Counter

Pageviews last month

Showing posts with label translation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label translation. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 August 2026

From Anguish Languish to English Language: Trains-lading debt Furry Tail avowed Beers into a Fairy Tale about Bears

 It's been decades since I first posted Furry Tails to this blog, and since most of my readers are from countries other than the one in which Anguish Languish was first published, I thought I'd do them the favour of translating this one into Standard English. Here, then, is Goldy Locks and the Three Bears:

Wants pawn term dare worsted ladle gull hoe hat search putty yowler coils debt pimple colder Guilty Looks. Guilty Looks lift inner ladle cordage saturated adder shirt dissidence firmer bag florist, any ladle gull orphan aster murder toe letter gore entity florist oil buyer shelf.

Once upon a time there was a little girl who had such pretty yellow curls that people called her Goldy Locks. Goldy Locks lived in a little cottage situated at a short distance from a big forest, and a little girl often asked her mother to let her go into the forest all by herself. 

Guilty Looks!” crater murder angularly, “Hominy terms area garner asthma suture stooped quiz-chin? Goiter door florist? Sordidly NUT!”

“Wire nut, murder?” wined Guilty Looks, hoe dint peony tension tore murder’s scaldings.

“Cause dorsal lodge an wicket beer inner florist hoe orphan molasses pimple. Ladle gulls shut kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol, an stare otter debt florist! Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle gull!”

Wail, pimple oil-wares wander doe wart udder pimple dum wampum toe doe. Debt’s jest hormone nurture. Wan moaning, Guilty Looks dissipater murder, an win entity florist.

"Goldy Locks!" cried her mother angrily, "How many times are you going to ask me such a stupid question? Go to the forest? Certainly NOT!"

"Why not, mother?" whined Goldy Locks, who didn't pay any attention to her mother's scoldings.

"'Cause there's a large and wicked bear in the forest who often molests people. Little girls should keep away from that kind of animal, and stay out of that forest! That forest's much too dangerous for a little girl!"

Well, people always want to do what other people don't want them to do. That's just human nature. One morning, Goldy Locks disobeyed her mother and went into the forest. 

Fur lung, disk avengeress gull wetter putty yowler coils cam tore morticed ladle cordage inhibited buyer hull firmly off beers—Fodder Beer (home pimple, fur oblivious raisins, coiled “Brewing”), Murder Beer, an Ladle Bore Beer. Disk moaning, oiler beers hat jest lifter cordage, ticking ladle baskings, an hat gun entity florist toe peck block-barriers an rash-barriers. Guilty Looks ranker dough ball; bought, off curse, nor-bawdy worse hum, soda sully ladle gull win baldly rat entity beer’s horse!

'Fore long, this adventurous girl with her pretty yellow curls came to a modest little cottage inhabited by a whole family of bears--Father Bear (whom people, for obvious reasons, called Bruin), Mother Bear, and Little Boy Bear. This morning, all the bears had just left a cottage, taking little baskets, and had gone into the forest to pick blackberries and raspberries. Goldy Locks rang a door bell, but, of course, nobody was home, so the silly little girl went boldly right into the bear's house!

Honor tipple inner darning rum, stud tree boils fuller sop—wan grade bag boiler sop, wan muddle-sash boil, an wan tawny ladle boil. Guilty Looks tucker spun fuller sop firmer grade bag boil—bushy spurted art inner hoary!

“Arch!” crater gull, “Debt sop’s toe hart—barns mar mouse!”

Dingy traitor sop inner muddle-sash boil, witch worse toe coiled. Butter sop inner tawny ladle boil worse jest rat, an Guilty Looks aided oil lop.

Dingy nudist tree cheers—wan anomalous cheer, wan muddle-sash cheer, an wan tawny ladle cheer. Guilty Looks set darn inner ladle cheer, bushy worse toe bag ferret, ant soddenly bustard.

On a table in the dining room stood three bowls full of soup--one great big bowl of soup, one middle-sized bow, and one tiny little bow. Goldy Locks took her spoon full of soup from a great big bowl, but she spit it out in a hurry!

"Ouch!" cried the girl, "That soup's too hot--burns my mouth!"

Then she tried the soup in a middle-sized bowl, which was too cold. But the soup in a tiny little bowl was just right, and Goldy Locks ate it all up. 
Then she noticed three chairs--one enormous chair, one middle-sized chair, and one tiny little chair. Goldy Locks sat down in a little chair, but she was too big for it, and it suddenly busted. 

