NTS on 'arrabon' in 2 Cor. 1 and 5

From NTS:

[A]ρραβων as Pledge in Second Corinthians
Yon-Gyong Kwon
New Testament Studies (2008), 54: 525-541

Abstract

This article argues that αρραβων in 2 Corinthians (1.22 and 5.5) does not mean ‘down payment’ or ‘first installment’ but ‘pledge’ without any sense of pars pro toto. After showing that the meaning of the word depends on its context, the study goes on to examine the two occurrences of the word, concluding that Paul either appeals to the Spirit as God's pledge for his apostolicity (1.22) or as a pledge for the surety of bodily resurrection (5.5). The common view that αρραβων depicts the Spirit as the present realization of salvation is thus exegetically unfounded.

Biblica on Heb. 9:11

S. Fuhrmann in Biblica(pdf):

My approach is based on the observation that a ‘soteriological reading’ of Heb 9,11 is neither necessary nor particularly meaningful. The participium coniunctum
παραγενόμενος ἀρχιερεὺς τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν should rather be read as a strictly christological statement, meaning thus: ‘(Christ), arrived as the high priest whose good qualities (virtues) have come into being’.

continued...

JBL on 'dikaioma' in Romans 5:16

 

J.R. Daniel Kirk in JBL(pdf):

Although mild defenses of the translation “justification” have been offered, I will argue that a better way forward is to render δικαίωμα with the well-attested meaning of “judgment,” “penalty,” or “reparation”—an action performed by a convicted person that satisfies the court and thus justifies the defendant. After summarizing the argument offered in favor of the translation “justification,” I will argue for “reparation” based on (1) inherent probability (that is, that Paul is more likely to use a word with a meaning his readers would understand), and (2) contextual considerations (these simultaneously undermine an assumptionmade in the argument for “justification” and support the alternative reading offered here).

continued...(pdf)

The Hebrew verb + cognate participle as an idiomatic intensive, esp. in LXX quotes

 

Mark Krause:

If the LXX and thus the Hebrew background of the Greek verb + cognate participle are taken into account, any interpretation must see this construction as intensive; any translation must attempt to bring this out.

A survey of the English translations of Mk 4.12 will be illustrative at this point. Unfortunately, the AV translators apparently did not understand the idiom and rendered the text very literally: 'seeing they may see and not perceive; and hearing they may hear and not understand'.

Subsequent translations have followed suit:

NASB: 'while seeing they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand' (similarly ASV, NKJV).

Others have attempted to do something beyond such a literal translation:

JB: 'they may see and see again, but not perceive; may hear and hear again but not understand';

NEB: 'they may look and look, but see nothing, they may hear and hear and understand nothing'.

A few have apparently understood the intensive nature of this construction and tried to bring this out in translation:

NIV: 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding';

NAB: 'they will look intently and not see, listen carefully and not understand';

NRSV: 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand' (similarly RSV)

The translator should recognize the intensity of this construction and render it appropriately. The English method for intensifying a verb is frequently to use an adverb. The choice of adverb should be guided by the recognition that the Hebrew verb + cognate infinitive absolute construction seeks to intensify the verb's assertion, not its root meaning. Words like 'surely', 'certainly' (or 'most certainly') and 'intently' are appropriate. A possible translation of Mk 4.12 might be:

They are sure to look and not really see,
They are sure to listen and not really understand.

A possible translation of Mt. 13.14 might be:

You will surely listen but certainly not understand,
You will surely look but certainly not see.

— Mark Krause, in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics, p.198-199

'Bethlehem': 'house of bread' vs. 'house of struggle'

 

From Chuck Cliff:

Not many are aware that [the word] Bethlehem is ... formed from "Bait", "house", and "LeHeM", "bread". Bethlehem therefore has the literal meaning "House of Bread".

The interesting [thing] is that the root meaning of bread refers to the kneading of the dough. As a verb, LHM can refer to battle, in particular the hand-to-hand combat one saw in olden times. Therefore, the word basically means "struggle", "strife", "confrontation".

A small thing, but interesting that the place where the Christian savior is born is, the "House of Bread" or "House of Struggle".

continued...

