1. ENRE ODEScontext-books.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TenWays.57-85.pdf · There can be no doubt...

45

1. TESTING THE GENRE CODES

When readers today read a New Testament translation of the scriptures, do they essentiallysee the same language codes as the original readers did? That is the key question that

must be answered in the affirmative if a translation can be considered an accuraterepresentative of the original document.

Keeping this question in mind, what do readers see when they first turn to any of the tentranslations being evaluated? The first observation is that all ten are published as books. Eachhas a title on a front cover and each has a back cover either plain or with a blurb on it. Someare hard-cover books, others are paperbacks. Most have the word Bible in the title as in TheHoly Bible or the New American Standard Bible.

These observations introduce us to the first problem related to the genre codes. First-centuryreaders never read the scriptures as part of a book encompassing all the writings of scripture.It would not have been possible. Scrolls were the normal forms of literature then, though it’squite possible that books as we know them with pages that can be turned were getting theirtrial run in the first century. Those first books, however, would not have been much like ours,and certainly would not have contained the amount of information that is possible for bookstoday with their thin pages and small fonts.

A scroll also could not have contained all the scriptures. Any scroll over forty feet long wouldhave been too unwieldy to be of much use. The longest ones measured around thirty-five feet,and that is the length that would have been required for the text of just one of the largerwritings of scripture.

There can be no doubt that when the very first readers got their copy of one of the scriptures,it came as a single text—most likely in the form of a scroll—and they read it as a single text.When Paul wrote his letter to Philemon, for example, it was not composed as a chapter in abook. It was a real letter. When it was completed, he wrapped it, sealed it, and arranged forits delivery. Upon receiving it, Philemon opened it and read it as a complete piece ofliterature.

Receiving the letter was a significant event for Philemon, and it only took him a few momentsto recognize the main elements of the writing’s situation coding: The language used, the timeof arrival, the situation surrounding it, the people involved in its writing, the people itaddressed, and the fact that it was a personal letter. Then a quick scan of the contentsanswered the questions raised by the genre of a letter: The personal situation, the purpose,and the topic. This was all information firmly in Philemon’s head after his first quick reading.Another more concentrated reading would fill in all the details for him.

Ten Ways to Improve New Testament Translations46

The letter was not difficult for Philemon to understand, not because it was written simply, butbecause it was a part of a familiar context for him. He knew the writer, the language, theintended meaning of every expression, the situation the writing referred to, the peopleinvolved, the cultural implications, and he felt the personal impact of it and what it meant forhis future. The meaning of all the information in the letter was strongly influenced by everyaspect of the letter’s situation. Recreating that meaning is the task of a translator.

Basic to the demands of situation codes is allowing a translated document to maintain all ofits original contextual input. For this reason, a translator has to question the wisdom ofplacing unique pieces of literature in a literature form that makes them look like chapters ina book. This situates them in a genre that is far removed from that of the original documents,and that can only mean that the translation alters the documents’ original genre codes. Thisis no small change of the text.

Presenting the scriptures in the form of a single book strongly suggests to a common readerthat between the covers of the book there is a beginning and an ending with a purposedordering in between. This in turn creates the expectation of a oneness of topic, recipient, andpurpose. The facts indicate that this is not a theoretical possibility. Many readers andcommentators of Bible translations do indeed understand a Bible translation to be a singlebook. The following quote is a common view:

The Bible is a biblos, a single book. It has two testaments, better called covenantsor agreements between God and His people. Those two parts of the Bible areinseparably related: the New Testament is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in theNew revealed. (p. 29 in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geislerand William E. Nix, Moody Press, Chicago, 1986.)

The result of this view of the scriptures is that the contextual integrity of each individualwriting is easily overlooked, making it not only possible but probable that information fromone of the writings will be associated with information from the others in ways that werenever intended by the original writers.

When Philemon received a letter from Paul, that’s what it was—a letter from one of the mostremarkable men of his age, and it addressed a personal situation that was no doubt going toimpact Philemon’s life from that day on.

Is it anything like that when a person reads Paul’s letter in a Bible translation today? Manyreaders have already learned to place the information in the Bible into a certain religiouscontext. They have learned from the time they were children that the Bible is a special kindof literature. They have observed how people react to it, how it is read, how it is talked about,how it is venerated. These embedded perspectives present a tremendous problem fortranslators. They are orientations that have to be overcome in order for a person to relate tothe scripture writings in a way that would have been normal for the first readers.

Philemon definitely did not see himself reading a piece of religious literature as he read Paul’sletter. Every sentence was packed with up-to-date, urgent, personal, consequentialinformation. What happens when information like this is compiled and put into the pages of

Testing the Genre Codes 47

a book that over the centuries has taken on an overpowering life of its own? Or when thatinformation is made to look exactly like dozens and dozens of other pieces of literature? Thisis not the approach of a wise translator intent on passing on genre codes as true to the originalwritings as possible.

Genre codes put a writing in a particular category in the mind of the reader

The purpose of genre coding is to orient a reader to the topic, purpose, structure, and the kindof reader targeted by the writer. This is crucial information that a reader needs to know at thebeginning of the reading process. (See page 10 and following.)

Do the Bible translations we are evaluating provide the reader with the same genreinformation the first readers had? Our very first observation as we began our analysis was thatthe translations present each of the writings of scripture as part of a collection of writings ina book with a title. This, however, is coding that differs from the originals. No initial readerever saw such a book (or scroll). At some point in time, readers did encounter thesedocuments as parts of a collection, but the very first readers like Philemon certainly read andunderstood them as individual writings.

Does it make a difference either way? From what we know of genre codes, it has to make adifference. We know, for example, that some genre codes are often recognized by the externalform of a writing. It would certainly be confusing, for example, to put the content of anewspaper into a book that looks like a historical writing, or the other way around to puthistorical information in the format of a daily newspaper. Readers of such writings would beforced to misread the information. It would be a shock for anyone to read in the headline ofa daily newspaper that German soldiers had invaded Belgium when that information is in factover sixty years old.

We’ve only begun to touch the problem, however. The Bible translations I’ve evaluated donot merely present themselves as a random collection of writings attached together within aprotective cover. Instead, they are published in the form of a book with a title. In the Englishlanguage, a title is the most powerful language code used to indicate the genre of a piece ofliterature.

Most of the translations have the word Bible in some combination in the title position, mostoften in the phrase The Holy Bible. The translations that do not include the Jewish scripturescall themselves The New Testament. Neither of these titles, The Holy Bible or The NewTestament, are found in the manuscript evidence. No writer of scripture ever used the termsBible or New Testament as the title for a collection of the scriptures. They were both addedat a later date.

Contextual confusion is almost impossible to avoid when various individual writings are madeto appear as parts of a larger unit of literature. Such a practice obscures the actual genrecoding of each writing and significantly alters a reader’s perception of a writing’s intendedtopic, purpose, genre, setting, and recipient.


As we begin to observe the Bible translations,the first thing we notice is that the translationsdivide the writings they contain into two parts. The first they call the Old Testament and thesecond the New Testament. The Old Testament in each case contains a selection of ancientwritings originally written mainly in Hebrew, and the New Testament contains a selection offirst-century writings originally written in Koine Greek. Each of the translations has a Tableof Contents which several of the translations subtitle in ways similar to the NASB: The Namesand Order of the Books of the Old Testament and The Names and Order of the Books of theNew Testament.

Most of the translations also have a foreword, a preface, and uniform fonts throughout. Allthis together—title, subtitles, foreword, preface, table of contents, uniform fonts andformatting —strongly suggests to a modern reader of English that there is some overridingunity of genre coding inside the covers of the book—a unity that goes beyond merely beinga collection of related pieces of literature placed together for convenience sake.

Genre codes are so potent that it has to be assumed that this practice automatically leads tocontextual confusion and is an invitation to serious contextual mixups. The practice, forexample, of placing the Jewish scriptures together in one book with the documents that recordthe teachings of Christ can easily lead a reader to assume more about the relationship of thesewritings than the authors of the documents ever intended.

The fact is that the relationship between the scriptures of the Jews and the scriptures of thefollowers of Christ just happens to be an issue so precarious that it is often addressed by thewriters of the Christian scriptures. The scriptures traditionally called Matthew, Romans,Galatians, and Hebrews are four documents that have major sections addressing this issue.Others also address the matter.