Clamming upper stars tutor beer’s bet-rum, Guilty Looks dish-cupboard tree bets—wan grade bag bet, wan muddle-sash bet, an wan tawny ladle bet. Failing torrid, shay flunker shelf honor ladle bet, an, jester cobbler menace letter, worse sunder slip an snorting.

Climbing up a stairs to the bear's bedroom, Goldy Locks discovered three beds--one great big bed, one middle-sized bed, and one tiny little bed. Feeling tired, she flung herself on a little bed, and, just a couple minutes later, was sound asleep and snoring. 

Inner ladle wile, donors offer cordage cam beck firmer barrier-pecking extradition, currying baskings fuller rash-barriers. Whinny entity darning rum, Fodder Beer stuttered snuffing an gruelling tomb shelf.

“Warts ban goring earn hair?” crumpled dole beer, “Conjure small psalm-sing deferent a boarder horse?”

“Crashes!” crater murder beer, ashy castor quack glands adder tipple, “Hose ban muddling wet debt sop?”

Ladle Bore Beer stuttered crayon.

“Jest locket mar ladle boiler sop—oil garbled dope! An locket mar itchy pitchy cheer—oil bustard!”

In a little while, the owners of the cottage came back from their berry-picking expedition, carrying baskets full of raspberries. When he entered the dining room, Father Bear started sniffing and growling to himself. 
"What's been going on here?" grumbled the old bear, "Can't you smell something different about the house?" 
"Gracious!" cried mother bear, as she cast a quick glance at the table, "Who's been meddling with that soup?"
Little Bear started crying. "Just look at my little bowl of soup--all gobbled up! And look at my itty-bitty chair--all busted!"

Locking adder bustard cheer, Murder Beer bay-gander gat historical, an stuttered hurling tore horsebarn:

“Brewing! Brewing! Way gut BURGHERS inner horse. HORSE BURGHERS! Quack! Coiler place! Wail, dun stun dare lacking end-bustle during nosing! Coiler Place Deportment, quack!”

“Harmer garner coiler Place Deportment wen way dun heifer toiler-fun?” resplendent Brewing, inner trampling verse. “Set darn, worming, an cape quoit! Yore oil-wares thanking dare burghers inner horse!”

Oiler shame, Brewing worse jesters scarred aster udders; infect, haze niece war shagging.

Finely, Fodder Beer gutter grade bag short-gum, Murder Beer gutter muddle-sash haunting raffle, an Ladle Bore Beer gutter tawny ladle pestle, an oiler beers crypt upper stars, ware Guilty Looks worse line honor bet, sunder slip an snorting. Herring door beers, shay weakened, lipped otter door windrow, an dished aware harm jesters fascist shagged scrabble.

Looking at a busted chair, Mother Bair began to get hysterical, and started howling to her husband:
"Bruin! Bruin! We got BURGLARS in the house, HOUSE BURGLARS! Quick! Call a police! Well, don't stand there like an imbecile doing nothing! Call a Police Department, quick!"
"How am I gonna call a Police Department when we don't have a telephone?" responded Bruin, in a trembling voice. "Sit down, woman, and keep quiet! You're always thinking there are burglars in the house! 
All a same, Bruin was just as scared as the others; in fact, his knees were shaking. 
Finally, Father Bear got a great big shotgun, Mother Bear got a middle-sized hunting rifle, and Little Boy Bear got a tiny little pistol, ad all a bears crept up a stairs, where Goldy Locks was lying on a bed, sound asleep and storing. Hearing the bears, she wakened, leaped out of the window, and dashed away home just as fast as she could scramble. 

Oiler beers tar darner stars, an stuttered toe locker doers an windrows.

“Fodder,” aster ladle bore beer, finely, “Wart worse debt discussing crasher honor bet? Wart worse debt ogling ammonol wet oil debt yowler far honor had, an hoe dint half nor far atoll honor beck? Wart worse debt hobble lurking crasher, Fodder?”

Fodder Beer shuttered.

“Comb hair, mar bore. Heresy gut lessen furrier! Debt discussing crasher worsen HORMONE BANG! Kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol! Dare nor gut! Warts mar, are dun wander catcher goring entity florist oil bar yore shelf. Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle beer!”

