Passage not being Translated Correctly (tradition, contradiction, translation, sin)

[oracle]

Third Millenium Bible:
But He answered and said, "It is written: `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'"

New Living Translation:
But Jesus told him, "No! The Scriptures say, 'People need more than bread for their life; they must feed on every word of God.'

New Revised Standard:
But he answered, "It is written, "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

Revised Standard Version:
But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"

Good News Translation:
But Jesus answered, "The scripture says, "Human beings cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks.' "

Douay-Rheims Bible:
Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

Modern Versions

The Messege:
Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy: "It takes more than bread to stay alive. It takes a steady stream of words from God's mouth."

The Complete Jewish Bible:
But he answered, "The Tanakh says, `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of ADONAI'"

New Century Version:
Jesus answered, "It is written in the Scriptures, 'A person does not live by eating only bread, but by everything God says.'"

God's Word Translation:
Jesus answered, "Scripture says, 'A person cannot live on bread alone but on every word that God speaks.'"

Hebrew Names Version:
But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

World English Bible:
But he answered, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

The Bible in Basic English:
But he made answer and said, It is in the Writings, Bread is not man's only need, but every word which comes out of the mouth of God.

Youngs Literal Translation:
But he answering said, `It hath been written, Not upon bread alone doth man live, but upon every word coming forth from the mouth of God.'

Older Versions:

The Darby Translation:
But he answering said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which goes out through God's mouth.

The Webster Bible:
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

The Latin Vulgate:
qui respondens dixit scriptum est non in pane solo vivet homo sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei

Other Versions:

Weymouth New Testament:
"It is written," replied Jesus, "`It is not on bread alone that a man shall live, but on whatsoever God shall appoint.'"

[No*s]

Originally Posted by anders

I know very little Greek, but I know several other languages and am a professional translator. After checking out several versions, including the rather new and reliable Swedish "Bibel 2000", I find that I agree with No*s on the translations as well as on the points regarding translation theory, just adding that "literal" or "word-by-word" translations IMNSHO only can produce errors.

Well anders. You're better off than me *grin*. Obviously, I know English and Ancient Greek, but beside that, I'm rather limited lol (a little Latin is not sufficient to count).

[oracle]

You said the men would have been translated as "Anthropoi"

If I'm not mistaken Anthropoi is actually modern greek, and wasn't used in acient greek dialect, but Anthropos was used as both singular and plural.

--http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Well, I have to prove the above statement first, before it becomes valid, so let me gather rescources. What could probably render the above statement invalid, is if I find anthropoi in the greek NT, which shouldn't be hard.

I am not at all saying that you are wrong, you know more greek than me. In fact your one of the peoples I was looking for. I just have some theory behind this, and I'm trying to prove whether or not its wrong.

[No*s]

Oracle,

You don't need to post whole lexicon references for words, and I wouldn't even bother with numbers from Strong's Concordance. IMO, it borders on worthless and causes far more harm than good. I can also assure you that I am well aware of the meanings of a)/nqrwpos, a)pokri/nomai and those other exceedingly common words.

Posting whole entries is redundant and confusing.

Languages are more than the sum of their parts. Looking at every word cannot take into account context, grammar, idiom, and the like. Word for word studies are misleading. We have to talk about grammar, context, idiom, and all these other things...

Now, on Matthew 4.4, let me spell it out clearly.

In the 3rd century BC some Jews in Alexandria translated the Pentateuch into Greek. Over time other books were translated into Greek. I even suspect there was more than one translation extant in the era before Christ, and I know more came along afterwards (like Theodotian's revision of Daniel).

These translations range from extremely liberal Greek to an attempt at representing Hebrew in Greek. In some places, they read beuatifully. In other places, the translator takes so many liberties with Greek grammar it almost seems incomprehensable.

As a result, the LXX has its own peculuarities. It isn't like Hellenistic Greek (the Koini). It isn't like Attic Greek before it. It's a "bastardized Greek" that isn't really Greek at all. It almost totally lacks the men...de formations and other particles that are normative in Greek. It's not exactly uncommon for it to use a participle as a main verb, and that is a no-no in Greek.

There are numerous other "bastardizations" of the Greek language in the LXX. This is important to the issue you're trying to use to support your translation. Matthew 4.4 is indisputably a quote from Deuteronomy 8.4. It has the exact same text as the passage in Deut.

The fact that a quote in the LXX says something proves just about nothing for Hellenistic Greek grammar. Anyone who's read the LXX can affirm what I'm saying about how quirky it can be.

You could quote 5000 translations by competent translators, and it wouldn't prove a thing about standard Hellenistic Greek grammar from this passage. The translators would have taken issues like this into account.

[oracle]

Nope, so far I don't see "oi anthropoi" being used in the greek bible. I've been looking in other rescources too. If so, this may conclude that "anthropos" was both used as singular and plural in an older greek dialect, or should I say "bastardized" greek dialect.