The consequences of misrepresenting genre codes

A particularly tragic example from history will suffice to illustrate what happens when theJewish scriptures are confused with Christian documents. When we consider the Crusades inthe eleventh through the thirteenth centuries, we know they were violent times of warfare inthe name of God and Christ. During these times it was not unusual for the populations ofwhole cities to be completely eradicated by armies marching in the name of Christ.

What could possibly have justified such practices? It’s well known that there were manyreasons for people joining the Crusades, everything from political motives to the openlycriminal intentions of pirates looking for spoils. But what of those who had sincere“Christian” reasons for marching to war in the Middle East? Where could they find teachingin the scriptures that would undergird such goals?

There were ecclesiastical leaders at the time who justified the Crusades by arguing thatChristians had a duty to protect the Holy Land. The Jewish scriptures, of course, are thesource of the concept of a Holy Land, as well as the source of examples of military actionagainst the enemies of the people of God. It’s interesting that soldiers and knights wearingcrosses on their shields or cloaks—the sign of the Savior who commanded his followers to


love their enemies and to not take up the sword—envisioned themselves as Joshuas of old,ready to drive opposing armies from the promised land.

Now, it’s certainly possible that a critical reader could avoid making this kind of contextualleap while reading a Bible translation. But from a translator’s point of view, it is not the goalof a translation to make contextual recognition a risky endeavor fraught with unseen traps forthe common reader. This is exactly what happens when the Jewish scriptures and the Christianscriptures are placed in a literary proximity that was never intended by any of the authors.Especially at the level of genre coding, a translation should guide a reader to a clear andalmost instant recognition of a writing’s key contextual information—receiver, purpose, topic,genre, setting, author. These are all elements that are crucial for setting the main contextualmatters of a writing.

Though it is true that both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian scriptures are closelyrelated, they were never treated by any author of scripture as the parts of a single book.Instead, each writing of scripture from the time of its inception was treated as an individualwriting.

The scriptures refer to themselves with specific genre codes

In the first century when one of the Jewish scriptures or one of the writings of theeyewitnesses of Christ was mentioned, it was described by its own individual genre (Law,psalm, prophecy, writing, letter, book, testimony, report). Plural terms (writings, letters,reports) were used when the scriptures were mentioned collectively.

The genre codes of the scriptures demand that each writing be accorded the full status of acomplete piece of literature, except in the cases in which an author specifically indicates thattwo or more of his writings be understood as a unit. (The Law of Moses would be a case inpoint, as would be the two parts of the Letter to Theophilus (traditionally called Luke andActs).

We can assign the Hebrew writings in the Old Testament part of Bible translations to at leastfour general genre. The first is Law, the second Psalms, the third Prophets, and a fourth,referred to as the writings, includes various genres of literature such as wisdom literature andhistorical literature. All of them together are often referred to by these terms in the texts ofscripture. Collectively they are called the holy writings. These writings were neverphysically or conceptually part of one book.

This is the final observation we will make that relates to the Jewish scriptures. Our focus willnow turn exclusively to the New Testament part of the translations.


Comparing the genre codes

When we compare the genre codes in the Greek documents to those in the translations, thefirst thing we notice is that the genre designations of the first five documents do notcorrespond to the genre coding in the texts of the New Testament translations. Many of thetranslations entitle these writings The Gospel of Matthew, The Gospel of Mark, The Gospelof Luke, The Gospel of John, and The Book of Acts. None of the five writings, however, wasgiven this genre coding by its author. Neither the word Gospel, the names Matthew, Mark,Luke, John, nor the phrase Book of Acts are original. All are later additions.

Some of the translations such as the Net Bible do not use the word Gospel in the titles, onlythe names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A gospel was in fact not a literature form in thefirst century. Anyone asking a literate first-century person for a gospel would have been metwith a perplexed stare. Even if one of the people asked were a follower of Christ, he or shewould not have thought of an euaggelion—the Greek word translated gospel—as a piece ofliterature. For them an euaggelion was somewhat similar to our word message. Weresomeone to ask a person today if they had a copy of a message in their personal library, itwould also be considered a strange question. A message is not generally considered aliterature genre, at least not one that would find a place on a bookshelf. (Many computer userswould no doubt think of an e-mail message when they hear the word.)

Euaggelion was a term that described a certain kind of information, not a particular pieceof literature. When Paul talked about the euaggelion (Romans 1:9ff), he was not referringto a particular writing or letter. He was referring to the general content of what he taught orwrote. It was later in history that euaggelion came to be used as a genre designation. (It wasalso much later in history—over three hundred years—that any collection of the scriptureswas ever referred to as a Bible (biblo" = scroll), and even then it was not used in the sameway that it is today.)

None of the so-called four Gospels in the New Testament was designated to be aneuaggelion by the authors. A glance in a concordance shows that neither Luke nor John evenused the noun euaggelion in their writings. Matthew used it four times but never as a genrecode. Only Mark used the word as a genre code but only as a modifier and not as the maindesignation of the genre itself.

Following are the initial Greek words of each of the four writings that most of the translationscall the Gospels. These are the most significant genre codes of the writings. Though thesewritings are thought to be very similar, even a non-Greek reader can observe that thebeginnings of each of the writings are very different from one another.


The Beginning W ords of the So-called Four Gospels

Biblo" genesew" Ihsou Cristou uiou Dauid uiou Abraam.Scroll of genesis of Jesus Christ son of David son of Abraham. Matthew

Arch tou euaggeliou Ihsou Cristou uiou qeou.Beginning of the message of Jesus Christ son of God. Mark

Epeidhper polloi epeceirhsan anataxasqai dihghsin Because many took-a-hand to produce report

peri twn peplhroforhmenwn en hmin pragmatwnconcerning those-accomplished among us matters

kaqw" paredosan hmin oi ap arch" just like they delivered to us the from beginning

autoptai kai uphretai genomenoi tou logoueyewitnesses and servants having become of logos

edoxe kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin I thought also I having followed from beginning everything

akribw" kaqexh" soi grayai kratisteexactly consecutively to you to write honored

Qeofile ina epignw" peri wn kathchqh" logwn thn asfaleian. Theophilus so that you recognize concerning the taught logoi the reliability.

Luke

En arch hn o logo" kai o logo" hn pro" ton qeon kai qeo" hn o logo". In beginning was the logos and the logos was with God and God was the logos. John

The genre codes of the writing attributed to Matthew

Biblo" genesew" Ihsou Cristou uiou Dauid uiou Abraam.Scroll of genesis of Jesus Christ son of David son of Abraham.

Matthew is clearly not a euangelion. The author entitled it the Book (scroll) of the genesis ofJesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. The main question to clarify is what is meant bygenesis? The Net Bible translates it genealogy as do most of the others. The problem is thatthere is a perfectly good Greek word available that means genealogy and that’s the Greekword genealogy (genealogia).

The word genesis is familiar, of course, as the title of the first book of the Jewish Law.Genesis was the title added to this book in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures.There it basically means “origin,” one of the possible meanings of the word. Matthew usesthe word in 1:18 in this sense.

Plato, who lived 400 years before Christ, used the word in his philosophical writings. Hecalled the first of his two levels of reality genesis. It represented the observable world and itwas characterized by the cycle of origination and decay. James once used the word in this


sense (3:6). It can also have the general meaning of “existence” or “life.” Examples of thisare also in the scriptures (Luke 1:14, James 1:23).

Since the word is in a position of genre coding it would be best to translate it as general aspossible and let the content of the book then determine the parameters of the word. The Bookof the Life of Christ or the Book of the Earthly Life of Christ would be possibilitiesparticularly considering the initial tracing of Christ to Abraham and the very last statementin the book: I am with you . . . until the end of the age. This means the end of the space-timeworld. Thus, the parameters for the book are clearly the earthly life of Christ.

The reader of Greek in the first century would very likely have considered a book titled in thisway to be the genre of law. It was typical for legal literature to be tied to the life of aninfluential person and to seek to establish that the principles (laws) passed on by that personhave their source in great authority. Moses and Hammurabi are the most prominent examples.This explains why a genealogy would be included. The Law of the Jews was obviouslyperceived in this way. It was the Law of Moses, and the connection to its “origins in God” wasits foundational credential. Genealogies were then used to establish this in the Law of Moses.Matthew does the same concerning Christ.

