Talk:Matthew 20-28 (Translated)

Reversion explained: the edit significantly weakened the translation and introduced terms like "cashier" that are out of place. Please discuss first before making a sweeping edit in this entry.--Andy Schlafly 20:02, 19 November 2009 (EST)

I am curious about the translation of "Holy Ghost" to "Divine Guide". I would have expected "Holy Spirit", but this alternate term is very intriguing and I would like to learn more about it. Can anyone comment on how this term was developed? --FatherJoseph 14:57, 12 December 2009 (EST)

A quick google on both gave me the impression that both are commonly used interchangingly. But personally, I find that 'Divine Guide' flows that fits a lot better with what or who the 'Holy Ghost' is meant to be. It is meant to be an urging or pull on someone's heart or spirit to do good things. Or if I might say so, a Guide. It fits in my mind. MHarris

I don't endorse MandersB's tactic to replace every occurrence of ἰδού with at the moment. But he raises some interesting points:

• Andy, if you think that behold is archaic, why should it occur in the translation at all?
• Shouldn't it be possible to use at the moment as a translation for ἰδού more than once?
• I checked a couple of dictonaries and failed to find at the moment as a translation of ἰδού. Could you hint me to your source?

AugustO 09:50, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

I searched for a week for a source which states that at the moment is a nuance of ἰδού. I wasn't able to find one. That's why I put a source - tag to the translation. I hope that Aschlafly will show me where this translation comes from. AugustO 10:36, 15 April 2011 (EDT)

I did a Google search on:

• ἰδού "at that moment"

and nearly 20,000 items were found. I've added a cite to the content entry here.--Andy Schlafly 01:14, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

A google search! Well, for a moment a will join your light-hearted approach:

• ἰδού and yesterday results in 77,000 hits
• ἰδού and wow: 100,000 hits
• ἰδού and later: 200,000 hits

As wow is a demonstrative particle, often stressing what follows, it wouldn't be quite a bad translation! But we both know that such searches are meaningless.

And please keep in mind that this translation is meant to be a serious project: not everybody will appreciate your attempt of humor. So, back to the real problem: it goes without saying that I expected you to present something like article on the nuances of ἰδού, published in one of the many journals like Journal of Translation. Or a excerpt of a textbook, or a renowned Biblical commentary. Please, could you do so?

As for the cite you added to the verse: I'm afraid it doesn't show what you expect it to demonstrate. Indeed, ἰδού appears in the original verse and at that moment appears in the translations of the e.g., New International Version and the New Living Translation. But this doesn't imply that at that moment is the translation of ἰδού! I have stated earlier (User_talk:Aschlafly#Matthew_and_John - btw, it's in one of the four questions I'd like you to answer):

The New International Version starts the verse with At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn.., but this at that moment seems to be a translation of the leading καὶ (in fact of the string of καὶ-καὶ-καὶ), while ἰδού is dropped from the sentence altogether - as you observed rightly in Bible Translation Issues.

The new international version seems to follow the same principles as the NET Bible project, which states:

Introductory particles like ἰδού (“behold”) have been translated to fit the context (sometimes “listen,” “pay attention,” “look,” or occasionally left untranslated).

It seems to me that you are one of the first to translate ἰδού as at that/this moment. And such a novel translation obviously needs an elaborate justification, especially when it is used further on with far-reaching consequences (see Counterexamples to Relativity).

AugustO 10:28, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

I've shown here and at Talk:John 1-7 that besides the repeated claims that there is a nuance ἰδού meaning "suddenly" or "at that time" no serious evidence for the existence of such a nuance is given. So - as the very minimum - I reintroduced the source-tag. AugustO 11:35, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

According to Bible Translation Issues No. 17, I omitted the translation of ἰδού in Matthew 27:51. I think this is a reasonable compromise until any scholarly source for a translation of ἰδού as at this moment can be found (see here for the ongoing discussion ).

AugustO 09:22, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

As a general matter of interpretation or translation, ignoring or deleting words is disfavored. The word was not included simply to be ignored.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Isn't inventing a new meaning for a word disfavored, too? Until now, you haven't shown any scholarly source which validates your idea that "at this moment" is a "nuance " of ἰδού.

The source you gave is a list of various translations, which shows that modern liberal translations have a liberal concept of translating. Surely, this can't be model for the CBP, especially as you frown upon these techniques, e.g., here?

ἰδού is an interjection. It doesn't contain information on its own, it just stresses the following text (think of wow in contempory English) .

AugustO 10:34, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

Let's discuss this issue further. For starters, will you agree that simply ignoring and essentially erasing the Greek term is not an option for an optimal translation?--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

I would rather like to see your review and comment on my extensive edits here, especially as the google search is still the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment"!

AugustO 10:19, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Guess what I did? I translated the dang word! It means 'lo' as in "Lo and behold". 'Look' shortened to 'Lo'. Not 'wow' not anything else that has been said. the Greek word ιδού means 'lo'. Translate it yourself and you will see. Just google "Translate Greek ιδού" and oh my goodness, its the first link! Can we find something else to talk about now? I see the translation isn't included, I don't care if it is or not. It is one word from a gosple made up of many other letters and whatnot. The meaning still remains whether or not you use it. I would edit it to correct the commentary placed next to the scripture in question, but I don't want to mess with anything I don't have a right messing with. MHarris

Your spirited comments are welcome, but "lo" (like "wow") seems beneath the level of the Gospels. I wouldn't expect to find those words in the Constitution, or in a good Bible translation.