All a bears tore down a stairs, and started to lock a doors and windows. 
"Father," asked a little boy bear, finally, "What was that disgusting creature on a bed? What was that ugly animal with all that yellow fur on her head, and who didn't have no fur at all on her back? What was that horrible looking creature, Father?"
Father Bear shuddered. 
"Come here, my boy. Here's a good lesson for your! That disgusting creature was an HUMAN BEING!
Keep away from that kind of animal! They're no good! What's more, I don't want to catch you going into the forest all by your self. That forest's much too dangerous for a little bear!"

I translated this as literally as I could exposing the weakness of the author's use of articles: he failed to distinguish between the definite and indefinite articles, sometime even confusing them with possessive pronouns. I gave him as much latitude as I could in a strict translation (probably even more, by translating 'sop' as 'soup'); using dynamic equivalence-- along the lines of the NIV--would make such inconsistencies disappear entirely. And there could be some dialect of English out there in which they wouldn't be phonemically distinct anyway.

Sunday, 2 August 2026

The NIV's Reformed slant in Galatians 6:16

Part and parcel of Calvinism is the notion that the Church has replaced Israel as the object of Divine favour and as the recipient of Divine promises. Popularly called Replacement Theology, it's technically referred to as Supersessionism, and it not only serves as a doctrinal pillar of Reformed Theology, it can even be shown to have roots about as far back in Church History as we are able to go. The Epistle of Barnabas, placed by its compilers in the very text of Codex Sinaiticus and thought to date almost as early as the New Testament itself, features it as a core teaching. According to Wikipedia, it argues that the Old Testament scriptures were always intended for Christians, that the Jews misinterpreted them by taking the Law literally, and that the covenant with Israel was broken early on (linked especially to the golden calf incident). Christians alone, it argues, are the true people of God.

Well, there are a lot of Bible verses that have to be suppressed--or at least ignored--for this to work. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul painted a picture of the Gentiles being grafted into Israel, not replacing them. His concern with the Jews was not that God had rejected them, but that they had rejected God--a situation he clearly saw as temporary. Thus throughout the millennia, Christian scholars have wrestled with the paradox that although Israel appears to have been set aside in favour of the Church, God's eternal promises to Israel have not been, and cannot be, annulled--if the words of Scripture actually mean anything like what they say. Thus, Barnabas' enduring assertion that God never intended the Law to be taken as written is crucial to the entire argument.

Now, the Geneva Bible, in its notes on Romans 11, does hold out hope that Israel will be saved eventually, but by joining the church; kind of a reverse of Paul's scenario, combining the permanence of all of God's promises to Israel with  the entire church being the actual beneficiary (which still requires some creative interpretation--could we even call it a dismissal?--of a lot of them). But it was this very doctrine, weakened as it was, that led Oliver Cromwell to open throw open the gates of England to Jewish immigration, and eventually led to a widespread rejection of Supersessionism among readers of the English Bible--especially in the United States, where both Dispensationalism and Ministries to Jewish People flourished in the 20th century. It appears that which Bible translation one uses really can affect his doctrine and practice, even at a national scale.

Not to say that I haven't already tipped my hand, but the point of this post is actually not to argue for or against Supersessionism--but rather to point out that the Committee for Bible Translation has done that very thing. A main point of Replacement Theology is to equate the Church of God with the Israel of God, and this is exactly what several Bible translations--could we even call them that--do at Galatians 6:16.

Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God. --RSV
All who walk by this standard are the true Israel of God - his chosen people. Peace and mercy on them! --The Message
May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God. --NLT
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God. --NIV

All four of these, ranging from the fairly literal to the wildly paraphrastic, have to do one thing to be able to equate the two: ignore not just one, but two of the three occurrences of the word και (and/also/even)--specifically the last one, which appears to draw a distinction between two groups of people: "those who follow this rule" and "the Israel of God." 

Contrast this to the versions that don't leave out any of the conjunctions:
And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them and mercy: and upon the Israel of God. --Douay-Rheims
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. --KJV
And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. --ESV

Here, the two categories are clearly separate. It's easy to see that someone whose theology would dictate that they equate Israel and the Church would be inclined to leave out that crucial 'and' to find scriptural justification for their position.

Actually, this is one of the places where I don't think either the KJV or the NIV got it quite right. One recent craze in hermeneutics has been to find chiasms all over the scriptures, and while I think it's possible to take this way too far, the point can be made that a chiastic structure is in play in this verse, and it should actually be translated the way the HCSB did:
May peace be on all those who follow this standard, and mercy also be on the Israel of God!

--which appears a much better fit to the context of Pauline theology in general and Galatians chapter six in particular. 