Other codes in Matthew also serve to make the writing easily fit the genre of law. In this senseit sets up the earthly life and teachings of Christ as the standard for practical living. Thus, thereader would have been oriented to the following genre information: (1) Topic: Life (exampleand teaching) of Christ, (2) purpose: to teach the principles and commandments of Christ, (3)genre: law, (4) recipients: followers of Christ, students of Christ, (5) author: unspecified.

An unspecified author is not unusual in Greek, particularly for writings in which the writerunderstands himself to be a representative for a larger group of authoritative individuals.

The genre codes of the writing attributed to Mark

Mark is the only writing of the four so-called Gospels to use the word euanggelion inconjunction with genre coding. It does not call itself an euanggelion, however. Observe theexact wording of the initial phrase:

Arch tou euaggeliou Ihsou Cristou uiou qeou.Beginning of the message of Jesus Christ son of God.

The writing is called the Beginning of the euaggelion of Jesus Christ. Though euaggelionis not a word that referred to literature genre, Arch (beginning) certainly was. It’s interestingthat the word arch is actually used in the genre coding of three of the four writings we arediscussing, and it was used in the initial position of the Greek translation of the Law ofMoses, certainly the most well known piece of literature of the Jews.

Even in our literature the concept of beginnings is quite common in the genre codes ofliterature. Particularly the word introduction, as a concept of a beginning, is common as agenre code. Mark, in fact, could easily be understood as similar to this genre. The Introduction


to the message of Jesus Christ is a great improvement on The beginning of the Gospel of JesusChrist which is the typical translation of these words.

Message is a better translation for the word, euaggelion, because gospel is a word that overcenturies has taken on a life of its own. As a literature genre, it is normally understood to bea kind of biography of Christ, and traditionally each of the “four gospels” is commonlyunderstood to depict Christ from a different perspective and for a different audience. SinceEuanggelion, however, was not a literature genre at the time of Christ, and in view of the factthat the word gospel is so overloaded with present-day associations, it is an impossibletranslation for euanggelion.

The phrase Good News is an option that has often been considered for translating euaggelion.It is used by some modern translations. Good news is what some readers would say they thinkthe word gospel means. Good news, however, does not overlap well with the meaning ofeuaggelion. Good News in English is always the expression of a short piece of informationthat is guaranteed to make a person immediately happy. You won a prize, for example, is apiece of good news. Euaggelion, however, particularly in the contexts in which it is usedin the scriptures, is much more substantial. Though it is indisputably a beneficial message, notall of it would necessarily strike a person as an immediate cause for happiness.

In looking for a good translation for euaggelion, we could ask ourselves what someonetoday would call an article or report that was thought to be a particularly beneficial, helpful,or crucial message? Wouldn’t they be more likely to call it “an important message” or “amessage people need to hear.” Parts of it they might refer to as “good news” but there mightalso be parts they could even describe as “bad news” though these might be the portions ofinformation that lead to the greatest benefits. (Much of what Jesus said as part of hiseuaggelion is also in this category of “bad news”, though ultimately information of greatbenefit.)

What is the solution? When translating it’s not always possible to find an ideal solution. (Seepage 144.) The Introduction to the Message of Jesus Christ, the Son of God is certainly anadequate translation. It is, though, what translators would call an “underpercentagedtranslation”. This means it’s passing on less than a hundred percent of the meaning. For themost part underpercentaged translations are better than overpercentaged ones which addmeaning that is not there. It’s always easier for a reader to add the lacking information fromthe context of an underpercentaged translation than it is to detect false information from anoverpercentaged translation. When a choice has to be made, it’s always better to prefer apercentage of the meaning that is missing than a percentage that is wrong, particularly insections of genre code.

What’s important when translating genre codes is that a reader be able to draw the correctconclusions; these include the topic, the purpose, the recipient, the genre, and the author ofthe writing. An introduction to a message of Jesus Christ would lead a reader to expect (1)Genre: an introduction, (2) topic: message of Christ, (3) purpose: to proclaim, inform, (4)recipient: people uninformed about Christ, (5) author: unspecified. So we see that with theabove translation, none of these would be incorrect.


The genre codes of the writing attributed to Luke

Epeidhper polloi epeceirhsan anataxasqai dihghsin Because many took-a-hand to produce report

peri twn peplhroforhmenwn en hmin pragmatwnconcerning those-accomplished among us matters

kaqw" paredosan hmin oi ap arch" just like they delivered to us the from beginning

autoptai kai uphretai genomenoi tou logoueyewitnesses and servants having become of logos

edoxe kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin I thought also I having followed from beginning everything

akribw" kaqexh" soi grayai kratisteexactly consecutively to you to write honored

Qeofile ina epignw" peri wn kathchqh" logwn thn asfaleian Theophilus so that you recognize concerning the taught logoi the reliability.

Luke’s writing is clearly a very different genre from any of the others. It begins with astatement that includes the reason for the writing, followed by the topic, the recipient, thegenre, the setting, and the purpose. In other words, every piece of information that canpossibly be packed into the genre codes of a writing has been included in the beginningclauses of this writing.

It’s surprising that all the translations we are evaluating do a very inaccurate job of translatingthe beginning of Luke. The very first word Epeidhper, for example, is a causal conjunctionthat clearly means because or since, and refers to facts that are already known. It isunexplainable that some translations translate this important first word of the writing with“inasmuch.” This term is no longer used in English and says little to a modern reader. The NetBible, which is the newest of the translations, chooses to translates Epeidhper with “now.”In a note they give the meaning as “because”.

Obviously the translators are surprised at the use of this word in the initial position and areunsure what to do with it. It’s actually a powerful example of rhetoric coding. (See pages 20-21.) Placing Epeidhper at the front of the entire writing emphasizes the meaning of the word.In a translation, therefore, it should be strengthened in its meaning—Because of the fact that,would be perfect. There is no justification for doing the opposite by weakening it to the pointof meaninglessness.

It is left, however, to the New International Version, probably the most used translation inEnglish speaking countries, to commit the ultimate act of translation homicide. It actuallymanages to completely omit the word Epeidhper from its translation. Just imagine, preciselythe first word the author chose as the beginning for his monumental writing is simply left out!The translators of the NIV simply decided to ignore it!

Let’s look at the beginning of this writing in the translations (Table 1).

What exactly is being said here? All these translations give the impression that the author isbasically saying that since so many have written accounts, he thought he would too, except


he’s going to do it in more detail. Is that really what’s being said? Did the author place thislengthy statement at the beginning of the longest writing of all the Christian scriptures (a two-part letter) to say little more than that?

The Beginning W ords of the First W riting to Theophilus (Luke)

NET

1:1 Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilledamong us, 1:2 like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servantsof the word from the beginning. 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followedall things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellentTheophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

NIV1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and2

servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the3

beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellentTheophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.4

NASB

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplishedamong us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were

eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigatedeverything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, mostexcellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have beentaught.

NKJV

1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which havebeen fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers2

of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding3

of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4

that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

NLT

1 Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used2

as their source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and othereyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated3

all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to4

reassure you of the truth of all you were taught.

Table 1

The fact is that these translations have all missed many of the codes that the author wrote intothis initial statement. The result is an almost total loss of the genre codes, and the loss isdevastating to the understanding of the entire piece of literature. It is a prime example of whathappens to the topic, purpose, genre, recipient, and setting of a piece of literature when itsgenre codes are altered.

We’re going to look at each part of this prominent portion of the text, make someobservations, analyze where the translations missed codes, and then try to put together atranslation that preserves the genre codes. Examples will be included from The Net Bible(NET), The New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB),TheNew King James Version (NKJV), and the New Living Translation (NLT). In addition, as thelast entry, the corresponding text from the Greek New Testament (GNT) is included withEnglish interlinear helps.


This is how each of the writings begin (Table 2).All five have a title followed by a subtitle.