'gunai' and the limits of corpora

 

Micheal Palmer:

In some cases the limitations of working with ancient texts are recognized, by solutions are not proposed. E. Wendland and E.A. Nida, for example, offer the following statement in their article, 'Lexicography and Bible Translating':

The limited corpus of the New Testament and of other Koine Greek texts makes it impossible to undertake the find-grid distinctions which would be possible if there were more data available and particularly if informants of New Testament Greek were available.

They offer no discussion, however, of how their semantic theory may be adapted to this limitation. In fact, some of their statements might lead the skeptic to conclude that the limitation has been ignored. They state, for example, 'in Greek itself gunai has an associative meaning which is far more favorable than the English term woman.' While this may be a completely valid conclusion, how did they reach it? How can associative meaning be measured given the limited corpus available?

— Micheal Palmer, "How Do We Know a Phrase Is a Phrase?" in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics, p.155

Paul the Platonist? 'Pneuma' in Romans 6-8

 

Emma Wasserman on Paul and Platonism, in JSNT:

As I have argued for chs. 6 and 7, a Platonic discourse about the soul provides for a more coherent interpretation of Paul’s diverse statements about sin. Once we understand the divide in Platonic terms as between sin, flesh, members, body (negatively) and passions, which are opposed to reason (the inner person), [nous] and law, these different statements cohere as elaborations of the same oral-psychological premises. But ch. 8 introduces something new to the picture developed in chs. 6–7: the [pneuma] (spirit) of God. This has important implications for God’s intervention with Christ in 8.1-13, as it suggests that Paul envisions a special type of [pneuma] that dwells inside the mind and restores its capacity for reason and self-control. While I cannot here explore the mechanism by which this happens, an infusion of God’s [pneuma], Paul consistently treats the new way of life offered to Gentiles as a new state of self-control. This makes good sense when considered as a restoration of the Gentile mind that God punished in Rom. 1.18-32 by handing it over to the rule of passions and to an evil mind (1.24, 26, 28).

Appreciating Paul’s use of Platonic assumptions allows one to make sense of the association between sin and flesh throughout 8.1-13 as well as exhortations such as ‘if by the [pneuma] you put to death the doings of the body, you will live’ (8.13). On my reading, this means that the [pneuma] enables a new mastery of the body with its passions and desires that allow for ethical behavior and acquittal at the final judgment. Platonic premises are particularly helpful for understanding 8.5-11 which attribute some form of intelligence to the flesh. ... In service of the analogy, Paul poses two hostile powers within the body, here flesh and spirit, and attributes them antithetical reasoning activities.

continued...

Anaphora in Mark 11:2, and other fun with transference

Paul Danove in Filología Neotestamentaria(pdf):

In usages of transference, the verbs’ three required arguments receive lexical realization as their three required syntactic complements. Koine grammar, however, provides three mechanisms that permit the omission of one or more of these complements in specific circumstances. First, Anaphora permits the omission of one, two, or all three syntactic complements when the context specifies their definite semantic content. Such “definite null” complements are bracketed in the concluding clause of the following example:

Go into the town opposite you, and immediately on entering into it you will find tied a colt on which no human being ever sat: untie it and [you] bring [the colt] [to me / Jesus] (Mark 11,2)

῾Υπάγετε εἰς τὴν κώμην κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐθὺς εἰσπορευόμενοι εἰς
αὐτὴν εὑρήσετε πῶλον δεδεμένον ἐφ’ ὃν οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν·
λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε.

Second, Passivization permits the omission of the Agent complement even when its definite semantic content cannot be retrieved from the context. Such omissions, however, introduce the possibility of polysemy or multiple interpretations. This receives further consideration below. Third, Generalization permits the omission of a Theme complement whose definite semantic content is not specified in the context and
assigns to such “indefinite null” Theme complements the general but circumscribed interpretation, “whichever entities that appropriately may be transferred in the manner designated by the verb”:

And I will give to each of you [what is appropriate] according to your works (Rev 2,23)

καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν.

