports of the Catholic teaching. My question is he right about this as a possible translation?
From a linguistic perspective I would consider it problematic to represent the Greek word esti in English with the word "signifies."
Esti (which sometimes appears with a nu after it as "estin") is just the Greek equivalent of "is." It's the verb "to be" in the third person singular form (present tense, active voice, indicative mood), and it would translate as "(he/she/it) is."
Esti works just the same way that "is" does in English. In both languages, the verb "to be" can be used to signify existence (as in "God is") or predication ("the grass is green") or equivalence ("Bruce Wayne is Batman"). It can also be used literally ("Jesus is the Son of God") or figuratively ("King Herod is a sly fox"). The latter seems to be a special case of equivalence.
We do see passages in the New Testament where esti is used figuratively. For example, in Revelation 17:9 John is told, "the seven heads [of the beast] are seven mountains on which the woman is seated." The word for "are" here is "eisi(n)" which is just the plural form of "esti(n)," the way that "are" is the plural of "is." Here we have a figurative use of "is," and the seven heads do signify seven mountains.
However, I would resist translating eisi as "signifies." That's not what the word means in Greek. What it means is "are." It's being used to convey the idea of signification, but that's its connotation rather than its denotation.
It would be legitimate to use the connotation of a word as a translation if the receptor language can't express the same thought any other way (e.g., in languages that don't have the verb "to be"), but if the receptor language (English in this case) has exactly the same usage of exactly the same verb (it does) then the thing to do is translate the word according to its actual meaning, which is "is."
To render esti in English as "signifies" is not actual translation. It's paraphrase. Paraphrase is warranted when actual translation is impossible or when it would be misleading, but when the receptor language accomodates a straightforward translation, it should be used. We otherwise run the risk of the translator's own biases distorting the message in the original. Whenever possible the original should be presented to the reader in the receptor language, and he should be allowed to determine the connotation of what is being said.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (38)
August 04, 2006
Greek New Testament . . . No Imprimatur
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I've been reading your blog occasionally and have noticed that you seem to be knowledgeable in a variety of areas (not just in apologetics),
Naw, I'm just curious about . . . y'know . . . stuff.
so I thought I'd ask you a question I've been having trouble getting answered elsewhere.
Okay, shoot!
I'm thinking of studying Greek in order to read the New Testament in its original language.
Good for you! I recommend William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek as a starting point.
However, so far as I know, there are no editions of the Greek New Testament currently available that have ecclesiastical approval.
Yeah, I don't know of any, either.
What are the Church's regulations for reading/studying non-approved editions of Holy Scripture? Canon 825, §1 seems to indicate that it's not permitted, but I'm not sure.
Ah, actually the canon you cite does not prohibit reading or studying such Scriptures. Here's the canon in question:
Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.
§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.
As you can see, the canon places the legal burden on the publisher of a book of sacred scripture. It is the publisher of the volume, not the reader, who has the responsibility to make sure that the needed approval is gathered (assuming it's a Catholic publisher to begin with; Catholics are not bound by canon law).
For a reader, there is no prohibition on reading material that has not been granted ecclesiastical approval. There is a general moral requirement that one not read material that would be damaging to one's faith or morals, but I am unware of any editions of the Greek New Testament that would do that. Not even the Jehovah's Witnesses, as far as I know, have had the chutzpah to alter the original Greek text (though they have laced it up with erroneous glosses).
There really isn't that much difference between different editions of the Greek New Testament, and what differences there are tend not to cut across confessional lines. It's not like there's a "Catholic Greek New Testament" versus a "Protestant Greek New Testament." The differences concern mostly minor manuscript variations that are neither Catholic nor Protestant.
For this reason, Catholic scholars tend to use the same editions of the Greek New Testament as Protestant scholars, notably the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies text, which is considered one of the better critical editions, though the differences between this and other editions are very small and would not be of concern to a person just learning the language.
The absence of confessional differences in the text of the Greek New Testament is one of the reasons that it's hard to find an edition that has been given ecclesiastical approval. There may be some, and I did some poking around online looking, but I haven't found any.
My advice would be to use any edition of the Greek New Testament that comes to hand. As a tool for learning the language, that's all you really need.
And, as I said, I'd use Mounce if possible as an intro text.
Good luck!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (16)
October 14, 2005
Kecharitomene Questions
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I was watching EWTN earlier and it was mentioned that only two people in the New Testament are referred to as “full of grace” – Jesus (John 1:14) and Mary (Luke 1:28). Of course I thought this would be a really neat thing to mention to my Protestant friends (especially if we’re talking about Jesus and Mary being the New Adam and New Eve).