Whether one decides to directly translate all of the 'ands', or to leave out the first as superfluous in English, it's a doctrinal choice--not a linguistic one--to ignore the last of them.

The CBT made the doctrinal choice, by taking away a word from the Scriptures, to use their translation to push Replacement Theology--or at least the result was indistinguishable from if they had. This, from the Bible whose introduction states that the translators went to great lengths to avoid sectarian bias.

This post will probably undergo a lot of editing over the coming weeks, but it's been percolating in my mind long enough to finally start the process of getting it in writing.

EDITED TO ADD: I do recognize that at least the last couple editions of the TNIV/NNIV have 'and' here in a footnote--but I reiterate that it was a conscious decision to relegate that reading to a footnote rather than leaving it in the text. Unless, of course, the allegation is true that the NIV was just a reworking of the RSV, in which case they did leave intact the reading in their favoured text, and any criticism about this sectarian bias would deservedly be moved back to that translation committee. I forget whether the RSV introduction proclaimed their translation to be free of sectarian bias, but that's one of the things I can track down for future updates. 

ADDED FURTHER: I could be even more magnanimous and say that translating και as 'even' here would provide for the desired equivalence of Israel and the Church. But that's not what the CBT did, even in their footnote. I can see, though, how they could have justified their rendition on linguistic, rather than theological, grounds--but it's still a rendition that only a Calvinist could produce. 

Monday, 5 January 2026

A Calvinist Bias in the Translation of Hebrews 10:38--but was it an NIV innovation?

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him."
--Hebrews 10:38 KJV

Note the words in italics: what happens if you try to read the verse without them?

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." 

Clearly, something is missing here. What is it? The singular generic pronoun 'he.'

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." 

But wait! protests the Calvinist. A justified person can't lose his salvation, so how could God say that He would have no pleasure in him if he draws back? Well, before I come down to hard on the KJV here, let's see if the NIV managed to escape Calvinist bias:

“But my righteous[Some early manuscripts But the righteous]one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back.”[Hab. 2:4 (see Septuagint)]

Oh, boy. Rather than hiding their bias in an italicized phrase, the CBT changed the personal pronout outright, obscuring the actual meaning even more.

Here is a quick rundown of the English versions WITHOUT a Calvinist bias (ie, they make 'just' or 'righteous' the antecedent:
ASV But my righteous one shall live by faith: And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him.
AMP But My righteous one [the one justified by faith] shall live by faith [respecting man’s relationship to God and trusting Him]; And if he draws back [shrinking in fear], My soul has no delight in him.
CJB But the person who is righteous will live his life by trusting, and if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.
ESV but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
HCSB But My righteous one will live by faith; and if he draws back, I have no pleasure in him.

Some versions are even able to play around with gender and number without making the one who turns back a different category than the just:

GNT My righteous people, however, will believe and live; but if any of them turns back, I will not be pleased with them.

But it looks like ALL translations based on the TR--starting with that bastion of Calvinist translation, the Geneva Bible--twist the text to separate the one who lives by faith from the one who turns away. An intersting exception is Young's Literal Translation, which makes the separation but blames it on being two separate quotes from the Old Testament:
and `the righteous by faith shall live,' and `if he may draw back, My soul hath no pleasure in him,'
Green's Literal Translation goes one step further, cutting the NT verse into THREE OT quotes, with reciepts:
"But the just shall live by faith;" "and if he draws back," "My soul is not pleased in him." Hab. 2:4; Zeph. 1:6; Mal. 1:10 
The problem with that third reference, though, is that it switches the person from second to third--Green should have put the end quotes after "pleased."

Now, the theme of drawing back is a big one in Hebrews, with five different passages warning of the danger of drawing back:
Hebrews 2:1-4 — Warning against drifting away from the message of salvation.
Hebrews 3:7–4:13 — Warning against unbelief and failing to enter God's rest (drawing from Psalm 95 and the wilderness generation).
Hebrews 5:11–6:12 (with the core warning in 6:4-8) — Warning against falling away after receiving enlightenment and spiritual privileges.
Hebrews 10:19-39 (especially 10:26-31) — Warning against willful sin and the terrifying prospect of judgment.
Hebrews 12:14-29 — Warning against refusing God's voice and failing to receive the unshakable kingdom.

