Misuse of Resources

Theo1689

Well-known member
We live in an age where we have tons of resources and information in our phones. You might think that would allow us to grow in knowledge and understanding, but it seems to have the reverse effect for many. Resources are so easy and quick to find, it doesn't take much effort on anyone's part. Many people think it is perfectly fine to "Google" something, and then repeat it in a forum or message board, without thinking about it, or studying the context, or anything else. I think it has actually made many people stupider.

Just today someone in this forum tried to make a point by quoting three outdated Bible translations. One of them was the "Mace" translation. Now, my preferred Bible translations are the NET and ESV, and for me it is important for good translations to be (1) modern, and reflect our current knowledge of the languages and the manuscript texts, and (2) done by committee, instead of being individual translations, for more checks and balances, and to avoid individual theological bias.

The "Mace" translation is a Bible translation done by Daniel Mace, in 1729, almost 300 years go. It is an individual translation, and too early to make use of all the knowledge of the text and the language we have today. I also found the following review of it online:

1) "The translation is often needlessly paraphrastic." (It is also important to recognize the translation style, whether it be literal translation, dynamic equivalence, or paraphrase.)

2) "In many places the meaning of the text is weakened by loose renderings."

3) "But after examining Mace’s Greek text separately, and judging it on its own merits, we must say that his revision of it was not very competently done. Although some of his alterations to the Received Text anticipated the results of later editors, many were very ill-founded, being capriciously chosen from the apparatus of Mill 1707 or made simply upon conjecture."

4) "Shortly after its appearance, Mace’s New Testament was the subject of a comprehensive refutation published by Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the late new Text and Version of the New Testament, wherein the Editor’s corrupt Text, false Version, and fallacious Notes, are Detected and Censured, in 3 volumes (London: R. Gosling, 1731-1732, reprinted in 1743). It was also castigated by eminent scholars (Michaelis among them), and was generally seen as an embarrassment to text-critical scholarship in England. "

5) Scottish Scholar George Campbell observes: "He has, along with his version, republished the Greek text, corrected, as he pretends, from authentic manuscripts. It does not, however, appear, that he has been guided by critical principles in judging of manuscripts, or of the preference due to particular readings. His chief rule seems to have been their conformity to his own notions, which has led him to employ a boldness in correcting altogether unwarrantable."

6) Samuel P. Tregelles wrote: "in 1729 Daniel Mace published his Greek Testament, with an English translation, in which he boldly and arbitrarily changed passages, with evidence or without it, in accordance with his own subjective notions. He was a man apparently of some ingenuity, of no real or accurate scholarship, and possessed of but little principle; he so contrived to use remarks in Mill’s Prolegomena, as to have apparently the sanction of the name of that critic for his mode of editing passages."


Of course, the poster who cited the Mace translation is probably unaware of any of this... He simply found a translation that supported his viewpoint, and considered it "fair game". I personally have higher standards.


Maybe some of the above points are reasons why nobody's ever heard of this translation, and why nobody uses it.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Just today someone in this forum tried to make a point by quoting three outdated Bible translations. One of them was the "Mace" translation. Now, my preferred Bible translations are the NET and ESV, and for me it is important for good translations to be (1) modern, and reflect our current knowledge of the languages and the manuscript texts, and (2) done by committee, instead of being individual translations, for more checks and balances, and to avoid individual theological bias.

The same poster also quoted from the "Etheridge Bible".
Ever hear of it? Of course not, nobody has.

The Etheridge New Testament is an 1846 translation of the Aramaic Peshitta. It's not a translation of the Greek, which is problematic. Once you start going through more than one language in your transmission, the text becomes less and less precise, as the semantic ranges of various terms is limited, and doesn't always match each language in the same way.

Did the poster know that this translation is almost 200 years old, and is not a translation of the Greek? I doubt it. But if it supports his view, who cares about the quality or integrity, right?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
The same poster also quoted from the "Etheridge Bible".
Ever hear of it? Of course not, nobody has.

The Etheridge New Testament is an 1846 translation of the Aramaic Peshitta. It's not a translation of the Greek, which is problematic. Once you start going through more than one language in your transmission, the text becomes less and less precise, as the semantic ranges of various terms is limited, and doesn't always match each language in the same way.

