#BibleTranslations

[walkswithmyfather]

“I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being.” —Ephesians 3:16 (NIV)

“Good morning! May God be... above you to bless you; below you to support you; before you to guide you; behind you to protect you; beside you to comfort you; and inside you to give you strength and joy.” Amen! 🙏🙌

(Via)

[toddlprice]

Thank you for praying for my recent trip to Serbia. I met with the three Roma Bible translation teams I consult, and a new team starting on a Bible translation for Roma in Albania, and taught them a course on “Biblical Exegesis”. Exegesis is the process of studying and discovering the meaning of a text, in this case the meaning of the original Greek text of the New Testament, and communicating…

[bornonthisday]

Born on This Day (November 10): Martin Luther - You May Know the Story, How About the Photos?

[eli-kittim]

How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?

By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓

John 1.1:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:

Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!

Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:

That’s an interpretation!

Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.

But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.

Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.

In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.

By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.

Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!

At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!

However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:

Coverdale Bible of 1535

In the begynnynge was the worde, and the

worde was with God, and God was ye

worde.

Smith's Literal Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Literal Emphasis Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Catholic Public Domain Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Lamsa Bible

THE Word was in the beginning, and that

very Word was with God, and God was that

Word.

Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning

the Word having been and the Word having

been unto God and God having been the

Word.

Concordant Literal New Testament: In the

beginning was the word, and the word was

toward God, and God was the word.

Coptic Version of the New Testament: In

(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and God was the Word.

Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the

begynnynge was the worde, and the worde

was wyth God: and God was the worde.

New English Bible: When all things began,

the Word already was. The Word dwelt with

God, and what God was, the Word was.

Revised English Bible: In the beginning the

Word already was. The Word was in God’s

presence, and what God was, the Word

was.

Today’s English New Testament: In the

beginning was the Logos. And the Logos

was with God. And God was the Logos.

The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In

the bigynnynge was the word and the word

was at god, and god was the word.

Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et

Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat

Verbum.

Vulgate translation: in the beginning was

the Word and the Word was with God and

God was the Word.

See also:

Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?

[walkswithmyfather]

Lovely picture. Amen! 🙌

[toddlprice]

Still flying high from reaching our milestones last week!

We are still rejoicing and celebrating the fact that last week we finished the final consultant check to complete the entire New Testament in three languages: Arli, Chergash and Gurbet. Praise God with us for this wonderful milestone and please pray: For the Arli, Chergash and Gurbet translators to find any last errors and correctly do all the formatting over the next few weeks before the…

[toddlprice]

We finished checking the last verse of the New Testament in Gurbet this morning!

Yesterday, we finished checking the final verse of the New Testament in the Arli language, and today, we finished checking the final verse of the New Testament in the Gurbet language! We praise God for this second milestone after about seven years of work. Rejoice with us and thank God for bringing us to this point. As I mentioned yesterday about the Arli translation, the Gurbet team will now do…

[toddlprice]

This morning we finished consultant checking the New Testament in the Arli language!

Rejoice with us that this morning, I finished the consultant check of the last verse of the New Testament in the Arli language! We have been working on this for many years, so this is a remarkable milestone and tribute to the grace of God and the hard work of the team of Bible translators who have been working in the Arli language. What’s next for Arli? Although I have finished my work on the NT…

[toddlprice]

Three chapters left to complete NT; preparation for summer outreach; family Thanksgiving & Christmas outreach

We have an app now with 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament in 3 Roman languages. This screen snip shows Matthew 1:1-2 in Arli and Gurbet. Thank you for your constant prayers and generous financial support for Bible translation. As of this writing, we only have three more chapters to consultant check to complete the entire New Testament in three languages: Arli, Chergash, and Gurbet! Praise…

[toddlprice]

22,962 verses translated and consultant checked!

Pam showing pictures of a Bible story in the Bayash language at last summer’s VBS in Croatia We are very grateful for your prayers and financial support for Bible translation! If you would like to give a special year-end gift, you can use the giving information at the bottom of this page. Donations can be given for our regular missionary support (account #110250) or to send our family to Croatia…

[toddlprice]

On the road again; prayer requests for Bible translation

Thank you for your faithful prayers and support. You all are a joy and encouragement to us in this ministry! Since I last wrote, I celebrated a birthday (see picture above). Can you guess which one? It’s not 39, that’s for sure! Nor is it 6, as the candles might indicate. The real number of candles would have been a fire hazard. This past weekend, we traveled to Whitney, Texas, to give an…

[toddlprice]

Our daily prayer calendar for October 2024

To get this prayer list formatted as a calendar for printing out, click “download” below: Price prayer letter for 10-2024 page 2Download October 1 Pray for Todd leading a brief devotional at 3 a.m. for our Zoom meeting with consultants around the world October 2 Pray for Todd leading a men’s Bible study through Revelation at our church on Wednesday evenings October 3 Pray for Todd & the…

[toddlprice]

Family reunion; 89% of NT checked; coming to speak near you

FAMILY UPDATE: In September, we enjoyed four days of family reunion with Pam’s three sisters, Ruth, Val, and Kim, and their families. Very kind friends gave us the free use of their beautiful lakeside house, which we thoroughly enjoyed (see pictures above). Daniel (16) enjoyed fishing at the lake. Recently, he has been working hard to make repairs and paint parts of our house, grow things in his…

[toddlprice]

Ariela's birthday; Daniel's work project; "Everything not out of faith is sin" (Lost [and found] in translation, installment #18)

FAMILY UPDATEFor the first time in over 33 years, we don’t have any “children” living at home. Ariela turned 13, so we only have teenagers at home now (Daniel is 16). Ariela really enjoyed her birthday celebration and her recent camping trip with her American Heritage Troop (pictured above). Daniel flew to Atlanta for three weeks to help Matthew finish the basement of his house so Matthew can…

[toddlprice]

Giving to enable the harvest (Luke 10:3-7)

Above: A summer teamer from our home church gives Bayash Roma children the Gospel of Luke and 50 chronological Bible stories in their language. Your financial support and prayers made that possible, PTL! We praise God and thank you for your kind and generous financial support, which enables us to translate the Bible for Roma in the former Yugoslavia. We currently have 103% of our monthly support…