Calvinists have their work cut out for them, proving in each of the five cases that these warnings don't apply to anyone that God has already justified. But it appears they needed a little help in this fourth passage, cutting the link between the just person and the one that draws back--a link so obviouls that dozens of English Versions had translators who could see it, and weren't ashamed to admit it. It's odd that the CBT, in cutting themselves loose from a lot of the language of the KJV, were unable to do what so many other modern Bible Version editors have done, and cut themselves free from its Calvinist bias as well.

Sunday, 26 December 2021

The Never-dying Confusion over the Never-die Promise of Jesus

"Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." John 11: 23-27 [KJV]

These words of Jesus, that those who believe in him will never die, have been appropriated many times in the thousands of years since he spoke them by cult leaders who offer their followers the same promise. Never mind that every one of Jesus' disciples died, typically by violent means; it's incredibly easy to found a cult on this premise, and, contrary to what one would think, these typically continue without all that much of a hitch following the deaths of their founders. That is, Never-die movements never seem to die, so strong is the temptation to appropriate this promise as one of eternal life in this present age. 

But what did Jesus actually mean by “Everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die” [ESV]? Well, commentators have taken different approaches to solving this, with various Bible translators following their leads. One of the easiest ways out has been to focus on the eschatological context of Martha's affirmation, and interpret Jesus as meaning, “When I return, everyone who is then alive, of those who have believed in me, will be immediately translated into eternity in a resurrection body.” Convenient as that is, I don't see it coming across in any of the dozens of versions I checked.

What many translators do instead is to modify 'will never die' with some emphatic modifier like “really.”

And everyone who lives and believes in me will never really die. [ERV]

That, I guess, gives some room for the expositor to further address the problem of Jesus' disciples actually dying, but doesn't really say how that works. Nor does it actually translate the Greek.

Some play around with the conjunction a little, without coming up with anything new, other than perhaps to emphasise that one actually has to be living as a beliver to appropriate this promise:

And whoever lives by believing in me will never die. [NIV]

As can be expected, the Amplified finds room for a couple of these options:

And whoever continues to live and believes in (has faith in, cleaves to, and relies on) Me shall never [actually] die at all.

The Message basically combines all of them:

And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all.

But I'd like to direct you to that last clause, with a word not found in any of the dozens of other versions: ultimately. This actually translates the final clause of Jesus' statement in Greek, εισ τον αιωνα, literally, 'unto the age'What readers of most English versions miss out on is that 'die' is actually negated three times in this verse, which is so difficult to express in English that only this hyper-paraphrase actually manages to translate all three of them. 'ου', 'εισ τον αιωνα' and 'μη' become 'does not', 'ultimately', and 'at all'.

I think the key to understanding this is that third negation expressed in the original, εισ τον αιωνα. That is, anyone who believes in Jesus (and I think the NNIV may even be on to something here: anyone who lives by believing in Jesus, or to expand it a bit, believes in Jesus whilst he still lives—there being no second chance once earthy life is over) will only be “mostly dead” when his body succumbs to mortality; but not “all dead,” because that body awaits a future resurrection. And to prove this, Jesus will shortly resurrect the body of Lazarus, purposely left to stew in the grave long enough for decomposition to begin.

So don't get tripped up by this passage, or trapped by the claims of a cult founder: Jesus promised, not a never-ending life stuck in a sinful human body, but something far better: an eternity in a resurrection body. All that is required is that your physical death, when it does come, finds you believing in him.





Monday, 17 August 2020

Who are the false teachers in Acts 20:30?

 As I posted earlier (here, here, and here), The Newer and Improveder International Version has a hard time being consistent with its translation of the Greek word for 'men', being unwilling to exclude women altogether from that designation, but not showing any good reason for why it does or doesn't. An excellent example is in Acts 20:30.


First, let's back up and see how various translations handle 'men' in Acts 17:34 (from blueletterbible):

However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. - NKJV

But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. - ESV

But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. - NASB

So, the more literal versions were okay with translating ανδρες as 'men', despite the associated difficulty of including a woman in their number. How about the least literal translations?

but some joined him and became believers. Among them were Dionysius, a member of the council, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. - NLT

Well, that was pretty safe, Just leave off translating the word, as the NIV did in Acts One. But most of them tried to translate it with something:

However, some people joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. - CSB

But some people joined him and believed. Among them were Dionysius, who was a member of the Areopagus, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. NET

Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others. - NIV

So, to the CBD, ανδρες could, and presumably should, be either left untranslated, or at least translated vaguely as 'some people', whenever women could, or should, be included in the referent. So what happened in Acts 20:30, when Paul warned the Ephesian Elders about the coming of false teachers?

Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. - NKJV

and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. - ESV

and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. - NASB

Again, the more literal versions translate ανδρες as 'men', despite the difficulty that false teachers of a female sort would likewise arise (Revelation 2:20). Surely, though, the translators of the more progressive versions would be able to see women in this verse? Let's check.

Even some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth in order to draw a following. - NLT

Men will rise up even from your own number and distort the truth to lure the disciples into following them. - CSB

Even from among your own group men will arise, teaching perversions of the truth to draw the disciples away after them. - NET

Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. - NIV

Well, suddenly all their problems with a literal translation of ανδρες seem to have vanished at this verse. Despite the difficulty, all are agreed that only those Ephesians of the male sort were in any danger of becoming false teachers. But Paul himself, later writing to Timothy in Ephesus, specifically spoke of

"gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." - NIV 2 Timothy 3:6-7


Global search-and-replace has failed them once again. 


EDIT Oct 2, 2020
It has been brought to my attention that (at least in the 2005 Edition), the TNIV  did in fact read "some will arise" and this was one of the reversions made in the 2011 NNIV. 

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

Who are our neighbors?

On my way through town the other day I noticed that several yards contained the same sign, with a message in Spanish, English, and Arabic. Now, I happen to be proficient in all of these languages, so I was able to discern some differences in the translations.

First of all, it was obvious that the English version was the original one. It read, "No matter where you're from, we're glad you're our neighbors."

Now, all three of these language have the capability to address someone in either a formal or a familiar way; as it happens, the familiar is obsolete in English, so the original is in what would have earlier been considered the formal construction, but is now the only way of expressing such a sentiment. However, the formal construction is rarely so used in Arabic--as is the familiar in Spanish. So one would not expect the two translations to have the same construction. They don't; but ironically, the Arabic uses the rare formal construction, and the Spanish the rare familiar. Thus the Arabic is more a formal equivalency translation than the Spanish.

But ironically, given that English no longer distinguishes between number in the second person, the Spanish version is an exactly literal translation of the English, while the Arabic version is more of a paraphrase. It would literally read, "It doesn't matter where your country [is], but we're glad that you're our neighbors."

I wonder if the owners of these signs first looked up the online database of registered violent and sexual offenders to see how many had moved into their neighborhood, before so welcoming them.

ETA: I just realized why the Arabic is in the plural. In Arabic, one has to distinguish between male and female in the singular (not so in Spanish); this construction is the only possible way to translate in a gender-neutral manner. Thus the Spanish and Arabic separately convey different nuances of the English.

Tuesday, 6 December 2016

A sister, a wife: Lingering patriarchy in the Newer and Improveder NIV

It is well known that the major impetus behind the latest two revisions of the New International Version was egalitarian. Egalitarianism has gradually taken over most denominations, even those among whose major distinctions against sister denominations was their greater reluctance to embrace it.
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[that is, Peter]? --1 Corinthians 9:5 NNIV
Now, there's a major problem with this verse for egalitarians: it's written from a patriarchal perspective, and the CBT has done nothing to soften that blow, as much as it is in their power to do so.

One well-known Bible scholar, Eldon J. Epp, has gone so far as to write an entire book promoting the idea that among the early apostles were women, specifically one named Junia. But what happens when we try to plug her name into this verse?

Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Junia?
Oops. The CBT sure missed that one in their global search-and-replace. Their puzzling reluctance* to ever use the gender-sensitive word 'spouse' really got them in trouble here. Furthermore, even the very phrase 'take a wife' reeks of patriarchy.

Look for a global search-and-replace of 'spouse' for 'wife' in the next NIV update. But while they're at it, they may as well replace 'husband' too, just to be fair.

*All the more puzzling because, at a recent event hosted by an equal-opportunity seminary where one of the professors is a member of the CBT, a professor was heard to ask a the male half of a married couple, "Is that your spouse sitting next to you?"

Monday, 6 April 2015

1 Peter 2:2--Another Calvinist mistranslation in the NIV

"Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation," --NIV 1973-2011

"As infants euen now borne, reasonable, milke without guile desire ye, that in it you may grow vnto saluation." --Rheims NT 1582

There are several issues here; we may as well begin with the textual issue. Most Greek NT manuscripts don't have the last 2 words of the verse, εἰς σωτηρίαν. But it's a rather slim majority, and the words are well attested in the sizable minority, with omission tending to increase rapidly toward the end of the manuscript era, when most extant manuscripts were made. Of special note is that the words ARE found in the versions, whether early, middle, or late. It would appear that theological reasons were behind transmitting a text without them--and that, even as recently as the textual selections behind the King James Version--but we'll leave such questions for another day, because even by including the variant, the CBT managed to rob it of its meaning by mistranslating it into English.