Did the poster know that this translation is almost 200 years old, and is not a translation of the Greek? I doubt it. But if it supports his view, who cares about the quality or integrity, right?
As is typical you are wrong

I am well aware it is based on the Peshitta

There is even those who would argue the Aramaic is the must trustworthy version

Now I don't argue that but it is a translation worth considering

However You ignore the fact that the following definition of Tassso was given from BDAG (your industry standard)

1. place or station a pers. or thing in a fixed spot—a. appoint to or establish in an office pass. αἱ οὖσαι (ἐξουσίαι) ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν (the authorities) who are now in power are instituted by God Ro 13:1; cf. MPol 10:2 (τάσσεσθαι ὑπό τινος as here, Eur., Iph. A. 1363; X., An. 1, 6, 6; 2, 6, 13; Simplicius In Epict. p. 60, 19 Düb. τεταγμένοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ).

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 805–806.

That is a definition that would fit disposed

To place or set in a particular order; arrange.

and I provided some translation that actually read disposed

(Mace) when the Gentiles heard this, they received the word with joy, glorifying the Lord: and as many as were dispos'd to eternal life, believed.

(Etheridge) And when the Gentiles heard, they rejoiced and glorified Aloha; and they believed who were disposed [Or, set unto.] unto eternal life.

(LONT) And the Gentiles hearing this, rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were disposed for eternal life, believed.

(Rotherham) And they of the nations, hearing this , began to rejoice, and to be glorifying God, and they believed—as many as had become disposed for life age-abiding.

Tasso with a similar meaning is used at

Luke 7:8 (AV)
8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

So I allowed it as a possible meaning of Tasso along with another

without arguing for it

So you are in fact trying to make a mountain out of a molehill

and wasting space
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
However You ignore the fact that the following definition of Tassso was given from BDAG (your industry standard)

Um, "τασσω" only has TWO sigmas, not three.

1. place or station a pers. or thing in a fixed spot—a. appoint to or establish in an office pass. αἱ οὖσαι (ἐξουσίαι) ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν (the authorities) who are now in power are instituted by God Ro 13:1; cf. MPol 10:2 (τάσσεσθαι ὑπό τινος as here, Eur., Iph. A. 1363; X., An. 1, 6, 6; 2, 6, 13; Simplicius In Epict. p. 60, 19 Düb. τεταγμένοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ).

And that's perfectly fine, as long as we use THAT definition, and not YOUR personal definition of "disposed".

GOD "placed ... a pers[on] ... in a fixed spot".
He was the cause of the "ordaining".
(Do you know see how "ordain" is a MUCH better rendering, as evidenced by the VAST majority of translators today?)

(Mace) when the Gentiles heard this, they received the word with joy, glorifying the Lord: and as many as were dispos'd to eternal life, believed.

Mace is a 300-year-old translation with MANY problems, and Mace was biased, as the OP shows.

(Etheridge) And when the Gentiles heard, they rejoiced and glorified Aloha; and they believed who were disposed [Or, set unto.] unto eternal life.

Not a translation of the Greek, but of the Aramaic, and again, far too old to have the benefit of all our current understanding of the Greek text and language.

(LONT) And the Gentiles hearing this, rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were disposed for eternal life, believed.

The "LONT" is so obscure I can't find any information about it, or even that it actually exists.

So you are in fact trying to make a mountain out of a molehill

and wasting space

Then so are you by responding to me, not to mention derailing my thread to repeat a parallel discussion we're having elsewhere.

Let me hold up a mirror, so you can see who to direct the blame to.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
1. place or station a pers. or thing in a fixed spot—a. appoint to or establish in an office pass. αἱ οὖσαι (ἐξουσίαι) ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν (the authorities) who are now in power are instituted by God Ro 13:1; cf. MPol 10:2 (τάσσεσθαι ὑπό τινος as here, Eur., Iph. A. 1363; X., An. 1, 6, 6; 2, 6, 13; Simplicius In Epict. p. 60, 19 Düb. τεταγμένοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ).

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

Did everyone notice the "bait-and-switch" the poster is trying to engage in?

Here is the definition of "dispose" from dictionary.com:

"Dispose":
1) to give a tendency or inclination to; incline: His temperament disposed him to argue readily with people.
2) to put in a particular or the proper order or arrangement; adjust by arranging the parts.