All five translations precede the text with addedtitles that the author did not include. Two includethe word gospel which is particularly misleading aswe have previously discussed. Since the writing isaddressed to Theophilus, it would seem logical tocall it a letter or a report to Theophilus. When weconsider that it is actually the first part of a two-part report—the second part being the so-calledBook of Acts—then it would be most accuratelycalled Part I of the Report to Theophilus. At leastthis description would have actual roots in the textitself.

The Net Bible precedes the first part of the textwith the subtitle Explanatory Preface. Though anaddition to the text, this is not necessarily a wrongstep to take. If indeed this is what the authorintended with this initial text, then it is justified.The only problem with the word preface is that itbelongs to the genre of formal literature and formalliterature is written for the masses or for some segment of the masses. This piece of literature,however, has a clear personal note to it. It’s written to a man who is addressed personally, hisproblem is described, and a solution to his problem is promised. This is what is not clear whenpeople read the translations of this text, and formal subtitles do not help to give it thisorientation. Though the section is an introductory explanation of what follows, it’s more inthe line of a personal note that addresses the particular situation and need of the recipient andwhat the author has written to solve the problem.

The NIV adds the subtitle Introduction. This is a shade better than Preface though combinedwith the Luke title, it still gives this important section of genre code an impersonal look. It’simportant to remember that a subtitle has to be justified by codes that are actually in the text.Otherwise it becomes a hindrance to the content of the text. Subtitles are not somehow neutralcodes in a translation. Instead they are powerful prominence codes in English literature andtheir use in a translation should correspond to prominence codes actually in the source texts.

The NKJV adds the subtitle Dedication to Theophilus. This translation recognizes theindividual receiver of the writing, but with the use of the word dedication places this initialsection of text into a “nonessential” category for a reader. It basically gives a reader theimpression that it is not a part of the actual text itself. It’s interesting that my surveys amongreaders indicate that this section is in fact seldom noticed. I once went though this initialsection with a professor who had taught New Testament Greek for over thirty years and it wasas though he was seeing this passage for the first time. He expressed surprise at what itactually said. Most commentaries pay little attention to these important words as well.

Initial Title and Subtitle

NET

Luke

Explanatory Preface

NIV

Luke

Introduction

NASB

The Gospel According toLuke

Introduction

NKJV

The Gospel According toLuke

Dedication to Theophilus

NLT

Luke

Introduction

Table 2


Now we turn to the beginning of the text (Table 3).

We’ve already mentioned the problems with thesetranslations of Epeidhper. The author clearlywanted to emphasize this word by setting it in thefronted position of the entire piece of literature. Itmust have been a real attention getter forTheophilus. It immediately introduces the situationthat moved the author to write what ultimatelybecame one of history’s most remarkable pieces ofliterature. Each of these translations is unworthy ofbeing called a translation.

The sentence continues (Table 4).

The “as” used in two translations very muchweakens a statement that begins in Greek more likea pounding hammer. Many is the second word andit is also emphasized. It also should be emphasizedin an English translation.

It goes without saying that undertaken to compilean account is very sterile English and have taken inhand to set in order a narrative is not normalEnglish. Anyone reading these translations could belulled to sleep after just these few words. SurelyTheophilus wasn’t bored when he read these firstfew words. What he read must have sounded morelike this: Because of the fact that so many have. . .It thrust him right into the heart of the reason forthe huge writing that he had received. It began toanswer the biggest question he had at the time. What else would a person wonder who’d beengiven a thirty-five-foot-long scroll full of writing? Won’t his first question be why? And it’sthese first words that set out to answer exactly that question.

Now, what does epeceirhsan anataxasqai dihghsin actually mean? It’s ananthropomorphism (took-a-hand) combined with the activity of “putting writings together.”This means that epeceirhsan is similar to terms we use like lend a hand or shoulder a load.Such terms simply mean to put some physical effort into the doing of a task. In this contextthe task that was done was everything involved in getting information into a written form thatcould be made available to readers.

The modern way of saying this is in the phrase “to write and publish a book or a report.”These two terms—write and publish—encompass the various tasks necessary to get a writinginto the hands of more than just a few readers. Can we use the word publish as a translationin this sentence? Probably not because it puts a bit too much twenty-first century back intothe first century.

The First Word of the Text

NET Now ...

NIV (omitted) ...

NASB Inasmuch ...

NKJV Inasmuch ...

NLT (omitted) ...

GNTEpeidhper ...Because ...

Table 3

The First Clause

NET... many have undertaken tocompile an account

NIVMany have undertaken todraw up an account ...

NASB... as many have undertakento compile an account ...

NKJV... as many have taken in handto set in order a narrative ...

NLTMany people have writtenaccounts ...

GNT

... polloi epeceirhsan

... many took-a-hand

anataxasqai dihghsin ...to produce report ...

Table 4


We do need a solution, however, because the word anataxasqai carries more with it thanjust the idea of writing. This is what the translators are trying to pass on by using words likecompile and order a narrative. The point is that these are circulated writings that are in view.They are more than just notes or letters.

The following translation adds this necessary aspect: Because of the fact that so many havemade the effort to produce written reports . . . Using the plural of report (as in the NLT) isjustified because the sentence does not mean “many people worked to put together onewriting” but that “each one of the many worked to do a writing.” Thus there were manywriters and many writings. In English it is closer to the facts to say that many were producingwritings.

It’s important to note here as well, that this is the only usage of the word dihghsin (report)in all of the Christian scriptures. The significance of this will be mentioned later.

What are the many writers publishing reports about? The translations describe them in thisway (Table 5).

Took place (NLT) is the better option. To see heremerely the fulfilling of prophecies or completing oftasks is more limiting than the context would allow.Things that take place allows for fulfilledprophecies as well as the completion of tasks.Using a specific term requires a specific contextand that is not the case here.

There are more serious problems with thesetranslations, however. The first concerns the wordpragmatwn. It is potentially a more substantialword than the translation things indicates. Events orhappenings are the first words to come to mind, butmatters, issues, or even controversies are alsopossible. Is things a wrong translation? Notnecessarily, but it is certainly the weakest and mostneutral possibility which doesn’t fit in a contextlike this. Obviously the writing being done is about something important. It’s not just forentertainment. A word’s meaning depends on the context of which it is a part. For now we’llopt for matters which is at least a shade up the ladder of importance from things.

Now we’ll make one more observation in the passage. The entire prepositional phrase isrhetorically coded. peri (concerning) is the preposition, pragmatwn (matters) is the object, andinserted between these two are the modifying words twn peplhroforhmenwn en hmin (those

that took place among us). The placement of these inserted words serves to accentuate them. It’snot just any pragmatwn (matters), but those that took place among us. Who is meant with the

The First Clause Continued

NET... of the things that have beenfulfilled among us, ...

NIV... of the things that have beenfulfilled among us, ...

NASB... of the things accomplishedamong us,...

NKJV... of those things which havebeen fulfilled among us, ...

NLT... about the events that tookplace among us.

GNT

peri twn peplhroforhmenwnconcerning the accomplished

en hmin pragmatwn ...among us matters ...

Table 5


us? We’ll save this call for later when we look atthe entire passage. It’s important to note for nowthat the “many” are writing about matters thatinvolve “us,” that is, either the author and others orpossibly even the author and the reader.

Now we come to the clause that usually loses anyreaders who haven’t already been lost (Table 6).

First of all, there is no justification at all for theNLT rendering. It adds a thought that is foreign tothe text.

In three of the other translations we once againmeet a weak as. kaqw" sets up a comparison hereand the as does not do this clearly enough.

We can see this better in a smaller example. Note in I John 3:2 the following statement withkaqw": We will see him kaqw" he is. Now let’s consider the three possibilities of translatingkaqw" in this sentence: We will see him as he is, or We will see him just as he is or We willsee him just like he is. Notice that among the three possibilities the first is the weakest, thesecond is a bit stronger, and the third is the most distinct. This is because as has a slighttemporal meaning to it. It is not 100% comparative.But the phrase just like he is distinct and the way anEnglish speaker makes a clear comparison. WhatAmerican would ever say He walks just as his Daddoes. No, the expression is this: He walks just likehis Dad does.

The subject of this sentence is not simply “they”, ofcourse. It is expressed in considerable detail in thefollowing noun clause (Table 7).