[oracle]

Originally Posted by No*s

This is important to the issue you're trying to use to support your translation. Matthew 4.4 is indisputably a quote from Deuteronomy 8.4. It has the exact same text as the passage in Deut.

Wow, in Deuteronomy 8.4, the word being used for "man" is Adam. Adam, is plural. Let me do some more research before I say anything more.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by oracle

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][size=2]You said the men would have been translated as "Anthropoi"

If I'm not mistaken Anthropoi is actually modern greek, and wasn't used in acient greek dialect.

Well, I have to prove the above statement first, before it becomes valid, so let me gather rescources. What could probably render the above statement invalid, is if I find anthropoi in the greek NT, which shouldn't be hard.

I am not at all saying that you are wrong, you know more greek than me. In fact your one of the peoples I was looking for. I just have some theory behind this, and I'm trying to prove whether or not its wrong.

You are very mistaken.

A second declension masculine noun is one of the most regular formations and is used extremely often. Even the article follows its declension.

Here is the declension of a)/qrwpos in Hellenistic Green. I'm doing it double column, so I hope it doesn't get screwed up.

Singular:
N o( a)/nqrwpos
GA tou= a)nqrw/pou
DLI tw=| a)nqrw/pw|
Acc to\n a)/nqrwpon

Plural:
N oi( a)/nqrwpoi
GA tw=n a)nqrw/pwn
DLI toi=s a)nqrw/pois
Acc tou\s a)nqrw/pous

Notice that I included the article. It is one of the most common words in Greek (surpassed only by to ei)mi/ and maybe kai/ and de/).

I omitted the vocative, because it's redundant. I omitted the dual, because it's almost never used in the Hellenistic era (Off the top of my head, I can only think of one author who used it).

Here is the Modern Greek formation. I don't know Modern Greek. I can get a "jist" from articles and things, because of its similarity to Hellenistic Greek. However, I'm copying this from a Modern Greek grammar, because I'm not competent in Modern Greek.

Singular:
N o fi/los
G tou fi/lou
Acc to fi/lo

Plural:
N o fi/los
G tou fi/lou
Acc tous fi/lous

Notice that it also has the -oi ending. It has lost the dative case. It has lost the polytonic accent system. It retains the -oi ending.

This ending is present in Modern Greek. I've seen it in Katharevousa (an artificial variant of Modern Greek). I've seen it in Patristic Greek. I've seen it in Hellenistic Greek. I've seen it in Hellenic Greek. I've seen it in Homeric Greek. I haven't read the Linear B tablets (don't know the writing system), but I'd be willing to bet my life savings that it's in that also.

Here's a suggestion. You're getting in too deep for what you know at the moment. Go pick up a copy of Athenaze! to study Attic Greek, Clyde Pharr's Homeric Greek (an excellent text), or some other Greek grammar. Make sure it's Attic or Homeric Greek, though. I strongly advise against studying "biblical" Greek. There is no such animal.

When you've gone through your first grammar, use the site http://www.perseus.tufts.edu to generate vocab lists, and it also has several books on it. Spend somewhere between half an hour to an hour at a minimum every day. After about two years of that, then you will be able to open the NT (remember to read it with the LXX, or you'll not see some shades of meanings in the words or won't see some literary allusions). After a while of readin it, you'll be ready to attempt to correct a Modern translation.

I took my first year of Greek in 1997. I worked two years there, and made it the focus of my "religious" studies in the university (not all of it was very "religious."). I studied different dialects of Greek and began procuring many Greek grammars. This means I have about seven years of Greek study, according to the criteria I described to you, under my belt.

I learned something very important in the course of my studies on that. If I'm the only person saying something, if there are no scholars and theologians saying it, if somebody hasn't said it in the past 2000 years, then I am wrong. I've thought I could correct it in the past, and I have always been proven wrong. Trust me on that.

By doing what I've described, you'll learn the Greek language, and you'll be able to read the Bible in Greek (It's harder to compose Greek, but oh well). It's long and hard, but that's the only way you'll be able to feasibly criticize translations (and there are places where it's quite possible).

Sorry for the long-winded end...

EDIT:

That Greek "table" didn't come out well. I'm have changed it to single column.

[oracle]

Mathew 8:27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"

OK, found anthropoi here.

[oracle]

Originally Posted by No*s

Go pick up a copy of Athenaze! to study Attic Greek, Clyde Pharr's Homeric Greek (an excellent text), or some other Greek grammar. Make sure it's Attic or Homeric Greek, though. I strongly advise against studying "biblical" Greek. There is no such animal.

Ok, will do. Well at least its better for me to write here where someone can give me constructive critisicm, that way I don't go around making false statements.

[No*s]

Good *grin*.

I think that you'll find the study fun. It takes a while, and it takes a lot of patience, but it can be quite fun.