So definition #2 matches the Greek term, so he says, "let's use the term 'dispose' to translate the term."

Then he wants to interpret the ENGLISH term according to definition #1, which is NOT the definition of "tasso"!

Bait-and-switch!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Did everyone notice the "bait-and-switch" the poster is trying to engage in?

Here is the definition of "dispose" from dictionary.com:

"Dispose":
1) to give a tendency or inclination to; incline: His temperament disposed him to argue readily with people.
2) to put in a particular or the proper order or arrangement; adjust by arranging the parts.


So definition #2 matches the Greek term, so he says, "let's use the term 'dispose' to translate the term."

Then he wants to interpret the ENGLISH term according to definition #1, which is NOT the definition of "tasso"!

Bait-and-switch!
Are you all there ?

Bait and switch exists only in your imagination

First I gave the definition of Tasso from BAGD

1. place or station a pers. or thing in a fixed spot—a. appoint to or establish in an office pass. αἱ οὖσαι (ἐξουσίαι) ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν (the authorities) who are now in power are instituted by God Ro 13:1; cf. MPol 10:2 (τάσσεσθαι ὑπό τινος as here, Eur., Iph. A. 1363; X., An. 1, 6, 6; 2, 6, 13; Simplicius In Epict. p. 60, 19 Düb. τεταγμένοι ὑπὸ θεοῦ).

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament


That is a definition that would fit disposed


then I gave the definition of dispose

To place or set in a particular order; arrange.

and I provided some translation that actually read disposed

(Mace) when the Gentiles heard this, they received the word with joy, glorifying the Lord: and as many as were dispos'd to eternal life, believed.

(Etheridge) And when the Gentiles heard, they rejoiced and glorified Aloha; and they believed who were disposed [Or, set unto.] unto eternal life.

(LONT) And the Gentiles hearing this, rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were disposed for eternal life, believed.

(Rotherham) And they of the nations, hearing this , began to rejoice, and to be glorifying God, and they believed—as many as had become disposed for life age-abiding.

Tasso with a similar meaning is used at

Luke 7:8 (AV)
8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

So I allowed it as a possible meaning of Tasso along with another

without arguing for it

So you are in fact trying to make a mountain out of a molehill

and wasting space

your claim

Then he wants to interpret the ENGLISH term according to definition #1, which is NOT the definition of "tasso"!

I did not use any definition 1

I compared

place or station a pers. or thing in a fixed spot

and


To place or set in a particular order; arrange.

Hello

Your claim is false

As I stated you are trying to create a controversy where none exists
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Are you all there ?

Thank you for the insult.

So you are in fact trying to make a mountain out of a molehill

and wasting space

You're the one writing novel-length replies, and simply repeating yourself and over...

<Holds mirror in front of poster>

As I stated you are trying to create a controversy where none exists

Then why do you keep responding?

(Because I'm forcing you to, that's why.... ;)
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Um, "τασσω" only has TWO sigmas, not three.



And that's perfectly fine, as long as we use THAT definition, and not YOUR personal definition of "disposed".

GOD "placed ... a pers[on] ... in a fixed spot".
He was the cause of the "ordaining".
(Do you know see how "ordain" is a MUCH better rendering, as evidenced by the VAST majority of translators today?)

Duh I was not mine

It was used in 4 translations and it matches fairly close to tasso

place or station a pers. or thing in a fixed spot - Tasso

and


To place or set in a particular order; arrange. - disposed

Mace is a 300-year-old translation with MANY problems, and Mace was biased, as the OP shows.

So what

Does old mean error
Not a translation of the Greek, but of the Aramaic, and again, far too old to have the benefit of all our current understanding of the Greek text and language.


The "LONT" is so obscure I can't find any information about it, or even that it actually exists.

Living oracles

And you can't find it

Does the name Campbell mean any thing to you

How about Rotherham

You going to diss that also ?


Then so are you by responding to me, not to mention derailing my thread to repeat a parallel discussion we're having elsewhere.

Your effort was not forthright and had to be corrected

You took a word I only allow for as a possible meaning based on a definition by BAGD, 4 translations and the English definition of dispose along with another without arguing for either meaning

and attempted to create a controversy
 
Top