Paul Danove, "Verbs of Transference and Their Derivatives of Motion and State in the New Testament: a Study of Focus and Perspective." Filología Neotestamentaria, Vol.19(2006) 53-71

'phroneo' as 'agree' in Phil. 4:2

From J.K. Gayle:

I’m sitting in church today listening to the pastor preach from Philippians 4:2-9. The jump out word from me is φρονέω, which I think I “know.” Paul’s writing in v. 2 gives instructions to two women he names: “Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν ἐν κυρίῳ.” My diglot has RSV, the committee of which makes it this way in English: “I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord.” So I look up a few verses: chapter 2:2 has Paul giving the same instruction to the entire church: “τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε” or RSV committee’s “of the same mind.” Wow. Different English.

So the same Greek gets the RSV committee take variously these ways:
τοῦτο φρονεῖτε “Have this mind” 2:5
τοῦτο φρονῶμεν καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε
“thus minded; and if in antyhing you are otherwise minded” 3:15
οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες “minds set on earthly things” 3:19
τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε “your concern for me; you were indeed concerned for me” 4:10

So three different English language words by the RSV committee as they “know” one Greek word: “agreement” “mind(edness)” and “concern for”

continued...

Paul's day job - skenopoios

From L.L. Welborn:

Readers of the revised article on σκηνοποιός in [Danker] will make the surprizing discovery that the traditional understanding of the term used to describe Paul's occupation in Acts 18.3 as 'tentmaker' is wholly without lexical support outside the Bible and literature that the Bible has influenced, and futhermore is undermined by a variety of practical considerations.* Instead, Danker proposes the meaning of 'maker of stage properties', appealing to Pollux, who explains that the word is a synonym for μηχανοπιός, which is either a 'stagehand' who moves stage properties or a 'manufacturer of stage properties.'* Danker concludes: 'In the absence of any use of the term σκηνοποιός beyond the passages in Pollux and the Hermetic Writings, and the lack of specific qualifiers in the text of Acts 18.3, one is left with the strong probability that Luke's publics in urban areas, where theatrical productions were in abundance, would think of σκηνοποιός in reference to matters theatrical.'* If the report of Paul's occupation in Acts 18.3 is historically reliable, then Paul was a 'prop maker'. This would go far to explain the number, specificity, and richness of Pauline metaphors drawn from the world of the theater and amphitheater (e.g. 2 Cor. 11.1-2-12.10; Phil. 3.12-4.3, etc.)*

—L.L. Welborn, Paul, the fool of Christ: a study of 1 Corinthians 1-4 in the comic-philosophic tradition, p.11,12

Don't 'Walk' in NIV's 2 Cor. 5:7?

Like tc, I'm a TNIV fan, but like him (after reading his post, at least), I'm puzzled and unconvinced by Fee and Stuart's argument for translating "peripateo" as "live" instead of "walk" in 2 Cor. 5:7 ("for we walk by faith, not by sight," NRSV). (It looks to me like the problem--or issue, at least--arose with the NIV, so it's not a TNIV-specific matter.)

Read all about it at tc's post--including the comment citing O'Brien on Hebraistic influence.

By the way, the NIV also took "walk" out of passages such as Romans 6:4 ("walk in the newness of life," NRSV), Gal 5:16 ("walk by the Spirit," RSV, and Eph. 2:10 ("that we should walk in them," RSV)--though the NRSV, my default translation, followed the NIV on the latter two moves. (tc now notes that the TNIV actually put "walk" back into Eph 5:2!)

Gk
διὰ πίστεως γὰρ περιπατοῦμεν οὐ διὰ εἴδους

Gk(xlit)
dia pisteōs gar peripatoumen ou dia eidous

Vulg
per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem

Wycliffe
for we walken bi feith, and not bi cleer siyt.

'mega phone' in Revelation 1:10

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice (phōnēn megalēn) like a trumpet ..."(Rev. 1:10)

Gk
ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος

Gk(xlit)
egenomēn en pneumati en tēi kuriakēi hēmerai, kai ēkousa opisō mou phōnēn megalēn hōs salpingos

elpizomen - "we had hoped"

ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ (read)

hêmeis de êlpizomen hoti autos estin ho mellôn lutrousthai ton Israêl (read)

To me one of the saddest verses in the Bible is Luke 24:21, spoken by Cleopas on the road to Emmaus: "But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel." ἠλπίζομεν - we had hoped. John Witvliet says:

“Had hoped” means that the hope is gone. This is hope in the past tense. It is this candor that draws us in. This is the story about those who are sympathetic to Jesus’ message, but whose lives are in limbo because of the apparent failure of God’s promises. It is about those of us who quite can’t get our minds around the Easter message. It’s about two people on the road to Emmaus and all those in the 2000 years since whose hope is past tense hope.

