Adventures in the Attic

Introduction Pronunciation

[atticgreek]

Montero Greek text

My brain wouldn't let me rest until I did a translation of the Greek text that appeared on the tree in "Montero (Call Me By Your Name)"

The quick and dirty translation I came up with is:

"Therefore after nature was cut in twain, each half was yearned for."

If I'm not mistaken this is a quote from Symposium by Plato, which is a dialog on the nature of love.

[atticgreek]

Romans 8:35-39 by Layman and Lexicon • A podcast on Anchor

In this short episode I provide a translation of Romans 8:35-39. This translation was done for a friend's request. If you have a 3-4 verse passage you would like me to translate please email [email protected].

A short episode 

[atticgreek]

Episode 3: κατέλαβεν (katelaben) John 1:5,12 and John 12:35 by Layman and Lexicon • A podcast on Anchor

In this episode we explore the meaning of κατέλαβεν (katelaben) in John 1:5 and in doing so investigate other parts of the Gospel of John. If you have comments or questions please email [email protected]

New Podcast Episode

[atticgreek]

κατέλαβεν in John 1:5

I wanted to better understand how a verb in John 1:5 was being used. In Greek it’s κατέλαβεν (katelaben).  In the KJV this is translated as “comprehended”, however I don’t think the context of the verse makes that meaning clear, but my first pass on this word wasn’t enough to be sure how it should be translated.

At the time I went with “over take” because I thought it sounded poetic and it is closer to the first definition of the word. That being said when translating it’s not good practice to just throw in the first definition of a word, as how it is being used is more important to understanding meaning.  

My translation of John 1:5

5. And the light shone forth in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it.

KJV John 1:5

5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Later as I translated John 1:12 I came across ἔλαβον (elabon).  If you juxtapose κατέλαβεν (katelaben) and  ἔλαβον (elabon) it becomes clear that they are related words. In fact their meanings are so close that while I was translating in verse 12 I thought I was looking at the same word used in verse 5.

I was hoping this would be the clarifying insight needed to know how verse 5 should be translated. The problem is, while the context of verse 12 does limit the possible meanings to receive or understand, ἔλαβον (elabon) and κατέλαβεν (katelaben) are in fact different words and would have been understood differently by the Greek reader.    

So the meanings of ἔλαβον (elabon) are: take, receive, lay hold of, seize, apprehend with the mind, understand.  

In Greek κατά (kata) is a preposition which means downwards in κατέλαβεν (katelaben) it is a prefix that adds a sense of coming down on something with force in the act of taking. This makes the first definition seize, other meanings are: lay hold of, take, hold down, bind, compel, constrain, over take, seize upon with the mind, understand.

So you can see they are very close in meaning but a Greek reader would see them as different words.

I looked elsewhere to see if John used κατέλαβεν (katelaben) elsewhere, and today that lead me to John 12:35.  

It's a bit of a mistake to assume that an author always uses the same word the same way, but I think seeing how an author uses a word in various circumstances can give clues to how they understand the word in general.

The context here makes the meaning very clear, the word means “over take” or something very similar at least in this verse.

King James Version:

35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

My translation:

35. Then Jesus said to them, yet a short time is the light with(in) you. Walk as you have the light lest the darkness over take you; The man walking with(in) darkness knows not where he goes.  

Also something I noted while preparing this translation is the interesting parallel language between light and darkness. I don’t normally think of Christiantiy as a dualistic religion, but John evokes dualist language between light and darkness a lot.

Also something interesting is the word that means walking here περιπατεῖτε (peripateite), can have the meaning to “teach while walking” or to have a discourse. I don’t think this meaning quite works for the context of the full chapter, but the verse alone could have been translated:

35. Then Jesus said to them, yet a short time is the light with(in) you. Walk while teaching as you hold the light lest the darkness over take you; The man walking while teaching with(in) darkness knows not where he leads.

As always feel free to ask questions about these translations.

[atticgreek]

I posted another episode to my podcast.

Episode 2: The Divine Logos by Layman and Lexicon • A podcast on Anchor

This episode explores one of the main reasons I became interested in New Testament translation. To day I take a look at John 1:1-2 and dig i

[atticgreek]

Episode 1: Luke 2:4-11 by Layman and Lexicon • A podcast on Anchor

In this episode I look at the name Luke uses for Mary, and dig into where Jesus was born.

