Bible Question:
Interpretive Challenges... Greek genitive cases of the word "of", comparing literal translations to dynamic equivalence translation.. According to the following examples, which translation of the Greek genitive case is superior? The traditionally more literal translation or its 'dynamic equivalent'? Example 1: Ephesians 1:13.. [NASB] "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise," [NRSV] "In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit;" Since the Greek genitive has a wide range, is "the promised Holy Spirit" stronger here, or is the more literal "Holy Spirit of promise" more precise? Other examples include: Example 2: Ephesians 1:17-18 [NKJV] "... that you may know what is the hope of His calling.." "... in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you.." [NIV] Is one "stronger" than the other? Or do these translations communicate entirely differently in these verses? Example 3: Hebrews 1:3 [KJV] " ... and upholding all things by the word of his power.." [NRSV] "... and he sustains all things by his powerful word. .." Which descriptive genitives in the above examples are 'stronger' or more accurate? (I will retract this question if not responded to in a 24 hour timeframe. Thank you.) |
Bible Answer: Makarios, Let me make some effort to respond to your very subtle question. You are obviously a man concerned with attention to detail. I will only address the first example. Eph 1:13 seems to have strong baptismal connotations. If one receives the Holy Spirit in baptism then they are receiving the "promised Holy Spirit." But baptism also hold a more long range promise of eternal life and in this sense we may think of having received the "Holy Spirit of promise." Think of this in the context of the baptism of Jesus where the Holy Spitit decended upon Him. yet the fulness of the promise was fulfilled only in the resuurection and Ascension in glory. And there is still the promise of the final coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead. To God everything is an eternal present, but for us in this realm we experience thiongs in the continuum of time. This question, it seems to me, is akin to the question of justification: past, present and ongoing. I know this is not an A or B answer, and you did not offer "all of the above" as another option. But, you surely present an interesting example of why translators may make different choices, and what difficult choices they are. After there is some more input from others, if there is any, I would like to hear your opinion on the question you so astutley posed. Emmaus |