As with the Emmaus travelers, the fulfillment of our hope lies in what we do not see unless it is revealed ("then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him").

"But if we hope -- ἐλπίζομεν -- for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." (Romans 8)

dying daily in 1 Corinthians 15:31

From Gordon Fee:

[Paul] elaborates on the continual dangers mentioned in the opening sentence: "Daily* I die." Taken as an elaboration of v. 30, this means something like "On a daily basis I face the reality of death."** Although one cannot be sure as to what this refers specifically, there are several hints in this letter and in 2 Corinthians that his stay in Ephesus was anything but an Aegean holiday. ... What follows comes as something of a surprise. It is a kind of oath, the first word serving as the affirming particle (= "I swear by"),*** and the next words serving as that by which one swears. Literally it reads "I swear by your boasting," which he quickly qualifies as "(boasting) which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord."

- Fee, commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 820

Gk
καθ' ἡμέραν ἀποθνῄσκω νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν ἀδελφοί ἣν ἔχω ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

Gk (xlit)
kath' hêmeran apothnêskô, nê tên humeteran kauchêsin, adelphoi, hên echô en Christôi Iêsou tôi kuriôi hêmôn.

Vulgate
cotidie morior per vestram gloriam fratres quam habeo in Christo Iesu Domino nostro

Wycliffe
Ech dai Y die for youre glorie, britheren, which glorie Y haue in Crist Jhesu oure Lord.

Tyndale
By oure reioysinge which I have in Christ Iesu oure Lorde I dye dayly

Coverdale
By oure reioysinge which I haue in Christ Iesu or LORDE, I dye daylie

Luther
So wahr ihr, liebe Brüder, mein Ruhm seid, den ich in Christus Jesus, unserm Herrn, habe: ich sterbe täglich.

Geneva
By your* reioycing which I haue in Christ Iesus our Lord, I die dayly.

* As though he said, "I die daily, as all the miseries I suffer can well witness, which I may truly boast of, that I have suffered among you."

DRB
I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

KJV
I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

YLT
Every day do I die, by the glorying of you that I have in Christ Jesus our Lord:

ASV
I protest by that glorifying in you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

RSV
I protest, brethren, by my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!

GNT
My friends, I face death every day! The pride I have in you, in our life in union with Christ Jesus our Lord, makes me declare this.

NIV
I die every day--I mean that, brothers--just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

NRSV
I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you-a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord.

TNIV
I face death every day--yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

ESV
I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!

WEB
I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

NET
Every day I am in danger of death! This is as sure as* my boasting in you,** which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

* Or, more literally, "I swear by the boasting in you."

** Although the witnesses for the shorter reading (Ì46 D F G ? 075 0243 1739 1881 Ï) are not as strong as for the addition of ἀδελφοί (adelfoi, "brothers") at this juncture (? A B K P 33 81 104 365 1175 2464 lat sy co), it is difficult to find a reason why scribes would either intentionally or unintentionally drop the address here. Thus, the shorter reading is slightly preferred.

CEV
and face death every day? The pride that I have in you because of Christ Jesus our Lord is what makes me say this.

GNT
For I swear, dear brothers and sisters, that I face death daily. This is as certain as my pride in what Christ Jesus our Lord has done in you.

Msg
I look death in the face practically every day I live. Do you think I'd do this if I wasn't convinced of your resurrection and mine as guaranteed by the resurrected Messiah Jesus?

Jesus' post-Resurrection greeting in Aramaic

28:9a. "Hi!" chairete. ... The word can translate the Hebrew shalom (see at 26:49), but it is not as dignified as the Greek eirene hymin ("Peace be with you") used in Luke's and John's accounts of the Risen One's greetings (Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 26), nor it is anywhere near as august as the Old English [sic] "All hail" used here by the King James Version. The word's closest modern American equivalent, I think, because it is closest to what we most often say in meeting, is the extremely simple "Hi!" This earthiness is wonderful!

- Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary: The Churchbook, Matthew 13-28

Bruner's excellent rhetorical observations on Christ's post-resurrection greeting (from which my pastor usefully drew an entire Easter sermon last Sunday)--particularly his note about the Hebrew--made me wonder about the Aramaic greeting here, specifically whether it was a cognate of the Hebrew shalom.

Sure enough, Peshitta's interlinear gives the greeting in Matt 28:9 as s-l-m:

CAL glosses the noun as "peace" and the verb as "to be whole" (not sure about interjectory or salutary use).

So in this greeting I hear a linguistic echo of the new creation order of shalom that the resurrection itself so gloriously established!

JSNT on the rhetorical assumptions of indentations (or: how not to identify a hymn)

From JSNT:

In the vast field of scholarship surrounding New Testament hymns, consider the list of rationales that have been offered for construing a text as a poem or hymn. First, here are some of the rationales that should be discounted immediately, since they are vague and applicable to too many kinds of texts: parallelism,7 a series of threes (Lohmeyer 1927–28: 5-6), unusual vocabulary,8 figurative language (Bailey and Vander Broek 1992: 76-82), theological or Christological concepts,9 and my favorite, ‘it is a carefully constructed passage’ (Hooker 1975: 159).

no 'silliness' in Ephesians 5:4?

Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving. Eph. 5:4, NRSV

The list of evils continues in v. 4 with three words for sins of speech, all of which occur only here in the NT. The first, aischrotes, "obscenity," is similar to aischrologia, which occurs in Col. 3:8. The second, morologia, means literally the words or language of a fool. It refers not to speech that lacks intelligence or education but to speech that lacks wisdom or a godly perspective on life. The third, eutrapelia, had both positive and negative connotations. In the former case it means wittiness and pleasantry (see Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, 4.8, 1128a), even factiousness, but in a negative context such as here it refers to coarse humor, sexual innuendoes, or even dirty jokes. These are not the kind of things which should come out of Christian mouths, which should be used to express thanksgiving.

- Ben Witherington, commentary on Ephesians

Gk
καὶ αἰσχρότης καὶ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία ἃ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εὐχαριστία

Gk (xlit)
kathôs prepei hagiois, kai aischrotês kai môrologia ê eutrapelia, ha ouk anêken, alla mallon eucharistia.

Vulg
sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus sancti et immaculati in conspectu ejus in caritate

Wycliffe
ethir filthe, or foli speche, or harlatrye, that perteyneth not to profit, but more doyng of thankyngis.

Tyndale
nether filthynes nether folishe talkyng nether gestinge which are not comly: but rather gevynge of thankes

Luther
Auch schandbare und närrische oder lose Reden stehen euch nicht an, sondern vielmehr Danksagung.

Coverdale
nether fylthines, ner folish talkynge, ner ieastynge (which are not comly) but rather geuynge of thakes.

Geneva
Neither filthinesse, neither foolish talking, neither iesting, which are things not comely, but rather giuing of thankes.

DRB
Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks.

KJV
neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

ASV
nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting: but rather giving of thanks.

RSV
Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.

GNT
Nor is it fitting for you to use language which is obscene, profane, or vulgar. Rather you should give thanks to God.

NIV
Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving

NJB
There must be no foul or salacious talk or coarse jokes--all this is wrong for you; there should rather be thanksgiving.

NRSV
Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving.

ESV
Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving

WEB
nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not appropriate; but rather giving of thanks.

NET
Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting – all of which are out of character – but rather thanksgiving.

CEV
Don't use dirty or foolish or filthy words. Instead, say how thankful you are.

GNT
Obscene stories, foolish talk, and coarse jokes—these are not for you. Instead, let there be thankfulness to God.

Msg
Don't talk dirty or silly. That kind of talk doesn't fit our style. Thanksgiving is our dialect.

Witherington
and filth and foolish chatter or dirty jokes which are not proper, but rather thanksgiving.

'euthus' in Mark

From Rodney Decker:

Due to the frequent and distinctive use of εὐθύς [EUTHUS] in Mark,<1> greater space is devoted to this deictic marker.<2> The semantic field of εὐθύς may refer to sequential action (with either the connotation of a short intervening duration of time between two events or of no intervening event/s) or it may suggest the rapidity with which an event occurs.<3> It may, in addition to these meanings, function as a conjunction with a meaning not greatly different from καί. In this case it may add a nuance of sequence (though not necessarily temporal sequence, but in the sense of, "the next thing I want to say is…"),<4> or it may be "otiose, and a mere mannerism."<5> Both adverbial and conjunctive uses are considered together in this section.

continued...

Update: Much more, including a comparison/contrast of euthus in Matthew and Mark, from alefandomega.

Alliteration in Hebrews 1:1

The book of Hebrews begins not just with a thought, but with a sound, the sound of a preacher's voice. When the first phrase of Hebrews is read aloud in the original Greek, we can hear with the ear what could easily be missed with the eye alone: the richness of its tones and the rise and fall of its melody ... this has the unmistakable sound of a sermon. ...

Like the initial line of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address ... these opening words of Hebrews display the cadence, the alliteration, and the keen awareness of the musical flow of beautifully spoken language that signal a carefully and poetically crafted oral event, a style that is sustained throughout the book.

- Thomas Long, Hebrews

Gk

 

 

Gk (xlit)
PolumerÔs kai polutropÔs palai ho theos lalêsas tois patrasin en tois prophêtais

Vulg
Multifariam, multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis

Wycliffe
God, that spak sum tyme bi prophetis in many maneres to oure fadris,

Tyndale
God in tyme past diversly and many wayes spake vnto the fathers by Prophetes

Coverdale
God in tyme past dyuersly & many wayes, spake vnto ye fathers by prophetes

Geneva
At sundry times and in diuers maners God spake in the olde time to our fathers by the Prophetes

KJV
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

ASV
God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,

RSV
In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;

GNT
In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets

NIV
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,

NJB
At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets

NRSV
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets

ESV
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets

NET
After God spoke long ago(1) in various portions(2) and in various ways(3) to our ancestors(4) through the prophets,

1) Or “spoke formerly.”

2) Or “parts.” The idea is that God’s previous revelation came in many parts and was therefore fragmentary or partial (L&N 63.19), in comparison with the final and complete revelation contained in God’s Son. However, some interpret πολυμερῶς (polumerw") in Heb 1:1 to mean “on many different occasions” and would thus translate “many times” (L&N 67.11). This is the option followed by the NIV: “at many times and in various ways.” Finally, this word is also understood to refer to the different manners in which something may be done, and would then be translated “in many different ways” (L&N 89.81). In this last case, the two words πολυμερῶς and πολυτρόπως (polutropw") mutually reinforce one another (“in many and various ways,” NRSV).

3) These two phrases are emphasized in Greek by being placed at the beginning of the sentence and by alliteration.

4) Grk “to the fathers.”

CEV
Long ago in many ways and at many times God's prophets spoke his message to our ancestors.

Msg
Going through a long line of prophets, God has been addressing our ancestors in different ways for centuries.

Long
In many fashions and in many fragments in former times ...

The problem with sounding 'Bible-y'

My comment at the Better Bibles Blog:

I'm a believer in Peterson's rationale and results. We so often forget that the Bible was not supposed to sound "Bible-y," not lofty and ceremonial, not dull and distant, but is in fact the living breath of God. Just yesterday I was in a church that prayed the Lord's Prayer with "thy"'s and wondered why we cling so fiercely to archaisms--simply out of overwrought reverence, it seems to me.

I do think a few checks are in order:

1) First, many of the arguments made by supporters of formal equivalence hold some water when it comes to academic study of the text. A word-for-word emphasis is useful in this setting--of course, my preference in academic study is to consult the ultimate word-for-word: an interlinear.

2) Second, I should try to be as disappointed in dynamic equivalences & paraphrases that blur the distinctions between genres as I am in formal equivalent translations that make all biblical books sound the same. The Greek of Mark is not the Greek of Hebrews is not the Greek of Revelation; Hebrew poetry is a whole different world from Hebrew narrative. I haven't looked hard enough, or broadly enough, at the Message, to see how much Peterson varies his rhetoric according to the genre of the book. But how many translations make us feel like we're dealing with multiple books--which we actually are--rather than one monolithic big book?

Update: Lingamish introduces a relevant and useful distinction: boring vs. bizarre