I'm trying my hand at podcasting. This episode looks at a translation I did of Luke 2:4-11

[atticgreek]

Romans 8:35-39 a Friend’s request

35. Who could sever us from Christ’s love, oppression or confined space, pursuit, famin, or nakedness, danger or dagger?

36. Even as it is written that on your account we are put to death the whole day, we are counted as a flock of the slaughter. 

37. But in all these things let us prevail through his affection toward us.

38. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers nor threatening nor intentions nor powers    

39. Nor elevation, nor depth, nor may some other creation have power to sever us from God’s love in Christ, O Jesus, our Lord.

[atticgreek]

John 1:18 or the Kolpon of God

This verse was interesting to translate as the Greek potentially represents God in a way that I hadn’t expected.

First the Greek text I worked from:

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Next a traditional translation found in the King James Version:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Finally a potential translation I want to talk about:

No one has seen God ever; God’s only child, being in the womb of the father, that man expounds in full.

The Greek word kolpon (κόλπον) is the source of both bosom and womb in the respective English translations. The word means hollow place and is often translated into Latin as sinus. In Greek kolpon can refer to the region of the body from the chest to genitals and legs and commonly means womb.

While I was entertained by the prospect of God having a womb I wanted to reject the idea out of hand because surely there would be no place in Greek idiom for a male god to have a womb… and then I remembered Zeus.

Zeus gets pregnant at least twice first with Athena who is born from Zeus’s head, and perhaps more notably Dionysus who was born from Zeus’s thigh.

I wasn’t able to find the Greek text online from this passage of Dionysiaca 9, but this English translation references a father’s womb.

“So the rounded thigh in labour became female, and the boy too soon born was brought forth, but not in a mother’s way, having passed from a mother’s womb to a father’s.”

I doubt the author of the Gospel of John was directly drawing on the mythology of Zeus giving birth to Dionysus when writing the introduction of his book, however the established trope of a male god giving birth would likely lead the average Greek reader to see womb in the word kolpon and find it normal.

In the end I think either bosom or womb are acceptable translations because I think  the idea the Greek is trying to convey is that Jesus has come from inside God or is part of God.

I also wanted to highlight that while I was reviewing this I did also find the abstract from a publication that also discusses Christian groups that have seen this passage as speaking of God’s womb. The full article wasn’t available without pay, but it’s clear I’m by no means the first to read the passage this way.  

[atticgreek]

1 Corinthians 15:44 Greek to English translation

I've been taking a little break from the Gospel of John, and today turned my attention to a concept that has been on my mind, namely how Paul understood the resurrection of the dead.

From a Yale Open Courses lecture series I recently watched on the New Testament I got a hint that there was something unexpected going on with the Greek here, but I wasn't quite prepared for how difficult the words in question were to translate.  

Before I give my description of the translation I'm going to offer the King James Version since my translation attempt differs greatly from it and I'm not sure how to justify the King James translation.

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

The Greek for this verse is:

σπείρεται σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σῶμα πνευματικόν. εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν.

The words I would like to focus in on today are ψυχικόν (psuchikon) and  πνευματικόν (pneumatikon). These two words have a long history and a lot of meanings. Ψυχικόν is derived from ψυχή (psuche or psyche)  as you may have guest this is the source of the word psychology and you would be right.

Psyche often means soul and  psuchikon is an adjective which often means, “of, or pertaining to the soul,” but this word has an older meaning: breath.  

Pneumatikon which you may recognize as pneumatic means “of, or pertaining to the wind, or spirit”. Pneuma the word that pneumatikon is derived from has a lot of meanings. Wind being it's oldest but it also means blast, gust, and spirit, gas, or subtle substance.    

  The comparison that Paul seems to be making are both words that can mean spirit, or breath as apposed to wind. I get the feeling from the comparison that psuchikon is small while pneumatikon is powerful, but that is only because breath is week compared to wind. I don't rightly know what Paul means.

I had a lot of choices in this translation and below I'm going to give a few options, but before I do I'm going to give a reason as to why my translation will look so different from the King James Version.