BUT I wanted to go beyond the English and examine the original Greek – but I don’t know a lot about Greek! So I have two twofold questions:
(1) does John 1:14 use kecharitomene as fully (pardon the pun) as Luke’s usage in 1:28 or does John 1:14 follow more closely to Acts 6:8 when Stephen is referred to as “full of grace and power”?
John 1:14 says that Jesus was plErEs charitos, which literally means "full of grace." (Those capital Es arepresent etas, so pronounce them like the e in "they"; the word is thus pronounced PLAY-RACE).
Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation.
Acts 6:8 refers to Stephen as plErEs charitos, so again it's literally "full of grace" and just the same as the description used of Jesus in John 1:14.
If it is the latter, (2) does that mean there really isn’t a literal “full of grace” parallel between Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 or can I find that literal parallel somewhere else in the New Testament?
Not that I'm aware of, and I'd almost certainly be aware of it if there were.
I'm afraid that in establishing Jesus and Mary as the New Adam and Eve, you'll need to appeal to other considerations. You might try those mentioned HERE and HERE.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 26, 2005
Attic Vs. Koine
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
A local language academy is offering an Ancient Greek class in another week and I signed up for it, excited at the idea of being able to read the NT and Septuagint in their original language. But then I got the textbook that will be used and it's called "Introduction to Attic Greek". I know that there are different dialects in different languages. If I learn Attic Greek rather than Koine, will it essentially be the same thing, or am I going to have troubles?
As noted, the class starts in another week, so I'm hoping you can get back to me soon. Thank you so much for your help.
I haven't studied Attic Greek in any depth (at least not yet), so others on the blog may be able to be of more help to you than I.
I can tell you that Koine is an outgrowth of Attic, so the two have much in common. Also, Koine is a generally simplified form, so if you can hack it in Attic, that gives you a big leg up on Koine.
From what exposure I've had to Attic texts (e.g., Plato's dialogues), I found that my knowledge of Koine was a big help, and I'm sure that the reverse would be true as well.
The differences between Attic and Koine are much smaller than the differences between either of them and Modern Greek, for example.
Learning Attic would give you a big leg up on reading the New Testament and the Septuagint (which are not identical in language, themselves), though not as much as if you took a course specifically in Koine.
On the other hand, if this is the best Greek instruction available in your area, you might be better advised to take it while your motivation is up rather than wait for an ideal course that you may never find or get around to.
Learning something that's not quite what you want beats not learning what you want at all.
For what it's worth, I know that some students of Attic do readings in Koine. A number of years ago I was invited to give a couple of lectures on Paul and Colossians to a (secular) college class in Attic that had been translating Colossians as one of their exercises. They were a couple of years into the program and the professor (who was Jewish) thought they would benefit from trying their hand at a short Koine text. From what I could tell, they didn't seem to have trouble with it.
Perhaps those who have had a chance to study both dialects can offer comment.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
May 09, 2005
Touto Esti
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I'm trying to counter the common anti-Catholic argument that Jesus' words "touto esti" (at the Last Supper) actually mean "this stands for" or "this represents" my body. I tried searching on the Internet without a lot of luck and I don't know the Greek language at all.
Could you tell me the real meaning of the phrase or point me to a website that might have more info?
Touto esti means "This (touto) is (esti)." Period.
The verb eimi (here in its third person singular form esti) does not mean "stands for" or "represents." Nobody with adequate training would translate it that way.
This is not to say that eimi cannot be used symbolically. Just as in English we can say of a king who is also a great warrior, "The king is a lion" (meaning that the king has the qualities in battle of a lion), so one could say "This is my body" (meaning that "this" represents one's body).
The language thus means one thing but may be taken in one of two ways.
The debate thus graduates from the level of language to the level of meaning. The broader context, both of Scripture and the Church Fathers, shows that Jesus meant what he said literally, not symbolically.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
November 27, 2004
Greek Pronunciation
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader('s son) writes:
I am a 14-year-old high schooler and am trying to teach myself ancient Greek. I am using the Athenaze series.
Because I have no teacher to help with pronunciation, I was wondering if you could help me with some questions I have. My mom reads your blog and said that you are skilled at ancient languages. I know you are very busy and hope you can find the time to answer my questions.
Here are my questions:
I want to know if the Greek letter chi is pronounced as the letter "k" is pronounced, or as the letter combination "ch" in the English language?