ιδού does not mean 'wow' it means "Lo, Look/behold". Beneath the level of the Gospels? You think they were written by some elite nobility? It was written by a former tax collector. The scripture in question was most likely a dictated writing of what he experienced or what one of his students found out during his research into his Master's past life while writing a biography. Interjections like 'wow' or 'behold' are perfectly acceptable in these accounts as it is the authors way of expressing the emotions they felt during the event or when they found out about the event.

Good translations respect the source that is being translated, and preserve as much meaning as possible. If the meaning is "lo" (or "wow"), the point is to explain what is so amazing about what happened. In this context, the amazing attribute is temporal: the veil was torn "at that moment." Hence that is the best translation.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure you are using the word 'temporal' wrong in that statement. But I restate. The meaning is not 'wow' nor should 'lo' be put on the same level as 'wow' though they are both interjections. In the usage of the word, the author was pointing to the veil as evidence as in "LOOK! There is the proof that he is the Lord our Savor! The Great Veil that took two strong men to lift just enough to let a small man though was ripped from the inside out, top down as the LORD cut away the boundary between us and HIM!" the Veil was a large, thick cloth that separated people from the Ark. To give sacrifice, a lamb was killed and it's blood put in a cup, then two men lifted the veil and another man crawled under it. If the sacrifice was accepted, bells would ring. When Jesus died, the veil was cut from the inside out or from were the Ark was to the outside and from top down, or from Heaven to Earth, meaning God cut away the boundary between us and Him though the sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Lord. That is why the word is so important and must be properly translated and added into the scripture. MHarris

So there is no disagreement about whether the term should be translated and included. It should be. But to translate it as the equivalent of merely an underline or exclamation point is little better than omitting it entirely.--Andy Schlafly 09:50, 12 June 2011 (EDT)

Over the last four months I have asked numerous times for a justification of translating ἰδού as at that moment. To attempts to explain the translation were made:

• A count of google hits: Here, I showed how this approach fails. In great detail. Twice.
• An attempt which based on the assumption that the New American Standard Bible would use archaic phrases - which it explicitly does not (see here.)

So both justifications fall flat. Until there is any meaningful, scholarly explanation, I changed the text to a version which may sound a little bit archaic, but is at least correct. Before reverting this entry, I'd like to see some explications which show more than wishful thinking but knowledge of the subject at hand.

AugustO 09:02, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you have not shown that any Biblical scholar shares your idea that ἰδού can be translated as "at this moment". Neither have you given any scholarly source which supports your idea. This leads to the conclusion that it is your invention.

I won't change the translation back as you are clinging to your idée fixe - and as there is the possibility to translate the verse this way for other reasons (see my statements above). But nothing good can come from making up new meanings of Biblical words.

However, I deleted the misleading statement: The Greek ἰδού adds emphasis, and in this context the timing is obviously what is being emphasized (See, for example, the various translations of ἰδού to include "suddenly" and "at that time" at [1]) - ignoring ἰδού (or any word) in translation is disfavored, see Bible Translation Issues. Again, in the quoted translations, not ἰδού but the rapid succession of καὶ is translated as "suddenly" or "at that time".

AugustO 15:13, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

I find your point to be nitpicky. Is your claim that "ἰδού καὶ" is translated as "at that time," but not merely "ἰδού", regardless of context?? That seems hardly worth arguing about.

As to whether Biblical scholars agree, how many of those professors voted for Obama? Perhaps 90% of professors are liberals, and they are unlikely to agree with many original meanings that are conservative.--Andy Schlafly 18:06, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

• Read above: it's not about the "ἰδού καὶ", it's about the καὶ - καὶ - καὶ. The ἰδού just happens to appear in the verse and its translation is omitted by those who choose to start the verse as "Suddenly..." or "At that time..".
• It's about the Bible - it is worth to be exact or nitpicky (in fact we can't afford to be sloppy).
• It's not only about scholars agreeing - it's about you being the only one having another opinion than all these scholars for the last five hundred years!
• your translation of ἰδού is unprecedented. Taking such a revolutionary step should be better motivated than just saying "I don't vote for Obama".

AugustO 18:16, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

You make some good points, and I've improved the commentary. But the translation here remains true to the original meaning. Do you think the veil tore at a later time, rather than at the same moment?--Andy Schlafly 19:12, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

• The commentary is still wrong: If you don't want to ignore ἰδού in your translation, the verse should start "Behold, suddenly..."
• IMO the witnesses thought that the veil teared at the same moment. This could have been the very moment Jesus Christ "cried out again in a loud voice and breathed his last" or - given the distance - a couple of seconds later. I don't know which amount of time God took for this task: after all, he created the world in six days when he was able to do so in a single moment.

AugustO 01:47, 6 September 2012 (EDT)

"ἰδού" adds emphasis, just as the archaic "behold" did ... centuries ago. Saying or implying that the veil tore later would detract from the obvious purpose and meaning of the verse. "Suddenly" would convey a meaning different from the intent, as though there were some new, intervening force.--Andy Schlafly 22:46, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

At the Second Advent when Jesus returns, all sinners will be taken off of the Earth and only believers will be left behind. Is this supposed to say this? I thought it was refering to the rapture, so is this vandalized or did I miss something? ILOVEJESUS2 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2017 (EDT)