The first three of the translations opted torestructure the active sentence into a passive one.They did this because they postulate a “writing”that is understood from the first sentence. Normallyit would be natural to refer to this impliedinformation as “the writings they gave to us” butthe lengthy noun clause which is the subject of thesentence complicates the structure in English. Thusit seems to sort things out a bit better to make thestatement a passive one. This is not necessarilywrong to do, but going from the active to thepassive without making the implied writingsexplicit serves to get the reader lost.

The Second Clause

NET... like the accounts passed onto us ...

NIV... just as they were handeddown to us ...

NASB... just as they were handeddown to us ...

NKJV... just as those who . . .delivered them to us ...

NLTThey used as their sourcematerial the reports circulatingamong us ...

GNT... kaqw" paredosan hmin...... just like they passed on to us ...

Table 6

The Following NounClause

NET... by those who wereeyewitnesses and servants ofthe word from the beginning.

NIV... by those who from the firstwere eye-witnesses andservants of the word.

NASB... by those who from thebeginning were eyewitnessesand servants of the word, ...

NKJV... those who from thebeginning were eyewitnessesand ministers of the word, ...

NLT

... from the early disciples andother eyewitnesses of whatGod has done in fulfillment ofhis promises.

GNT

... oi ap arch"

... those from the beginning

autoptai kai uphretaieyewitnesses and servants

genomenoi tou logou.became of the word.

Table 7


Let’s try another solution. Consider this translation: ... just like those that the eyewitnessesand servants of the word passed on to us. They’re the ones who were there from the verybeginning.

This translation preserves codes that are lost in the other translations. It sets up a clearcomparison, it maintains the active force, it solves the problem of the long subject by placingpart of it in a following sentence. This is a structural change but involves no loss of contentbecause the pronoun they extends the prominence codes of the first sentence to the secondsentence, and finally the phrase ap arch" which is emphasized in the Greek is alsoemphasized in the English.

Now let’s put together what we’ve done thus far and see if the meaning is clearer.

I’m writing because of the fact that so many have set out to produce writings about thematters that took place among us, just like those that the eyewitnesses and servants ofthe word passed on to us. The eyewitnesses were there from the very beginning.

Thus far we have a translation that is beginning to sound like English and preserves many ofthe language codes missing or altered in the translations. There are still some problems tosolve, however. The phrase eyewitnesses and servants of the word is quite strange and sayslittle to a common reader of English. This phrase is not possible to understand apart from thesituation coding. It is, in fact, so strongly situation coded that not even a common reader ofKoine Greek would have understood it. It’s a classic example of situation code that could belabeled “insider” language code. Code like this tells us a lot about the reader who isobviously included in the network of insider language code.

What is unusual about the phrase? Though eyewitness was a common word, an eyewitness ofthe logos would not have been common. Servant was also a normal word, but to speak of aservant of the logos would have seemed strange to an uninitiated reader. From the beginningis also common language code, but beginning of what? It is not stated.

The answer to all these questions requires very specific information that is not expresslymentioned in the text. We have to assume that Theophilus immediately knew what the authorwas referring to. What was it?

Much becomes clear when we realize that for a certain circle of people who professed beliefin Christ, o logo" was an expression that referred to Jesus Christ. Like all such titles ordescriptions for Christ–-the good shepherd, the prince of peace, the son of man, the lamb ofGod—this one, too, focuses on a particular aspect of Jesus Christ. In the case of logo", ithighlights his role as the source of all wisdom and knowledge. The average Greek readerwould not have recognized that logo" referred to Christ. For them, it would simply have beena familiar philosophical term for the basic reason behind reality and creation. (Like mostwords, logo" can have various meanings depending on the context in which it is used.)

Thus, the us in the clause that took place among us are the eyewitnesses and servants ofChrist. This is insider language. Both the author and Theophilus would have known exactlywho these people are. The fact that they were eyewitnesses and servants of Christ from the


beginning referred to a “starting point” in the life of Christ witnessed by a group of peoplewho ultimately could be considered the eyewitnesses of Christ. In other words, they were noteyewitnesses simply because they happened to have seen him at some point in time, butbecause they witnessed his life over a certain stretch of time.

The insiders knew what this beginning was. The author may have been referring to this in thesecond part of his writing to Theophilus (1:21-22) when he wrote: Therefore, one of the menwho has accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, beginningfrom his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us—one of these should becomea witness of his resurrection with us.

Not only were they special kinds of eyewitnesses, but they were known as his servants. Thisindicates a special relationship to Christ. They were people who belonged to him and whofollowed his lead. The whole point of this phrase is that they were a distinct group of people,well defined by their common experience and by their close relationship to Christ. They werea select few, and as such they contrast sharply with the “many” who are mentioned in the firstclause. This is important to recognize but it is not at all clear in the translations.

Here’s the translation as we have it now:

I’m writing because of the fact that so many have set out to produce writings about thematters that have taken place among us, just like those did who were the eyewitnessesand servants of the word. These are the ones who were there from the very beginningand passed them on to us.

This introduces us to the problem that is the reason for the writing of the entire document. It states thatmany writers are addressing events and issues thattook place among people who are associated withthe author because of the matters that took placeamong us. These many writers are going aboutproducing their writings in a manner similar to thatof the eyewitnesses and servants of Christ. Theproblem arises from two different informationsources. People find these difficult to differentiate,because each deals with similar topics and each isbeing passed on in a similar way.

This is a problem of deception. It’s a situation inwhich people who are producing information aboutmatters concerning Christ and his followers aredoing it in such a way that they are mimicking thewritings of the eyewitnesses. The translations,however, by no means make this clear.

We continue with the main clause of the passage(Table 8). It also seemed good to write or it also

The Main Clause

NETSo it seemed good to me aswell . . . to write an orderlyaccount for you ...

NIVTherefore . . . it seemed alsogood to me . . . to write anorderly account for you ...

NASB... it seemed fitting for me aswell . . . to write it out for youin consecutive order ...

NKJVIt seemed good to me also . . .to write to you an orderlyaccount ...

NLTI have decided to write acareful summary for you ...

GNT

edoxe kamoi grayai ...it seemed also to me to write...

kaqexh" soi ...in order to you ...

Table 8


seemed fitting to write convey the right idea but nolonger the normal English expression for thiscontext. I thought I should also write would bebetter. Note how the first two expressions seemsomewhat distant, formal, or even stilted, as in itseemed fitting to take the dog for a walk.

In this context, however, the reason moving theauthor to take up pen and paper to do such amonumental work, is definitely not a distant orformal one. It is most certainly a compelling one.He is not writing to satisfy Theophilus’ curiosity.There is a serious problem that needs to be takencare of.

In the midst of this main clause is a parentheticalclause, inserted as an explanation of why the authorconsiders himself qualified to take up this task ofwriting (Table 9).

In saying this, is he not identifying himself as oneof the eyewitnesses and servants of Christ? Thereis no reason not to translate parhkolouqhkotiwith to follow as does the NET Bible. Thetranslation investigate does not at all fit a context inwhich the author talks about matters that wereaccomplished among us. The author knows what heis writing about because of experience, not becauseof investigation. (There is another reason forthinking the author includes himself among theeyewitnesses, but it will be discussed later.)

The author then addresses the recipient of thewriting (Table 10).

The word kratiste implies that Theophilus is aperson of some authority. A glance in any Almanacshows that most excellent is not an address inEnglish for any person of position and thus it isstrange and detracts. Honorable is the addressalmost exclusively used and it is sufficient here.

Next comes the statement of purpose (Table 11).

So that you may ... know or recognize? There isoverlap but there is also a difference, and the usageof epignw" is most often on the side of recognize.

The Parenthetical Insertion

NET... because I have followed allthings carefully from thebeginning ...

NIV... since I myself have carefullyinvestigated everything fromthe beginning

NASB... having investigatedeverything carefully from thebeginning ...

NKJV... having had perfectunderstanding of all thingsfrom the very first ...

NLTHaving carefully investigatedall of these accounts from thebeginning ...

GNT

... parhkolouqhkoti

... since I have followed from

anwqen pasin akribw" ...beginning everything exactly...