It's neither. The letter chi represents a sound that we either don't have or that we barely use in standard American English. Ancient Greek textbooks will often say that this is like the "ch" in the Scottish pronunciation of "Loch" (a very harsh sound) but in modern Greek it's more like the "h" on the front of "Hugh" (a less harsh sound). You also hear it compared to the "ch" in the German pronunciation of "Bach."
I know that it is pronounced as a softer sound in modern Greek but don't know for sure whether it was harsher or softer in ancient Greek. Any of the above pronunciations (i.e., from "Loch," "Bach," and "Hugh") will get you in the ballpark, though.
A similar question for the letter phi and the letter psi.
The first is easy. Pronounce phi just like the letter "f."
Psi is a little harder for English-speakers at first. It is pronounced like the letters "ps" in the word "lips." You can't drop off the "p" sound (as we do in English when we say "psychiatrist" and pronounce it /sai-kai-ah-trist/). Neither should you exaggerate the "p" sound and say "pea" (like the Animaniacs do when they say "pea-sai-kai-ah-trist"). It's just like the "ps" in "lips" or "cops" or "chaps."
The difficulty is caused by the fact that, though we use this sound in English, we don't put it on the front of words. The Greeks did. To get used to saying it on the front of a Greek word (like "psuche" [meaning "soul"]), you might try adding an extra syllable on the front of the word as a kind of "training wheel" that you can take off once you feel comfortable putting the sound up front. For example, you might say /cops-oo-chay/ (note that this has the chi-sound in it!) and then drop the /co-/ to arrive at the correct pronunciation, /psoo-chay/.
Thank you very much. If you can suggest another series that might provide more help than the Athenaze series, I would appreicate it.
I'm familiar with Athenaze, but I haven't used it myself, so I don't have a feel for how the program works. That makes it hard to recommend something better. If it were me, though, I'd probably try learning either Koine or modern Greek first, since there are very good tools for learning these (see recommendations below), and then afterwards learn the kind of classical that Athenaze covers.
My mom bought me the book on heiroglyphics that you recommended last year and I really enjoy it. Actually I like languages a lot. My school doesn't offer Latin or Greek, so I am studying German. I am the top student in the school.
Congratulations! Incidentally, your German will serve you well in learning Latin and Greek. The noun system in Latin and Greek works the same general way that the German noun system does (i.e., it has cases and declensions). Also glad you like the hieroglyphics book!
Also, can you recommend a resource to learn koine Greek? I am interested in learning that so I can study the old Bible texts.
The best resource to really start studying Koine Greek in a serious way is William Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. It offers tremendous help to the student that other courses don't offer.
On the other hand, if it's a little advanced for you, you might try Mounce's Greek For The Rest Of Us or James Found's Basic Greek In 30 Minutes A Day.
MORE KOINE GREEK RECOMMENDATIONS HERE.
The best resource for starting to learn modern Greek is Pimsleur. You might try one of the smaller, cheaper sets and see if you like the program.
Hope this helps, and good luck with your language studies!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
November 20, 2004
"Your Namesake"
(Jimmy Akin)
So right now I'm reading Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, in which the definition of knowledge is discussed, and the edition I'm reading from is a diaglot with English on one page and Greek on the other. The Greek is a different dialect than I'm used to, but I can still make out a good bit, and when I encounter an interesting word or phrase in English, I'll look over at the Greek out of curiosity to see what it is translating.
I'm finding that the translation (by Harold North Fowler) is not as literal as I would have hoped. Oh, well.
But I ran across a funny.
At one point Theaetetus (a young man) is talking to Socrates (the famous philosopher) about one of his compansions, and he says:
It may seem easy just now, Socrates, as you put it; but you are probably asking the kind of thing that came up among us lately when your namesake, Socrates here, and I were talking together [147c].
"'Namesake' . . . ?" I thought. "That's an interesting word." So I looked over in Greek for the phrase corresponding to "your namsake" and saw that it was tO, sO, homOnumO, [little o is omicron, big O is omega, and comma is an iota subscript].
tO, is the dative form of the definite article (i.e., "the"), which Greek likes to throw into noun phrases a lot more than English does, so this phrase is literalistically "the your nameake."
sO, is apparently the dative form of the pronoun "you" in Plato's dialect (Attic Greek). From Koine Greek I'm used to the dative "you" being soi.
homOnumO, is the word equivalent to "namesake." It's also a dative form. I kind of wrinkled my nose for a second while I analyzed its meaning, then suddenly it hit me like a flash: Of course, that's the Greek word for "namesake"! It makes perfect sense! There's even an English equivalent!
