Why Did The TR...

The choices to translate me genoito are two: as an idiom, or as straightforward speech. Straight forward speech in a Formal Equivalent version ought to stick very close to the Greek; if DE is the method then there is more latitude. Technically, an English paraphrase should be following closely some existing English text (putting it into other English words) and virtually ignoring the original language documents. There are conflicting reports that Peterson did refer to the Greek, and did not (using only commentaries), for The Message NT. When any translation becomes so very loose, it hardly matters if the original Greek was considered.

The CLV (first ed. 1926) by A.E. Knoch is a very literal translation based upon Weymouth's Resulant Greek text; similar in style to Young's or Green's (both based upon the TR). It is the mission of 'literal' versions to render the Greek as exactly as possible (a step above 'interlinear'), sometimes at the expense of clarity or smoothness of English. "May it not be coming to that" does include the element of a future 'wish' ("may" and "coming") and is an excellent formal rendering if a non-idiomatic phrase is desired.

If me genoito was being viewed as standard speech in a FE context, then "may it not be coming to that" would be absolutely more accurate than "I should hope not" (since "I" and "should" concepts cannot be extracted from these two Greek words). Alternatively, if the phrase was being treated idiomatically, then 'accuracy' would be much less an issue (any equivalent English idiom is debatably as good as any other).

However, if a restatement in other words is desired, then "I should hope not" might be acceptable (depending somewhat on the text being paraphrased). If the document being followed is extremely literal, it is possible the resulting English paraphrase may also closely represent the Greek. It is unlikely, and not required. It also becomes more difficult to determine if the phrase is being treated as an idiom or as standard speech in a loose translation. I am currently reading The Message (NT only); I find where it is occassionally good it is often brilliant, but where it is frequently poor it is almost always horrible.

Consequently, the resulting English translations from the two possible views of the phrase (idiom, or not) filtered through the three primary methods (FE, DE, and paraphrase) should not be directly cross-compared and criticized, without careful deliberation. They all cannot be held to the same standard.

 

Nice quote, Deacon - thx. Nice comments also, Franklin. I used to detest The Message, but have grown to appreciate it's ability to often capture some meaning not so readily apparent in translations. Actually, my preference is JB Phillips NT.

In this instance - "God forbid" - my concern is when it is possible to not introduce such components, as is possible here. In general, the original phrase, MH GENEITO, was idiomatic, and I prefer such phrases to retain such impact, in a more DE fashion. It is preferred to be a more colloquial expression, as MH GENEITO was in those days. But regardless if it can be done without adding some component not originally there, that is to be preferred.

Hence, what's wrong with "No way!" or "May it never be," or even "Perish the thought"?

Again, I don't have a big problem with the KJV rendering it in such a manner, but IMO we have to acknowledge that it could have been done better, either for FE or DE.

FA

 

Not to mention 'No way, Jose!'

 

TC,

I agree. Often can't be helped. But I think we should try to avoid expressing it in such a way that new concepts, especially about God, are introduced. Like I said... no biggie. But it can be done better than "God forbid."

FA

 

The key phrase is "at the time". "God forbid" was in very common usage in other English literature of that time.

 

I found this online which seems to further indicate the idiomatic nature of the Greek.

Quote taken from a John MacArthur sermon entitled "Dying to Live - Part 1" based upon the text of Romans 6:1-5 (cassette tape GC 45-45) --

The translators of the King James Version translated me genoito as "God forbid" in verse 2, but it is actually much more emphatic than that. This phrase is an idiom denoting the strongest possible negative reaction in the Greek language. It is tantamount to outraged indignation. To put it in the words of my grandmother, "Perish the thought!" The contemporary vernacular would be, "No way!" The New American Standard Bible comes closer to the actual meaning by translating it, "May it never be!" The very suggestion that a believer could continue in habitual sin is thoroughly abhorrent to Paul. He didn't begin his response to this hypothetical question with some great argument, he simply said, "No, no, no--by no means--absolutely not!"...​

Quote taken from Robertson's Word Studies at Romans 6:15 --

...{God forbid} (\me genoito\). Optative second aorist in a negative wish for the future. {May it not happen!} The word "God" is not here. The idiom is common in Epictetus though rare in the LXX. Paul has it thirteen times and Luke once (Lu 20:16).​

 

I did not take MacArthur that way: I thought he was saying this particular idiom was the strongest negative expression in Greek; I did not think he was commenting on standard negative constructions in Greek grammar.

 

And finally we reach the magic number - page 20