And thus we come to the translational issue: how should one translate εἰς σωτηρίαν? Well, literally, it's "unto salvation." Εἰς is a directional preposition, most often translated into in the KJV.

Here is a lexical definition:
eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union") to a particular purpose or result.

We can see that in regards to entering into salvation, 'unto' would be a more grammatically apt wording. But I'll accept 'into,' as it wouldn't make a difference either way. The vital point is that salvation is being entered through the process of craving pure metaphoric milk (the Greek literally means 'wordly,' or--idiomatically--'reasonable' or 'logical,' not 'spiritual'). "In" is an unacceptable translation, as it denotes position, not transposition.

Now, why would the CBT want to have us "grow up in our salvation" rather than "grow into salvation," maugre well-established translation principles? Clearly, this paraphrase was made for no other reason than to avoid the implication that salvation is a goal to attain rather than a state to improve. And this is an characteristically Calvinist interpretation, pressed into service under the guise of the most accurately translated English Bible possible.

Calvinism, of course, does not stand or fall upon a paraphrase of 1 Peter 2:2. It is able to twist any scripture to its ends, and this one need be no exception. So why not just translate it as it stands, and leave its (mis)interpretation up to the theologians?

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

The pro-Calvinist slant of the NIV

I have not written on the NIV for some time, but recent posts by Brian Abasciano brought out the fact that a pro-Calvinist interpretation of Acts 13:48 is firmly ensconced in the NIV, despite his promotion of a translation that preserves the ambiguity of the Greek. Here is a link, with some relevant parts quoted (with the spelling standardised):
----------------------
Back in December of 2009, I wrote [this] letter to the NIV Translation Committee recommending a change in their translation of Acts 13:48[:]

The present NIV has this for Acts 13:48 — “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.”

Of course, the main translation issue has to do with the translation of tetagmenoi, which the NIV translates (together with esan) as “were appointed”. This is such an important text theologically because it gives the impression that the people referred to believed because God first appointed them to eternal life. Some consider this a slam dunk proof for Calvinism/unconditional election. Indeed, some consider this to be the most powerful text in favor of Calvinism. So I would argue that it is especially important to take care to be fair-handed in the translation and indicate if there is any serious alternative. Now I don’t think this is the best translation, and a number of scholars have objected to it. But even if one disagrees with the alternative, I think it would be most fitting at least to indicate that there is a legitimate alternative.

An alternative has made it into a legitimate lexicon. Friberg’s has: (2) passive, with an abstract noun ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον as many as had become disposed toward eternal life (possibly AC 13.48) or all those who were appointed to eternal life (probably AC 13.48)

Now I note that Friberg does think “disposed” less likely, but that is essentially an interpretive decision. That then means context etc., not grammar or pure lexicography, must decide. And the context favors taking the Gentiles as being set on eternal life in contrast to the Jews of the same episode who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. It is imperative to note that this alternative rendering is a rendering of the passive; it does not construe tetagmenoi as a middle. . . .

Turning to BDAG, it is significant that this most authoritative lexicon for NT studies does not take tasso as “appoint” in Acts 13:48. It gives two major meanings for tasso: (1) to bring about an order of things by arranging — arrange, put in place; (2) to give instructions as to what must be done — order, fix, determine, appoint. BDAG places tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48 in the first meaning. Now BDAG happens to assign a specific sense within that meaning that would practically arrive at a similar theological place as “appoint”, but with a decidedly different lexical meaning for the word: “belong to, to be classed among”. Nevertheless, it is significant that they conclude that the meaning of tetagmenoi in Acts 13:48 lies in the domain of placement/position, and specifically under the meaning of people being put into a specific position. It is also worth noting that BDAG places the use of tasso in 1 Cor 16:15 under this specific heading (people being put into a specific position), an instance that specifically means “to devote to” (speaking of the household of Stephanus: “they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints”, which obviously refers to an inward positioning of will or intent, a disposition/commitment or something along these lines). The use of tasso for disposition can be seen in non-biblical texts as well such as Philo Quod. Det., 166. . . .