Table 9

The Recipient

NET ... most excellent Theophilus

NIV ... most excellent Theophilus

NASB ... most excellent Theophilus

NKJV ... most excellent Theophilus

NLT Most honorable Theophilus

GNT... kratiste Qeofile... honorable Theophilus

Table 10

The Statement of Purpose

NET ... so that you may know ...

NIV .... so that you may know ...

NASB .... so that you may know ...

NKJV ... that you may know ...

NLT ... to reassure you ...

GNT... ina epignw"... so that you recognize

Table 11


In this context “recognize” is better because it is acontext in which two different informationalsources need to be differentiated and that requiresrecognition. To know is not necessarily wrong, butin this case knowledge is being imparted toTheophilus so that he will be able to recognizewhat is reliable. What is he supposed to recognize(Table 12)?

The object of epignw" (recognize) is asfaleian(reliability). He is supposed to be able to recognizethe reliability, the certainty of something. What isit? The reliability of what? This is the statement ofpurpose of the entire writing, a writing thatultimately required two scrolls totaling a length ofseventy feet, a writing that encompasses overtwenty-five percent of the Christian scriptures. Allof it was written so that Theophilus could recognizethe reliability of something. Of what? What do thetranslations say Theophilus was supposed torecognize?

Amazingly all (!) the translations opt once more for the marvelous word things, one of themost noncommital words in the English language. This time, however, it is not put forth asa translation for pragmato" but for the amazing Greek word logo" (logwn is a plural formof logo").

At the very least the translations could have used the very usable English word words as agood solution in this context. Even people who don’t know Koine Greek usually know thatlogo" often means word. The whole context of this passage has to do with written words. It’scertainly a better choice than things.

It’s interesting, however, that neither things nor words are the correct translations for logwn.How do we know this? It’s because of the context which we actually pick up from the genrecoding of the second part of the writing, the part that the translations call the Book of Acts orjust Acts. First we’ll look at the beginning of this second part and then return to complete ourtranslation of the final clause and the word logwn.

The Purpose Continued

NET... for certain the things youwere taught.

NIV... the certainty of the thingsyou have been taught.

NASB... the exact truth about thethings you have been taught.

NKJV... the certainty of those thingsin which you were instructed.

NLT... of the truth of all you weretaught.

GNT

... peri

... concerning

wn kathchqh" the-you’ve-been-taught

logwn thn asfaleian.of the reports the reliability.

Table 12


The genre coding of the writing traditionally called Acts

Note how the translations begin part two of thiswriting (Table 13).

Once again, as at the beginning of the writing, noneof these titles or subtitles are original. They’ve allbeen added and they do not indicate a connectionwith the first part of the writing. They all give theimpression that this is the beginning of anindividual writing. It needs to be clearly said thatthe placement of this writing apart from its firstpart in the Bible is absurd. The two belongtogether.

It’s interesting that in all my years of talking topeople about the scriptures I have never talked toanyone—scholars, translators, publishers,professors, clergy—who does not agree that thesetwo writings belong together. The fact that theybelong together is undeniable. So why are theyseparated by another writing? And why are theypresented in the translations as two separatewritings? The answers to these questions becomes the same answer to the many perplexingquestions about the unexplainable practices of most scripture translations. More about thatlater in Part III, chapter 1.

Now we look at the beginning of the actual text(Table 14).

Note that the very first thing the author wants thereader to know is that there is a first part. His veryfirst words are Ton men prwton logon (the firstwriting). In their titles the translations do not makeany mention of this. Titles are the most powerfulgenre codes there are. Adding a title and failing toemphasize the author’s genre codes causes thiswriting to appear to a reader like an individualwriting with beginning, middle, and end. It cuts thewriting off from the important genre coding of thefirst part which the author extends to the secondpart. This no doubt explains why the Book of Actshas been assigned so many different topics andpurposes by innumerable commentators. Theclearly expressed topic and purpose in the genrecodes of the first part are simply missed or ignored.

Initial Title and Subtitle

NET

Acts

Jesus Ascends to Heaven

NIV

Acts

Jesus Taken up into Heaven

NASB

The Acts of the Apostles

---

NKJV

Acts of the Apostles

Prologue

NLT

Acts

The Promise of the Holy Spirit

Table 13

The Beginning of the Text

NETI wrote the former accountTheophilus ...

NIVIn my former book Theophilus ...

NASBThe first account I composedTheophilus...

NKJVThe former account I made OTheophilus ...

NLTDear Theophilus: In my firstbook ...

GNT

Ton men prwton logon The first writing

epoihsamhn w Qeofile...I made Theophilus ...

Table 14


How the author uses the words logos and logoi

The next thing to notice is what the author calls his first writing. Take a close look at it. Hecalls it a logo". It is very normal usage for the word logos to refer to an entire piece ofliterature. In this context, however, it needs to be given close attention. We observe threetelling things about the usage of logos. First of all, it is used twice in the genre codes of thistwo-part writing. Secondly, it is the author’s description of both parts (logos 1 and logos 2,so to speak), and thirdly, the author contrasts it with dihghsin (I Theophilus 1:1), the otherword in the genre codes that is used to refer to a piece of literature.

It was remarked earlier that this is the only use of dihghsin in the scriptures. There is norecord of it ever being used to refer to scripture. Though this observation is no clear proofthat it couldn’t refer to scripture, there is conclusive proof in this passage that it by no meansrefers to scripture. The proof is the clause in which it is used: ... many have set out to producewritings. This is an impossible description of the writers of scriptures. The writers of scriptureare an extremely select group, and that select group is in fact mentioned in the passage andit is contrasted with the many who were writing a dihghsin.

What is the significance of this? The many are being contrasted with the eyewitnesses andservants of the logos, and the dihghsin written by the many is being contrasted with thelogoi (plural) of the eyewitnesses and servants of the logos. This is in fact the situation thatled to the author’s decision to write. It’s the purpose of the writing that Theophilus be ableto recognize the reliable writings (logoi), that he would be certain about the the logoi and notconfuse them with the writings of the many.

It is also significant that the author calls his own writing a logo" and not a dihghsin. Indoing this, he places himself in the category of those who write the logoi. This select groupof writers can be none other than the eyewitnesses and servants of the logo". We made thisobservation earlier when discussing how the author described his own qualifications forwriting and included himself in the us of the second clause. (See page 62.)

One more consideration: In this context, is it necessary to translate logo" with the wordscripture? There is absolutely no doubt that this is precisely what the author is talking about.His goal for Theophilus to be able to recognize the reliability of the logoi that he’s alreadybeen taught. These writings cannot refer to anything but scripture. Why shouldn’t the logoibe translated as the scriptures then? If that’s what the author meant and that’s what the readerunderstood, then that’s what it should be. It would certainly serve to make the passage moreunderstandable.

Scripture is a good English word to use because it carries with it the idea of sacredness andauthority. This meaning fits the context well.


This stretch of text describes the content of the first logos and describes the situation thatintroduces the second logos (Table 15).

Let’s return now to the initial passage of the first part (Luke) to take a look at the structure ofthe entire passage and try to put it together (Table 16).

Structure of the Beginning of I Theophilus

Epeidhper polloi epeceirhsan anataxasqai dihghsin peri twn peplhroforhmenwn en hmin pragmatwnBecause many took-a-hand to produce report concerning those-accomplished among us matters

(Adverbial clause 1: First part of a comparison)1

kaqw" paredosan hmin oi ap arch" autoptai kai uphretai genomenoi tou logoujust like they delivered to us the from beginning eyewitnesses and servants having become of logos

(Adverbial clause 2: Second part of the comparison)1

edoxe kamoi parhkolouqhkoti anwqen pasin akribw" kaqexh" soi grayai kratiste QeofileI thought also I having followed from beginning everything exactly consecutively to you to write honored Theophilus

(Main clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Adverbial clause - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Main clause continued)

ina epignw" peri wn kathchqh" logwn thn asfaleian so that you recognize concerning the-you’ve-been-taught of the logoi the reliability.

(Adverbial clause of purpose)

The first two adverbial clauses together constitute a com plex adverbial clause of cause 1

Table 16

This is a sentence structure that is not considered unusual for Koine Greek. In English,however, using multiple clauses to precede a main verb is a difficult and seldom usedconstruction.

