Here are some points of agreement and disagreement.

You say:

I think I can make a good argument that the LXX era Greek sounded to Roman era Koine speakers like Biblish.

LXX Greek in particular, as opposed to LXX *era* Greek (say, Xenophon,) would have sounded to Roman era Koine speakers like Biblish. Quite simply, it was Biblish. That’s because LXX Greek is translation Greek of a generally wooden, stilted kind, like much of what we call Biblish in English.

The classic discussion of the generally calque-like quality of LXX Greek is the monograph by James Barr entitled “The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations” (1979). If you haven’t read it yet, you will enjoy every minute of it. Since then a number of LXX scholars have gone so far as to suggest that LXX Greek is by and large “interlinear” Greek. That slavishly imitative of the lexical and syntactic (not pragmatic) details of the source text.

You say:

*What* [the NT authors] said was enormously important, but *how* they said may leave the critics yawning.

Yes and no I think. The very fact that so much of the NT is written in unadorned Greek is of interest to literary critics. The impact of this fact on the history of Western literature has been enormous. The most famous argument in this sense is the second chapter of Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis.

On the notion that the gospel of Matthew is “ordinary talk.” I’m fine with classifying it as such, so long as, by analogy, one classifies popular hymns and popular sermons in the English language more or less heavily indebted to KJV English (lexis more than taxis) on the one hand, and to “updates” of the same found most commonly in religious language, as “ordinary talk.”

Because that is what we have in the gospel of Matthew, 15:1-20 for example: a text swarming with excerpts large and small of calquefying translation Greek with updates in Greek literate Pharisaic language the whole of which is framed in unadorned and unremarkable koine Greek of the Roman period current among Greek literate Roman Jews.

I am still inclined to translate Matthew 15:9, and the biblical text on which it depends by way of the mediation of a less than imitative translation, in a literal-as-possible but free-as-necessary fashion. I know of no other way to retain agreement across text and subtext, with Matthew quoting the KJV of his day with little modification.

I expand on this here: http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2012/06/give-me-that-old-time-religion-a-response-to-rich-rhodes.html#more

Welcome back to BBB! It’s great to have your shiny two denarii. Here are mine, worn and ferruginous though they are.

I like your last comment better than your post. You say:

“I just want to get to the point of being able to talk about how to make Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews sound as different in English as they do in Greek. And step one is to talk about subtle differences in usage. In this case, what linguists call markedness.”

Fine. So here is a feature of the usage of Matthew. He likes to conform to Biblish diction and cite in Biblish for the sake of his LXX literate readership. He also likes to calque non-Biblish phraseology, like “kingdom of heaven,” phraseology Jesus shared with the Pharisees. Hence the relatively large number of Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic > Jewish Hellenistic Greek turns of phrase found in Matthew.

In Matthew 15, that’s why we find the wording we do, per LXX Isaiah 29:13, for example: ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων (not an exact calque of the Hebrew; the collective singular “command” is pluralized).

How then to translate? It seems best to calque and paraphrase at the same time in both cases:

Isa 29:13:

“its worship of me has become a commandment of men learned by rote.” So NJPSV (slightly modified).

Matt 15:19

“in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.” So ESV (slightly modified).

I’m not sure there is a better way to capture the Biblishness and Rabbinicness of the style of Matthew than to preserve agreement in matters of detail across registers Matthew wished to conjoin: biblical Greek understood within, and acting as an indictment of, Pharisaic Judaism (a love-hate relationship with the Pharisees is unlikely to be an innovation of Matthew, BTW; it is attributable to Jesus himself). In the case at hand, “commandment(s) of men” is the salient phrase. One rephrases it as considerable peril (though Mark does, in a different context: “traditions of men”).

Truth to be told, most NT authors demonstrate a strong commitment to the Biblish of their day.

If you naturalize the Biblishly language too much, you remove a component of its markedness.

To calque or not to calque: that is the question. An exact calque is not necessary; an approximate probably is – in both passages. RSV=ESV, as often, has a great deal in its favor.

The chief error of RSV=ESV is not getting the tense of Isa 29:13 right: the narrative past tense conveys an essential semantic feature.

HCSB cannot be recommended across the passages, with its Matthew still speaking in Biblish and its Isaiah speaking in more natural English.

Given the above discussion, NIV 1984 is superior to NIV 2011. The latter also truncates the text of Matthew; “the teachings they teach” would have been appropriate.

If you have an alternative method of retaining the stylistic choices of the original to the one suggested here, a method which retains agreement across the texts, with Matthew quoting the KJV of his day to the letter – I would love to hear it.

BTW, Donna, I think you’re right about Mat. 8:9. It is more natural your way.

One of the problems with translation — something that professional literary translators are well aware of — is that translations, even the very best ones, all come out stylistically flat even when the original may have several “voices”.

Consider Huckleberry Finn. The narrator and the characters have quite distinct voices.

One of the world’s leading classicists, Anna Morpurgo-Davies, once told me that Homer’s characters all speak the appropriate dialects, something you’d never know from any of the translations.

I just want to get to the point of being able to talk about how to make Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews sound as different in English as they do in Greek. And step one is to talk about subtle differences in usage. In this case, what linguists call markedness.

I note that Matt 8:9 refers to a man, so it’s not incorrect to say “Man”, but stylistically, I think here it’s more natural to leave out this word altogether and say simply “I am under authority”.

I agree with your translation in Luke 16 if it can be shown that the person referred to in the story was male (and I assume that since kurios later on in the passage is masculine, that the master was in fact a male? (Can you have a female lord, kuria? I assume so?)