That equivalent is the word "homonym," from roots meaning "same" (homon) "name" (onoma).
Now, I'm a fan of literal translations, but not literalistic ones. Despite the humor value, it would be wrong to translate what Theaetetus said as "the your homonym." "Your namesake" will do just fine. ;-P
LEARN MORE ABOUT HOMONYMS--WHICH AIN'T THE SAME AS HOMOPHONES AND HOMOGRAPHS!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 06, 2004
John 6:44--Correcting An Old Mistake
(Jimmy Akin)
Put up a file on the treatment of the Greek in John 6:44 in my old debate notes.
Excerpt:
When I looked up that passage and compared what I wrote with the Greek text, my response was to ask, “What the heck was I thinking? That analysis is unsupportable! That translation is horrendous! I would never accept something like that from one of my Greek students. Was I severely sleep deprived when I wrote that or something?”
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack
June 05, 2004
Septuagint & Other Greek Resources
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Jimmy, I noticed that there are no books concerning the Septuagint. Do you know of any interlinear versions? While it's use will naturally bring up the issue of canonicity with non-catholics, wouldn't it be usefull in establishing contextual usages? An example that comes to mind was when I was trying to establish the usage of Trogos in John 6 as literal to a friend of mine. I found only two other occurances in the N.T. external to John 6. I gave up on the only online version I found when I realized it was universally translated every word for "eat" as Estheo. (I don't know greek but as an engineer I recognized enough of the letters to get suspicius when the letters were spelling Phegos.)
Putting together an interlinear is a very difficult thing, and they don't sell that great to begin with. I am not aware of anybody who has put together a Septuagint interlinear in book form. Normally it is either published with straight Greek text or as a diaglot (i.e., a work with two languages on the same page or on facing pages, but not woven together line by line in interlinear fashion). Here's an example of a Septuagint-English diaglot.
There's also an NIV Hebrew-Greek-English triglot Old Testament that Amazon has available from their used bookstore contacts.
Though there is no print interlinear of the Septuagint, there is one available in .pdf form, which you can get from www.ApostolicBible.com. It can be ordered on CD-Rom for sixty bucks or downloaded it for forty three. Here's a peek inside it:
Now, you may notice that there's something odd here. The words in the English lines are not strictly lined up under the corresponding Greek words. In Gen. 1:1, for example, the Greek line has "epoiesen h theos," which in literal word order is "[he] made the God" (putting the verb before its subject) but which the English line has rendered idiomatically as "God made." The same thing happens in 1:3 with "God said."
This is not standard practice for an interlinear, and since I can't find adequate online statements about who made this interlinear, what their agenda was, and how rigorous they were in doing it, there may be imperfections or biases in the thing, so fair warning.
Another way to accomplish the same effect (and which would be far better than buying the Septuagint in .pdf form) would be to use Bible software, opening a Septuagint window and linking it to an English window with corresponding words highlighted.
It sounds like, though, that what you're after may not require a Septuagint at all (interlinear or otherwise). If you want to do primary source research, you would need the text of the Septuagint--for it is quite useful in fleshing out our knowledge of how words were used--but there's probably a much simpler way to get the info that you're after. A good Greek dictionary will tie together not only word usages from the Greek NT and the Septuagint but also from extra-biblical sources, and it's *much* easier (and more reliable) to figure out a dictionary entry than to do your own primary source research. A professional Greek scholar might need to do the latter, but for a normal person's purposes, a good dictionary is the way to go.
Though there are more detailed dictionaries available, the Abbott-Smith lexicon is a fairly simple one to use that includes data from the Septuagint, extra-biblical sources, and the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament. Little Kittel would be a step up in detail from Abbott-Smith, but it isn't comprehensive and you have to be careful with it since the authors of the work it's based on had an agenda (they were trying to write a theological encyclopedia disguised as a Greek dictionary). It still can be useful; you just have to be careful. There are also more detailed dictionaries, but they're probably more than what you're looking for.
If you need an English-Hebrew/Greek dictionary (i.e., one organized by English word order) so you can see what different words are translated as a particular English term, a good basic one is Vine's Expository Dictionary. It's not exhaustive (and the scholarship is a bit out of date), but it's a place to begin. Bible software also frequently can perform this function.
P.S. The verb you're after in John 6 is trogo, not trogos.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
May 07, 2004
Greek Resources List
(Jimmy Akin)
Just added a list of Greek Resources down yonder in the lower, left hand margin. These are the best ones for beginners to start with. The list has easy purchase links and some commentary from me on which you want for what purposes. Enjoy!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Greek | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