My big difference is the translation of the psuchikon. The KJV translates this word as natural. I read though the full definition (the lexicon used is known as “The Large Liddell and Scott”) of this word to see how this translation was justified.

I did find one idiom where  psuchikon could be translated as nature, but the one example was where it was used to mean human nature, particularly human nature derived from the mind. This is not the idiom Paul is using, if he is using an idiom to mean natural I don't know what it is.

Below are a few possible translations of this verse in which I also include different translations for some of the other words.

Born a body of breath, awaken a body of wind. If there is a body of breath, there is a body of wind.

Sown a body of soul, awaken a body of spirit. If there is a body of soul, there is a body of spirit.  

Sown a body of spiritual things, raised from the dead a body of subtle substance. If there is a body of spiritual things, there is a body of subtle substance.

Sown a body of breath, raised from the dead a body of subtle substance. If there is a body of breath, there is a body of subtle substance.

As always I'm happy to discuss the translation in the comments.

[atticgreek]

Another D&D English to Greek translation.

For the sake of my D&D campaign I decided to translate a few lines of my cleric's religious text into Attic Greek since he's a tiefling (a sort of half demon) and we are using Attic for the Infernal language.

The original passage:

I am the Flame which delivered you from the power of darkness. My path is trust and benevolence, and as my way is kept your labors shall be blessed so that you may remain free.

My Greek composition:

  Εἰμὶ ἡ φλὸξ ἣ ἔλυσεν ὑμᾶς τῆς δυνάμεως σκότιας. Ὁδὸς μοῦ ἐστὶ πίστιν καὶ εὔνοιαν, καὶ ὅσως ὁδὸν μοῦ τηρῆτε ἔργα ὑμῶν μακαριθήσεται ὡς μένητε ἐλευθεροῖ.

On the verb μακαριθήσεται this is supposed to be the future indicative passive form. The problem is while I can find written evidence for this word it all comes from much later than the time Attic was spoken. It follows the conjugation rules Attic would have used and I think if read by a speaker of Attic Greek they would understand what was meant but it's not clear that they would have used this form.

[atticgreek]

Translating my my D&D character's cleric blessing into Attic Greek

In my D&D campaign I play a tiefling cleric who worships fire, and since I've studied Attic Greek we've been using it a Infernal for my character. Today I spent my study time translating one of his cleric blessings in to Attic Greek to use in our campaign.  

Ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς φλογὸς ἀγάγοιτο σε εἰς ἐλευθερίαν. (May the way of the Flame lead you to liberation)

Ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς φλογὸς ἀγάγοιτο ὑμᾶς εἰς ἐλευθερίαν.(May the way of the Flame lead y'all to liberation)

I'm relatively sure I have the grammar right here for an optative of wish. I used the middle voice to indicate a potential ulterior motive.

[atticgreek]

John 1:14 Translation Essay

I’m not sure if there is special meaning here, or if the author of the Gospel of John had bad grammar, but for the second time I’ve run into a case where the writer has used two subjects for one verb.

I ran into this problem in John 1:1 which created the translation: “In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God, [and God was Reason].”

I wrote another essay about this which can be found here: https://atticgreek.tumblr.com/post/619654938421870592/two-subjects-one-verb

In verse 14 we have: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.

Here we have λόγος (logos) which I translate as reason, and σὰρξ (sarx) meaning flesh. Both of these words are inflected in their subject (nominative) forms. This makes a translation of “And Reason became flesh,” and “and flesh became Reason,” equally valid translations.

In verse one I let this sort of construction stand as a syllogism, but in that case I also didn’t see it as having a large effect on the traditional meaning of the passage. “Flesh became Reason and Reason became flesh.” I don’t even know what this means but that is what the author wrote.    

Now for my full translation of the verse:

14. And Reason became flesh [and flesh became Reason], and he dwelt among us, and we saw for ourselves the glory of him, glory as of the only child of the father, full of grace and truth.

I also wanted to point out that the word I translated as “among” normally means “in”. The phrase “among us” is ἐν ἡμῖν (en hēmin), and my first pass at translation had been “and he dwelt in us” I figured this didn’t make the most sense, and after a careful reading of my lexicon I did find justification to translate “in” as “among.”

But my translation could have gone:

14. And Reason became flesh [and flesh became Reason], and he dwelt in us, and we saw for ourselves the glory of him, glory as of the only child of the father, full of grace and truth.

Which may make the translation, “and flesh became Reason” have a more important double meaning.  Especially since ἡμῖν (hēmin) can mean “with us” on its own without the preposition ἐν (en).

[atticgreek]

Two Subjects One Verb

So as a personal project during quarantine I've decided to relearn ancient Greek. To do this I've started a translation of the Gospel of John.

I’ve worked on translations of this text in the past, but today I was struck by a grammatical oddity in John 1:1.

In the last clause of the verse the Greek text is: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. This is often translated, “and God was the word.”

Now because of a book I have been reading on the history of the concept of divine law and natural law, I have in my own translation of this verse translated λόγος (word) as reason. This change in translation shifted the way I read the text.

In the past I thought of “and God was the word” to mean that God was a particular word i.e. the word of God was God.

However when translated, “and God was reason” it suggests that God isn’t just a particular reason but all reason. As if God was the platonic form of reason.

This is where the grammar of the passage struck me. Greek, unlike English, has what is known as grammatical case, meaning that you change the spelling of a word if it is the subject of a sentence or the object of a sentence. This makes word order less important in Greek than in English.

To illustrate this think of the sentences “The dog bit the man,” and, “The man bit the dog.”

In the first sentence the dog is the subject biting the man who is the object. In the second sentence the subject and object are reversed per English word order rules.

However in Greek grammatical case would allow you to write the words out of order and still have a fixed meaning as indicated through the spelling of each word. So a sentence written in Greek, “The man(object) bit the dog(subject)” would force the meaning “The dog bit the man” because dog was the subject of the sentence while the man was the object.

You have something like this John 1:1, but instead of having subject verb object, the line, “and God was reason” is written subject verb subject, meaning it is just as valid to translate καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος as “and reason was God,” as it is to translate it as “and God was reason”

Because of this, the Greek grammar forces a syllogism that isn’t obvious in a direct English translation, and reinforces the idea that the form of reason itself is God.

This is the part where I should note, that my only real experience with the Bible has been the King James Version where it is translated as, “and the word was God.” Where other English translations give both ways it can be translated.

I already like to play with the limits of a translation, but this one was not something I saw coming.

[atticgreek]

John 1:11 τὰ ἴδια v. οἱ ἴδιοι

Time for another translation essay, I think this one will be a bit shorter than my usual. Today I translated John 1:11, and it did something I wasn’t expecting.

The King James Version reads, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.”

What’s strange about the Greek here is the word that means “his own”. It’s an adjective and in Greek adjectives have gender. Not one gender per adjective but rather a speaker or writer inflects the gender depending on the meaning you want the word to have in the sentence.

In the first clause “He came unto his own,” the word for “his own” τὰ ἴδια (ta idia) is in the neuter gender which is what you use for inanimate things. By contrast in the second clause “and his own received him not,” we see the same word but in the masculen gender οἱ ἴδιοι (hoi idioi).

This is a distinction that is hard to miss in Greek but is easy to lose in translation. This is why I made my own translation, “11. He came to his own possessions, and his own people did not receive him.”

If I were to perform a bit of exegesis, I would say, “his own possessions” means the land of Canaan. This could be seen as part of messianic claim in asserting possession of the land.

John is also the gospel which most strongly asserts the divinity of Jesus, and if Canaan is what “his own possessions” means here it would be a call back to the God of the Hebrew Bible having special ownership rights of the same land.

That being said τὰ ἴδια (ta idia) in the neuter gender only means something like one’s own affairs, or one’s personal property. So while it’s not expressly spelled out that it means the land of Canaan, he definitely went to his own possessions and there was “not received by his own people.”    

[atticgreek]

Problems in translating John 1:3-4

So I’ve continued working on my translation project of the Gospel of John, alternating between translation work, and going through my old Greek textbook to fill in what I’ve forgotten of the grammar. 

At this point I’m four verses in, and it’s time for another essay, due to some interesting grammatical bits that have cropped up in John 1:3-4.

My full translation thus far is: 1 In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God, [and God was Reason]. 

2 This was in the beginning with God. 

3 All things came into being though the same, but apart from the same not one thing came into being.

4 Which having come into being by him was the means of life, and the means of life was the light of humankind. The most notable changes appear in verse 4, but part of this is derived from how verse 3 appears in the Greek transcription I’ve been working from.

The Greek is as follows: 3πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν

4ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων:

My translation relies on the punctuation in the transcription. At this time I should note none of the oldest manuscripts have punctuation. The placement of periods, commas, and so forth were added centuries later, and they were probably placed according to the traditional way a monk (or other copyist) understood the text at the time a copy with punctuation was made. The punctuation in the Greek above is the most common form I can find online, but I have seen a few different options, and it’s really not clear which tradition is closest to the intention of the author. (so much for death of the author in this essay)  It should also be noted that the numbering of the verses was added even later than the punctuation.   Now with that explanation, you may notice that at the end of verse 3 there is a period that separates the last two words from the rest of the verse. This is odd because that would mean ὃ γέγονεν (ho gegonen) is part of the sentence that is largely in verse 4. These two words on their own mean “which having been made,” or, “which having come into being”. 

The word γέγονεν (gegonen) is just the verb to make, become, or come into being, with completed aspect. (The concept of completed aspect another essay, but is the source of the word “having” in my translation). Now I was not able to find the historical reason the verses were divided this way, but what I can tell you is that the punctuation is older than the verses. The King James Bible is probably the most influential English translation since many translations I looked at for comparison had a simulare translation of the verses in question. 

The King James translation is as follows: 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. It appears the phrase, “that was made.” at the end of verse 3 was the translation of  ὃ γέγονεν (ho gegonen) the two words which should be translated with the next sentence according to the punctuation. Now there is some justification in moving the punctuation around, but the King James translation shaves off some of the grammar from the Greek to make it fit the way its translation works.

I also wanted to give thanks to Bill Watson, who pointed out to me that the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) devids the sentences up the way I am in my translation.       OK time for a shift in topic. 

The above explanation is the reason for my translation of verse 4 as:  Which having come into being in him was life…

But if you were paying attention you may have noticed I didn’t translate it that way when I gave my translation at the beginning of the essay. I made two other changes that represent their own can of worms.

The first one is the change of the word “in,” to “by,” in my translation. The Greek for this was ἐν αὐτῷ (en auto). This is normally translated “in him”, however when in some cases grammar used here is idiomatically used to indicate the means by which something happens. This is still an idiom that is sometimes seen in English, most commonly in christian idioms, such as the sentiment “justified in Christ,” which when unpacked means, justified by Christ, or by his sacrifice. 

Because that idiom was common in Greek, and shows up in christian English idioms I feel relatively justified making that translation. The second major change is the difference in the word “life” and, “the means of life”.   The word used in the Greek here is ζωὴ (zoe). This can be translated as life, but that isn’t its most common meaning. The normal word for life in Greek is βίος (bios) which you will recognize as the source of the word biology.

 Ζωὴ (zoe) on the other hand is more often means livelihood, or sustenance, most literally “what allows you to live,” or “the means of life.”  I don’t really know if this is what was meant by the author, but I felt like it made more sense given the context of the other translation changes.  

There you have it, my justification for the translation: 3 All things came into being though the same, but apart from the same not one thing came into being.

4 Which having come into being by him was the means of life, and the means of life was the light of humankind. I’m more than happy to give further explanations if people have questions.

[atticgreek]

Esoteric Question

I have a really esoteric question, and I'm hoping a random tumbr reader might either know the answer or be able to point me in a direction for figuring out the answer.

I've been doing an amituer translation of John 1:3-4 from Greek into English and I ran into something strange in these verses.

The Greek is:

3πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν

4ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων:

You will note that near the end of verse 3 is the the beginning of the next sentence.

The way the punctuation works ὃ γέγονεν should belong with the sentence in verse 4.

Does anyone know why that is grouped with verse 3 as written above and why it isn't

4 ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων:

When I compair the Greek with my KJV I can see that the KJV has forced ὃ γέγονεν to be part of sentence in verse 3 despite the punctuation.

Moving it to the beginning of the sentence it looks like it should be part of significantly changes the translation and the grammar of verse 4.

[kitty-colors]

Ἡ Φλόξ τοῦ Ἱερέως

(The Flame of Hiereus) A little reference to my D&D character.

[atticgreek]

From my art blog