Continuation of Sentence

NET... about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after hehad given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

NIVI wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven,after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

NASB... about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up to heaven,after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.

NKJV... of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after Hethrough the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen.

NLT... about everything Jesus began to do and teach until the day he ascended to heaven after givinghis chosen apostles further instructions from the Holy Spirit.

GNT

... peri pantwn wn hrxato o Ihsou" poiein te kai didaskein acri h" hmera"

... concerning all-things, that began Jesus to do and teach until the days

enteilameno" toi" apostoloi" dia pneumato" agiou ou" exelexato anelhmfqhwere-given-orders to the Apostles through spirit holy those-who he-chose was-raised

Table 15


It is far more usual in English to begin with the main verb and then add the various modifyingclauses. Plus, if there are many modifying clauses, they are often restructured as sentences.Compare the following units of language code which say exactly the same thing. Which iseasier to understand?

1. Because a lot of people have been handing out orders, acting like the ones who reallyhave the authority to do that, I decided to write an exact list of the orders to you, since I’mone who knows the real authorities, so that you’ll be able to recognize which ones aregenuine.

2. I decided to write you because a lot of people have been handing out orders, acting likethey have the authority to do that. Since I’m one who actually knows the real authorities,I’m giving you an exact list of the orders, so that you’ll be able to recognize which onesare genuine.

The second example is easier to follow simply because it follows a more normal way ofarranging this kind of logic in English . The reason for this has to do with genre coding at thelevel of the sentence. (See page 13.) All languages have a way of arranging thoughts andaccordingly, people expect information to be communicated in that way. Some variation ispossible, of course, but confusion results if a writer strays too far from the standard ways ofwriting or speaking a language. English readers are simply used to having the main verb rightup front and having the modifying thoughts follow, and if there are more than two modifyingthoughts then one is often placed in an additional sentence.

This doesn’t necessarily describe all readers of English. It describes average readers who havelittle practice reading literature written in complex forms of English. Such literature oftenincludes older forms of English as well as specialty literature written for highly-informedreaders.

Thus far our observations of the four translations of the initial statement to Theophilus haveuncovered three reoccurring deficiencies: (1) They omit many of the language codes in thetext. (2) They add genre codes that are not in the text. (3) They do not use standard Englishin their translations. It can be no surprise that the resulting translations are not only confusing,but also misleading.


We will now attempt a translation that seeks to represent all the language codes the authorwrote into the text, and express them in such a way that they do not violate the dictates of acommon form of English. Consider the following translation:

Most honorable Theophilus,

I’m writing to you because of the fact that so many have set out to produce writingsabout the matters that were accomplished among us, passing them on in the same waythat those did who from the beginning were the eyewitnesses and servants of Christ.Since I’ve carefully followed everything from the start, I thought that I should alsowrite to you about each matter from the first to the last so that you’d be able torecognize the authenticity of the scriptures that you’ve been taught.

Now let’s discuss each translating decision:

Why have we moved the address to Theophilus to the beginning of the passage? There are tworeasons for this: 1. It makes clear to the reader the personal nature of the words that follow,and 2. It’s the position for the address that allows a reader of English to best arrange thethoughts in the text.

Greek is a language that is very flexible in the placement of its words, phrases, and clauses.Much rhetoric coding is achieved by the arrangement of these language codes. The fact thatEnglish is not so flexible does not mean that English is in some way less effective as alanguage. Not at all. It simply means that the same rhetoric coding is accomplished bydifferent means. (Read pages 20-21).

The greater flexibility of Greek words, phrases, and clauses means that Greek readers haveno problem grouping thoughts in various orders. English readers, however, expect a linearapproach in which certain kinds of information occupy certain slots in the order. The authorof the Greek text to Theophilus achieved great emphasis by placing three clauses explaininghis reason for writing before the address to Theophilus. In English we need to accomplishexactly the same emphasis but we can’t do it like it’s done in Greek. The result of trying todo so will confuse and bore an English reader, the exact opposite of what the author wants todo.

We achieve a similar emphasis when we begin in this way: I’m writing you because of the factthat so many have ... This adds the urgency to the English text that is in the Greek text. It alsomoves the main thought (I thought I should write ...) to the front of the passage which sets theEnglish reader up much better for the thoughts that follow.

How do we know this is a normal English way of emphasizing a clause that indicates a causefor something? We do it simply by surveying English usage among English readers andspeakers. For example, consider the following statements.

Hi John, I’m calling because of something that came up. Hey Joe, I need to talk to you because yesterday I heard that ...Dear Jane, I really need your advice because my Mom called and ...


Such examples permeate the whole English speaking world. Trying to find examples ofEnglish that correspond to the way the translators constructed these thoughts is impossible.They don’t exist anywhere. They simply aren’t English. It’s what Barclay Newman calls“translationese”.

For a translation to be in English, it has to correspond to English usage as it is actually spokenor written in a well-defined segment of the English speaking world. It makes no sense to useEnglish words in non-English ways. Just because Germans say Zweiundsechzig to express thenumber sixty two, it doesn’t mean that it should be translated two and sixty in English. That’snot translating into English.

English speakers expect not only that their numbers be said in a certain order, but they expecta certain order for practically everything else they hear. They have learned ways of dealingwith information that is unique to the English language. This is all defined by the codes andcoding procedures of the language. If the codes are correct and in order, then an Englishreader will understand a text correctly. If those language codes are not familiar or out of order,then the codes will not be understood.

Every translation that calls itself English should be able to justify every word, phrase, clause,sentence, paragraph, and literature genre with clear examples from actual English usage of thetarget group of the translation.

Now, what about the phrase the eyewitnesses and servants of Christ? This is poor English.The idea of being someone’s eyewitness is not usual. People don’t normally haveeyewitnesses. People are eyewitnesses of something that took place but they’re notsomebody’s eyewitness. What does this actually mean in Greek? The phrase the eyewitnessesand servants of Christ is actually a heavily rhetorically coded description of a finite numberof authenticating people. Authenticating means that these are people who can confirm orauthenticate whether certain matters or certain pieces of information are genuine or not. Theservant part means that they were under orders.

The author obviously knew who these people were. Did Theophilus know? He most likely did.If there was any doubt, the content of the two parts of the entire writing certainly make thisgroup clear.

One way I’ve tried to solve some of the problems with the phrase eyewitnesses and servantsof the Logos is to translate the word asfaleian in the final clause as authenticity. This is amore specific than certainty or reliability, but it is justified in a context in which eyewitnessesplay a crucial role. It provides an aspect of meaning that the word eyewitnesses would haveprovided for the original reader.

Translating Christ for logos also takes something away from the meaning of this phrase. Theword logos indicates an aspect of the purpose of Christ that has to do with the communicationof his message. This means that the eyewitnesses and servants in view are particularly crucialto the substantiating of his message and the performing of tasks that have to do with thismessage. That is what Theophilus would have understood. Translating logos with word,however, does not help to say any of this to an English reader. Translating logos with Christ


is better because it communicates much more of the content of the phrase o logo" to anEnglish reader. Nevertheless, it is not an ideal solution. Any option that would bring in moreof the role of Christ as the bearer of God’s message would be an improvement.

What about the phrase I should write to you about each matter from the first to the last? Eachmatter is the implied object from the previous context. Concerning implied (implicit)information, Koine Greek is not a wordy language. Much implicit language is left for thereader to supply. Implicit language is also normal in English, but not to the degree to whichit is used in Koine Greek. This seems to be true of earlier languages in general. One mustremember that writing materials were expensive then and all manuscripts were copied byhand. Writers had every reason to record only the most necessary words. (Read more on pages151-159 about implicit language.)

The phrase from first to last specifies the meaning of kaqexh~, an adverb that meansconsecutively.

The meaning of the clause in the context is basically this: I want you to have in writing anauthentic consecutively ordered overview of the matters (issues, happenings, controversies— pragmatwn) that both the many and the eyewitnesses have written about. This is whatTheophilus understood. The word matter is not an ideal solution, and I would prefer to usethe word issue, but issue does not fit well in the first clause. The problem is that matter is aweak translation for pragmatwn, and issue is too specific.

