Question about Luke 1:4

[davidmedina]

This is not a software question (at least I do not think so) but I need some help understanding something.

 

Luke 1:4 NSAB95 reads: "...the exact truth about the things you have been taught." Mounce-NT and the NRSV reads similar "...the truth about the things that you have been taught."

 

 

"Exact truth" and "truth" is the Greek word "asphaleia".

 

When I read the ESVS it does not have the word "asphaleia" nowhere and it reads "certainty" instead of truth. I tried to find in the ESVS notes and Study Bible as to why that word is not in Luke 1:4 but I cannot find why.

 

Both, the KJV and the NKJV as well as the HCSB and NIV11 translate the word asphaleia as Certainty like the ESV, but what I do not understand is that when i use the interlinear to see what word the ESV is translating as certainty is not asphaleia but epiginosko.

 

Can anyone point me somewhere where I can find the explanation for this? Why the difference in Greek words?

 

Thanks

Edited December 27, 2013 by davidmedina

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi David,

 

It looks like the ESVS combined the sense of knowing and certainty into a single word where the Mounce and the NASB retained the two concepts separately if you like.

The GNT28-T shows this :

 

ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.

 

The ESVS this :

 

that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

 

And NASB this :

 

so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

 

ἐπιγνῷς roughly translates as "you may know", hence "so that you may know" - its subjunctive.

ἀσφάλειαν is stable, firm, safe, secure to paraphrase BDAG.

 

Interestingly BDAG's entry on κατηχεω translates this very passage pretty much as ESVS does.

 

I suppose one might translate this as : "so that you may know certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

 

But I haven't studied this passage and do not know if larger concerns bear upon the choice of translation. Nor am I an expert of any kind.

 

Hope this helps some.

 

Thx

D

Edited December 27, 2013 by Daniel Semler

[Daniel Francis]

Without speaking to your examples, our Bibles are translated from different texts of greek and hebrew, sometimes the received text will use different word than several important early texts. Other times the receive text makes more sense but the older texts seem to agree, other times all early translations seem to point to a different word. These word variations usually have virtually little change in the meaning. Translators need to choose which they feel is closest to the original. One example I can think of is the camel and eye of the needle. This is the most likely translation, and a talmudic example if memory serves has an elephant and an eye of a needle, but camel and rope sound similar and so some believe Jesus said rope. Many have the idea that the hardest translation is more usually the original.

 

_______

Jesus supports his statement with an astonishing proverb: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”Attempts have been made to downplay the meaning of this proverb. A notable one identifies the “eye of the needle”with a small gate leading into the city of Jerusalem in front of which camels had to kneel and unload their burdens in order to get through. This allusion would mean that a rich man must be willing to humble himself and release his dependence on wealth in order to enter the kingdom. But the interpretation is certainly wrong. There is no early or reliable evidence for the existence of such a gate, and it appears to have been first suggested in the eleventh century by the Byzantine exegete Theophylact (see Gundry, 565). Another way to explain away Jesus’radical statement appeals to a few late MSS that read “rope”(kamilon) instead of “camel”(kameœlon). But this reading, too, certainly represents a later copyist’s attempt to soften the force of Jesus’words. All such conjectures fail to recognize the intentional shock value of Jesus’words or to grasp the full force of what he is saying, namely, that “for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”is indeed “impossible.”The camel was the largest animal encountered in everyday life in ancient Israel, and a needle’s eye was the smallest opening imaginable. Jesus’dramatic point may be hyperbolic, but it is also reality: no camel could ever squeeze through such an opening, and it is impossible for the rich (indeed, for anyone) to enter the kingdom by virtue of their own resources.

Wessel, Walter W. and Mark L. Strauss. “Mark.”Pages 671-989 in Matthew & Mark. Vol. 9 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Accordance electronic edition, version 2.0. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

____________

[Steve King]

Here is a copy of what the NET notes say about its translation

 

Or “know the truth about”; or “know the certainty of.” The issue of the context is psychological confidence; Luke’s work is trying to encourage Theophilus. So in English this is better translated as “know for certain” than “know certainty” or “know the truth,” which sounds too cognitive. “Certain” assumes the truth of the report. On this term, see Acts 2:36; 21:34; 22:30; and 25:26. The meaning “have assurance concerning” is also possible here.

[Steve King]

Here is some info from the UBS commentary on Luke which may help

 

epiginōskō to know, to know exactly, to learn, to recognize. In the present context katēchēthēs, however interpreted see below, implies that Theophilus had already some knowledge of the Gospel facts but not enough to be sure of their trustworthiness. Hence epiginōskō; carries here the nuance of knowing exactly. The majority of translations do not bring out this nuance but the idea of knowing exactly is also suggested by the object of epignōs, viz. asphaleian reliability, cp. Phillips, that you may have reliable information. That epiginōskō would mean to have additional knowledge is improbable....

 

asphaleia truth, trustworthiness, reliability, preferably the last.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Steve King

[E-Library]

Interesting question. It seems that the ESV translator(s) chose to translate the Greek text in a more condensed fashion and not word for word. For once, the NLT is more literal than the ESV!

 

David

[davidmedina]

Yes, I find it curious that they chose that route. It seems that both ways convey the same idea, though.

 

What it is cool and exciting is that as I start really using and taking advantage of tools like Accordance and Logos I am starting seeing things that are helping me to go more deeper than ever before. I have been a Christian for over 40 years now and is like discovering God's word for the first time.

 

Thanks everyone.