Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 11:16 Now if anyone is inclined to be contentious [about this], we have no other practice [in worship than this], nor do the churches of God [in general]. |
Subject: why is toiauten translated 'other' here |
Bible Note: Greetings Kalos! That is why I was so surprised to see the NASB, and so many other translations, use 'other' instead of 'such'. Here is some interesting comments from an article I found on this issue. ***************************************** No Other Custom or No Such Custom? It is amazing that in many articles and popular discussions relatively little value has been placed on Paul’s final comments in the passage (11:16). In fact, John Calvin, usually a very reliable commentator, does not even comment on the phrase “we have no such custom,” or take time to explain these terms in his commentary. Likewise, I recently listened to three hours of teaching on the subject which was to be an exposition of 11:2-16....While other verses were dealt with in fine detail, all that was mentioned on verse 16 was that “this verse tells us that all the churches enforced the practice of head covering in worship for women.” Almost every other important term was detailed, verse 16 receive no such attention. Influential Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace of Dallas Theological seminary merely says, “How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a paradosis, it was put on the level of orthopraxy.” He argues that headcovering was the “outworking of this ‘tradition.’” He reasons, This would be like saying, ‘Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord’s Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice.’ The practice puts flesh to the doctrine. This is a helpful analogy to clarify his view, which is that the tradition is a meaningful symbol with allowance for cultural variations. A critical issue, which deserves some attention, is the two ways verse 16 are translated. This is, after all, Paul’s summative comment on the matter. Consider the translations: NAS 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. NIV 1 Corinthians 11:16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-- nor do the churches of God. Note the difference below: NKJ 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. NRS 1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious-- we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. While NAS/NIV have “no other” practice or custom, NKJ/NRS have “no such” custom. What accounts for this difference? The demonstrative adjective, toioutos [toiauten - in this verse it is accusative, feminine singular]. The difference is illustrated wittily by Gordon Clark in his commentary on this passage. Do you have turkey for Thanksgiving? We have no such custom. Do you have turkey for Thanksgiving? We have no other custom. These are entirely antithetical interpretations. Is the term toioutos to be translated, “other” or “such”? As a matter of record, no other passage in the Greek NT has this term (toioutos) translated “other.” We have no such passage. It is not translated in any other way. Moreover, in none of the Greek lexicons of which I know is “other” even given as a possible definition (Liddell-Scott, Louw-Nida, Thayers, UBS, Friberg). It would appear that the NAS/NIV translate this as “other” because they just can’t see how Paul could conclude with saying that we do not have a determined practice on this matter. On the contrary, it can hardly be disputed on basic lexical grounds that toioutos means “such” and not “other.” Hence, the KJV, ASV, NKJ, RSV, NRS are all correct: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such (toioutos) custom, nor do the churches of God.” (One wonders how many other translation decisions by the NAS/NIV et al have been made by what the translators think or expect the Biblical writers should say.) ....Thus, the entire discussion has is framed between the paradosis in verse 2 and the sunetheia in verse 16. This is what I believe he says: imitate me, keep the paradosis, but we have no sunetheia on head covering. Thus, Paul concluded with words which should be definitive about the matter. In keeping with holding the authoritative headship instruction, yet imitating him in not offending for the sake of the gospel, please observe his (actual, not our expected) conclusion: we have no such custom (of a head covering requirement). Source: http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/headcovering.htm ***************************************** Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |