Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by Stephen Carlson »

The perfect of the mental activity/state ἥγημαι in Phil 3:7 gets translated in four different ways in four major English translations:
Phil 3:7 wrote:Ἀλλὰ ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν.
Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. (NRSV)
But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. (NIV)
But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. (NASB)
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. (ESV=RSV)
So the Greek perfect gets variously translated as an English perfect (NASB), an English simple present (NIV), an English preterit (ESV=RSV), and a periphrastic perfect of result "to have come to" (NRSV).

This is a difficult and subtle case but I think that the NRSV does the best job of conveying the nuance of the perfect here.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4158
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Let's look at this in some translations that claim to be careful about literal translation of this kind of form. Mounce Reverse Interlinear gets it right, so does the Amplified:

Mounce Reverse Interlinear: But whatever things were gain to me, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ.

Amplified: But whatever former things I had that might have been gains to me, I have come to consider as one combined] loss for Christ’s sake.

Lexham doesn't:

Lexham: But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have considered loss because of Christ.

Neither does Young's Literal Translation:

Young's: But what things were to me gains, these I have counted, because of the Christ, loss;

Is there controversy about the interpretation of the perfect here, reflected in translations?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by cwconrad »

Jonathan Robie wrote:Let's look at this in some translations that claim to be careful about literal translation of this kind of form. Mounce Reverse Interlinear gets it right, so does the Amplified:

Mounce Reverse Interlinear: But whatever things were gain to me, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ.

Amplified: But whatever former things I had that might have been gains to me, I have come to consider as one combined] loss for Christ’s sake.

Lexham doesn't:

Lexham: But whatever things were gain to me, these things I have considered loss because of Christ.

Neither does Young's Literal Translation:

Young's: But what things were to me gains, these I have counted, because of the Christ, loss;

Is there controversy about the interpretation of the perfect here, reflected in translations?
What it really looks like is a knee-jerk conversion of the Greek perfect into what's thought to be the standard English equivalent, without much thought about "natural" English usage.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jonathan Robie wrote:Is there controversy about the interpretation of the perfect here, reflected in translations?
I haven't checked the commentaries. I just noticed the translation differences today.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by Stephen Carlson »

cwconrad wrote:What it really looks like is a knee-jerk conversion of the Greek perfect into what's thought to be the standard English equivalent, without much thought about "natural" English usage.
I'm not sure what's going on with Lexham, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's going with Young's "Literal" Translation.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4158
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
cwconrad wrote:What it really looks like is a knee-jerk conversion of the Greek perfect into what's thought to be the standard English equivalent, without much thought about "natural" English usage.
I'm not sure what's going on with Lexham, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's going with Young's "Literal" Translation.
That's the basic methodology for Young's ... but not for Lexham.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
MAubrey
Posts: 1090
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by MAubrey »

Stephen Carlson wrote: an English simple present (NIV)
Not only a simple present, the "now" is also part of the translation of the perfect here.
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3350
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Phil 3:7 ἥγμηαι: 4 Translations, 4 Different Renderings

Post by Stephen Carlson »

MAubrey wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote: an English simple present (NIV)
Not only a simple present, the "now" is also part of the translation of the perfect here.
Yep, hence the bolding in my quotation. I wonder why the NIV included the word now. It does create a contrast with what Paul believed then, so maybe it is to imply a change in Paul's beliefs. If so, not too bad for a dynamic equivalent.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”