Translation talk:2 John

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Translation:2 John.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikisource? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Greek Translation

I'm currently working on a translation from the Greek to English, using the Robinson and Peirpoint Byzantine Textform with a Thayer's Greek English Lexicon. I'll try to get it up as soon as possible. Gospeltothepoor 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just finished my translation! I'm working on variations and footnotes now. Gospeltothepoor 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks so much!!--Jdavid2008 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted a minor apparatus to this translation. I used the apparatus in the Byzantine Textform I mentioned I translated from. All other variations are either synonmys or just a different word order that actually would be translated the same. Soon I'll get more variations that have importance. Gospeltothepoor 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Text and Translation

Concerning this translation I used the Robinson and Pierpoint Byzantine Textform with a Thayers Greek English Dictionary. The bibles I looked at during the translation are the KJV, ESV, ASV and RV.

Review

Assessment: very close—CLOSE—free—very free

very close means "only inevitable, insignificant semantic variations."

close means "a few, minor semantic variations—noted in review."

free means "wide adaptation to English, with loss of Greek details—noted in review."

very free means "widely paraphrased, imported meanings, or both—noted in review."

Thank you for this work User:Gospeltothepoor. I enjoyed reading your translation. In my assessment it is both accurate to the Greek and clear in English.

My only comments are regarding general issues, for which this project has yet to form guidelines. Logically, I should address Greek text first, but I'll do that last, because then I can do it comprehensively, leading into resources that should stay associated with this page. Also logically, I should discuss layout issues last, but will do so first, since they are straight forward.

Layout

• Ancient letters generally followed the pattern From-To-Greeting. It seems good to me to offset each by a new line in English, since our format should probably reflect receptor language conventions. Ancient letters did not format the text, but I think we should. I have amended your edition of 2 John by supplying two line breaks.
• Your section headings seem good to me. However, my two issues are that four sections is a lot of sections for a short letter. Additionally, I'm not sure we should have section headings at all, given that these constitute text supplied, not original, and certainly do not reflect the format of the original. In longer books, of course, chapter divisions provide breaks for the text. (Perhaps these are a little too intrusive as currently implemented, since the originals were not broken into chapters, and are not always easily so divided; Psalms being a classic exception). I have not removed the section headings, awaiting further translation-wide discussion of this issue.
• You provided two footnotes related to textual variation. I have expanded and reformatted these according to discussion of text below. Footnoting conventions are another topic for translation-wide discussion.

Language

In my opinion:

• Greek—the sense of the Greek words, suggested by their context is generally accurately rendered, with due attention to tense and other information conveyed by inflections; and,
• English—English vocabulary items are generally appropriate idiomatic Standard English words, and syntax is generally that of formal written English.

One error

• that ... it. (6)—This should read something like, "just as [kathos] you [plural] heard [aorist tense] from the beginning, so that [purpose/result] in it you may walk [subjunctive (modal)]." Rather than may (which is vague) could, should, would, might are all possibilities. The final verb in the Greek doesn't need to be final in English.

Which way?

• "whom I love in truth, and not me alone" (1)

The Greek has "I" not "me", and so too would formal English. Idiomatic English would be "who ... me", but formal English "whom ... I". Which way do we go?

Questions for further consideration

• elect (1)—this word is current English in "President elect"; however, does "elect lady" mean the same outside church communities as within them?
• abide (2,9²)—how current is this word in contemporary English?
• grace (3)—is this a "technical" theological term?
• or (10)—do we want to insist on, permit or forbid use of "nor" in negative disjunctions? As with other English variety issues, could this be "scoped" over particular books?
• willing to [do so?] with paper (12)—how far do we permit "smoothing" of English expression?

I've made no changes to the text, even the two "that"s (6) I consider to be errors. If anyone seconds my opinion, please go ahead and change these.

Text

Thank you for documenting your text critical decisions clearly and honestly. I am providing a brief summary of the variants and evidence in a table (below). By following the Byzantine text you are following the "Majority", as indicated in the table. My own preference is for the UBS4/NA27 text, additionally I think that should probably be standard for this translation; however, I'll only alter your translation by adding and expanding textual notes, rather than changing the text itself.

In conclusion, thanks heaps for this work, it's a great foundation for this project to build on. Alastair Haines 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Table of UBS4 variant readings, evidence and ratings for 2 John

The table shows the UBS4 text in bold first, followed by other variants. The dagger (†) indicates all evidence from UBS4 has been transcribed.

Ref.	Rating	Variants	Evidence
Verse 3	{ B }	Jesus	Codices Vaticanus (4th century) and Alexandrinus (5th); Uncial 048 (5th); Minuscule 1739 (1st order witness, 10th); Old Latin translations
		Lord Jesus	Majority
		our Lord Jesus	†Philoxenian version of the Syriac and Bohairic dialect of the Coptic translations
Verse 8a	{ B }	you lose ... you receive	Codices Sinaiticus (4th century), Vaticanus and Alexandrinus; Uncial 0232 (c. 300 AD); Minuscules 33 (1st order, 9th) and 1739; Old Latin; Latin of Irenaeus (died 202)
		we lose ... we receive	Majority
Verse 8b	{ C }	we work	Majority
		you work	Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; apparently Uncial 0232; Minuscules 33 and 1739; Old Latin; Latin of Irenaeus
Verse 9	{ B }	teaching	Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus; Minscules 33 and 1739; Old Latin Codex Colbertinus (12–13th), the Vulgate; Latin of Didymus (died 398)
		his teaching	†three Old Latin mss, two Syriac versions
		teaching of Christ	Majority
Verse 12	{ C }	our joy	Majority
		your joy	Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus; Miniscules 33 and 1739; Old Latin
		my joy	†Sahidic dialect of the Coptic
		joy	†Minuscules 309 (13th), 327 (13th) and 378 (12th)
Verse 13	{ B }	your chosen sister.	Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus; Minuscules 33 and 1739; four Old Latin mss, the Vulgate; Bede (died 735)
		your chosen sister. Amen.	Majority
		your sister, the church. Amen.	some Vulgate mss
		your sister, the chosen church.	†Old Latin Codex Sangallensis (8th)
		your chosen sister, who is in Ephesus.	margin of Minuscule 465 (11th)
		your chosen sister. Grace be with you. Amen.	five minuscules and some translations both with other variations
		your sister	†Minuscule 436 (11th)

I find UBS4 unusually disingenuous in this apparatus, at the point of support for its reading of "you ... we ... you". Verse 8 ought to be analysed as a single variant. While UBS4 and NA27 supply the text I'd also prefer, the reality is that it is supported only by Codex Alexandrinus. All other manuscripts are either "you ... you ... you" (minority but early) or "we ... we ... we" (majority but late). I would still take Alexandrinus over all others, since it would explain the source of both other variants (alternative harmonizations), while neither of them would explain it (introduction of an arbitrary distinction). I trust Bruce Metzger explained himself in his Textual Commentary to the satisfaction of Johannine scholarship, and will consult that in due course. Alastair Haines 05:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Texts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Sinaiticus c. 350 AD

High quality scans

• 2 John recto
• 2 John verso

2 John in Codex Sinaiticus

recto	verso

Vaticanus c. 350 AD