Finally, is it justified to translate logoi with scriptures? What else would the logoi be? Theyare the writings of the eyewitnesses and servants of the logos. They are what the authorhimself says he is writing. The other choices would be reports or writings. The danger witheither of these translations is that the logoi be mixed up with the dihghsin in the first clause,and that’s why the author is writing, so that the two NOT be mixed up.

The advantage of using scriptures is that the word carries with it the idea of an authoritative,reliable writing and this is certainly within the parameters of what the author means with logoiin this context. The problem with using the word scriptures is that it is often understood asa synonym for the Bible, which includes the Jewish writings as well. It is also understood bysome to simply mean verses or portions of a piece of biblical literature.

One mitigating factor is that when scriptures is used as a synonym for the Bible or for aportion of verses it is almost always capitalized. Not capitalizing the word lessens theassociation of scriptures with the Bible or with Bible verses. (You will notice that throughoutthis book I have used the word scripture without capitalizing it to minimize its associationwith the Bible.)

This is a classic example of lacking just the right vocabulary to accomplish an exacttranslation. One thing is absolutely necessary, the translation has to preserve the starkdifference between dihghsin (report, writing) and logwn (words of eyewitnesses,scriptures). For now the best option seems to use scriptures for logwn. Other options wouldbe to add a modifier such as eyewitness report or to put a note in the text to point out thedifference. Neither of these solutions, however, is an improvement on scriptures.


Here, then is our sample translation of the initial text of the first part of the writing toTheophilus:

Most honorable Theophilus,

I’m writing to you because of the fact that so many have set out to produce writingsabout the matters that were accomplished among us, passing them on in the same waythat those did who, from the beginning, were the eyewitnesses and servants of Christ.Since I’ve carefully followed everything from the start, I thought that I should alsowrite to you about each matter from the first to the last so that you’d be able torecognize the authenticity of the scriptures that you’ve been taught.

Compare this translation with the four we are evaluating. Or with any other moderntranslation. Is it clearer? Does it sound more like real English? Does it introduce you to thegenre information: Purpose, topic, setting, recipient, genre?

The point of this exercise has not been to produce an authoritative translation for there is nosuch thing, but to demonstrate that there are serious problems with the translations we’ve beenevaluating. We’ve observed up close how they have practically eradicated the genre codes ofthe so-called Gospels and Book of Acts. It is a loss of such tragic dimensions that it doesn’tseem right to simply draw attention to it with lines of text. It would be far more appropriateto scream it into whatever hallowed halls of translating have tolerated this condition for solong and done nothing about it.

For the time being, we will have to be satisfied to formulate several burning questions: 1. Whyhave so many genre codes been allowed to be added to the translations? 2. Why do thetranslations ignore so many codes that the authors included? 3. Why did the Bible form ofscripture translations become so dominant? 4. Why do so many Bible translators continue totolerate the glaring deficiencies in the various translations?

All of these questions will be addressed in Part III. They are being mentioned now becausethey are questions that target root problems, and they should not be ignored. It’s notnecessarily by chance that a translation adds or subtracts information to the language codesof an author.

We are now going to investigate more examples of genre codes in the translations we areevaluating.


The genre codes of the large writing attributed to John

The so-called fourth gospel, the one attributed to John, also does not call itself a gospel. Theauthor, in fact, did not use the Greek word euaggelion a single time in the text. It actuallycalls itself as a marturia (testimony). We’ll consider why that is significant below.

The writing begins in this way: en arch hn o logo~ (In the beginning was the Logos)

Here we see another example of arch (beginning) used as a genre code. When a Greek personliving in the first century read those first five words, he or she immediately knew what thebook was about. It was information in an area that interested most Greeks greatly. They werea very curious and interested people in a wide range of topics—politics, science, mathematics,geography, history—but nothing fired their imagination more that the topics of philosophyand religion. In this regard they were also a very tolerant people toward new thoughts and newways of thinking. It’s one of the many ways that the Greeks were quite unusual.

The words arch and logo~ in the same sentence—with logo~ used in a personified senseas it is—would have immediately told Greek readers that they had a book in their hands thatwas a statement about God, creation, and the meaning of life. Logos in particular was a wordheavily infused with meanings that called to mind the foundational source and purpose of theworld. Trying to define it clearly today is impossible, but logos would have been just asdifficult to explain in the first century. That’s actually the point of the word in this context.Its general area of reference was understood by a Greek reader, but it was a word that alsosignified the unknown. Whoever claimed to know something about the Logos would draw theattention of anyone interested in knowing the whats and whys behind creation.

From these first words, which express a fact from the perspective of the writer, the readerscould recognize the purpose of the writing. They knew it would be an attempt to convincethem of some underlying principles or truths about the Logos. That is, like all books of itsgenre, it would be out to convince them to believe something.

These initial words—the most significant genre codes in the writing—also made it clear toa reader that this was a book meant for people who had not yet heard about this point of view.In other words, it was for the noninitiated or the nonbeliever. The claims about the Logosmean that the thrust of the text would be reasons and evidences that support the claims of thewriting. It was information designed to explain and promote a point of view to an onlooker.

These observations about the genre codes of the writing are verified in summary statementstoward the end of the book. In the first one is the statement that the unusual signs in the bookwere written so that the reader might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God ...(20:31). This confirms that the purpose of the writing is to convince and to lead a reader tobelief. It also verifies that the information is designed to be read by those who are not yetbelievers.

The second summary statement records that the writer is a student of Christ’s and that he haswritten a testimony that is true (21:24). A testimony as the genre of literature lines upperfectly with the purpose and the recipient of the writing. A testimony is information meant


to persuade those who have not yet been moved to decide about a matter. The fact that thewriter was a student of Christ’s undergirds the validity of the testimony as that of aneyewitness.

A translation of the genre codes of this writing should orient today’s reader to the writing tothe same degree that a reader in the first century was oriented to its topic (the Logos), to itspurpose (to lead to belief), and to the intended recipients (those who have not yet believed).It’s the purpose of genre codes to provide this vital orientation. (See pages 10-?.)

When this testimony of one of Christ’s students is understood as a Gospel, then thisorientation is at least partially lost. In general, people understand the word gospel—in thecontext of one of the four gospels—to be a kind of biography of the life of Christ presentingone of four different perspectives of his life and intended for four different audiences. Theserecipients are generally taught to be the Romans (Mark), the Greeks (Luke), the Jews(Matthew), and the Christians (John). These traditional understandings, however, are notderived from the actual genre codes in any of the writings.

As we have seen, the scripture traditionally called John was intended for non-Christians. Itclearly states that it was written that the reader might believe that Christ is the Son of God ...It’s important that the writing be used with this purpose in view. It would be a mistake to thinkthat John is general teaching for believers, and that it is full of examples of Christ forbelievers to follow. The examples of Jesus’ teachings and actions in John were chosen by theauthor for a much different purpose—to demonstrate his complete uniqueness and deity. Theyare examples that could only be true of him.

It is instructive to compare the examples of Christ recorded in the Book of the Life of Christ(Matthew) with those in the Testimony of a Student of Christ (John). Those in Matthew areexamples that the readers are supposed to follow because it is a book from the genre of law.It is a book of instructions for students who believe in Christ. The topic of Matthew is theearthly life of Christ, whereas the topic of John is Christ as the Logos who is the same as God,who created the world, and who is the unique Son of God.

The Book of the Life of Christ (Matthew) is designed to be used as a practical book ofinstructions that believers should follow. The Testimony of a Student of Christ (John),however, was written as a testimony to nonbelievers, presenting evidence of the uniquenessof Christ so that nonbelievers might become believers in him.

In Appendix A we have included another example of faulty genre codes in the New Testamenttranslations. It is the writing that has traditionally carried the title of I John and has alwaysbeen considered a letter. It bears none of the genre codes of a letter, however. In many waysit has suffered the opposite fate of I Theophilus (Luke). Though a letter, I Theophilus, hasalways been labeled a gospel, whereas I John has always been called a letter.

Now, we are going to look at Paul’s letter to the believers in Colossae to evaluate how NewTestament translations have dealt with prominence codes.

1. ENRE ODEScontext-books.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TenWays.57-85.pdf · There can be no doubt...

Documents

Transcript of 1. ENRE ODEScontext-books.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TenWays.57-85.pdf · There can be no doubt...