In Conclusion:
I believe that the current translation of Acts 13:48 in the NIV is inaccurate, and that the best understanding of tasso in Acts 13:48 is that it refers to Gentiles who were in position for eternal life / ready for eternal life / even intent on obtaining eternal life (particularly in contrast to the Jews of the same episode who opposed Paul and rejected the gospel, and so who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life [Acts 13:46]), and that the most accurate translation of the phrase in question would be something like: “as many as were disposed to eternal life believed” or “as many as were aligned for eternal life believed” or “as many as were positioned for eternal life believed”. However, I recognize that this would be to take a very specific view of the passage, and might not be appropriate for the NIV. So, remembering that BDAG places the instance of tasso in Acts 13:48 not under the meaning of appointment but under the meaning of being placed in position, and that Friberg’s lexicon notes “disposed” as a possible meaning, I would suggest a more neutral translation: “as many as were set for eternal life believed”. This can readily be understood either of these Gentiles having gotten set in position for eternal life (by whatever means or agent[s] one infers from the context) or having been set (by absolute and effectual appointment) for eternal life by God. Thus this translation preserves the ambiguity of the Greek. I would then suggest adding a footnote along these lines: “or appointed or disposed”. This would probably be ideal for the reader to feel the sense of the Greek and know the two main ways it could be taken. If the committee is reluctant to change the present NIV translation, then I would urge that at least a footnote be added to the verse mentioning that it could be translated “as many as were disposed to eternal life”.
-----------------------------
It does not appear that his letter had any effect on the CBT, as the NNIV reads the same.

Monday, 19 May 2014

Beer and the NIV

In an earlier post, I decried the TNIV for translating shekar as "other fermented drink" rather than "beer" in Numbers 6:3. In revisiting the issue today, I noticed that "beer" is actually found many places in the NNIV as a translation for shakar--just not, apparently, here. Well,  I give the CBT credit for a small improvement anyway.

Here is an article which addresses the necessary ingredients that would have been used for making beer in the Bible times.

Saturday, 12 April 2014

Pelagia the Harlot: An interesting account (part one)

I'm posting excerpts from an online English translation of Lives of the Fathers.
There's a lot to comment on here, but for now I'll just include what I think is important and maybe come back to it later.

I'll start out with one comment: In 4th-century Antioch, slaves wore torcs around their necks to identify their status. Bet you didn't know that.
Make that two: In 4th-century Antioch, wealthy people sometimes rode around on donkeys.  Bet you didn't hear that in your last Palm Sunday sermon.



The Life of St Pelagia the Harlot
       [Celebrated in the Roman Martyrology on October 8]
--all comments in brackets by the English translator, The Revd. Benedict Baker--
by Jacob the Deacon
translated into Latin from the Greek by Eustochius

Prologue of Eustochius
Since the words of such a great priest could not be understood by Latin speakers, I, Eustochius, have translated them by the help of Christ. You who read them, be mindful of my labours and pour out your prayers to God for me.

Author's Preface
We ought always to give hearty thanks to God that he does not wish for the death of sinners, but rather that they repent and live. (1 Timothy 2.4). Listen, then, to this miracle which has been done in our time. It has seemed right to me that I, Jacob, a sinner, should write to you, my holy brothers, so that the knowledge of it might come to your ears, either by reading it, or by hearing it read, that you may obtain the greatest possible help and consolation for your souls. The merciful God who desires that no one should perish has demonstrated in our day that sins can be wiped out by making satisfaction for them, so that in the world to come when all shall receive according to their works the judgment shall be just. Pray now, keep silence, and listen to me with all the diligence of your hearts, for our story is redolent of the most fruitful compunction.

The Life

Chapter I
The most holy bishop of Antioch summoned his neighbouring bishops to a meeting to discuss certain matters. [The Synod of Antioch met in 341 to discuss certain theological difficulties still in dispute since the Council of Nicaea in 325]   There were eight of them altogether, among whom was my bishop Nonnus, a most holy man of God, a most wonderful and effective monk from the monastery of Tabennisi. He was taken out of the monastery and ordained a bishop simply because of his incomparably beautiful life. Once we had arrived at Antioch, the bishop directed us to the basilica of the blessed martyr Julian, [Rosweyde conjectures that this would probably be a Julian who was martyred in Syria, in which province Antioch was situated]   where we found all the other bishops meeting in the porch.

Chapter II
Some of the other bishops asked my superior, Nonnus, whether he had any edifying comments for them, and without delay our holy bishop began to tell them something for the instruction and salvation of all who were listening. As we were all listening with enjoyment to his holy teaching, suddenly there passed by in front of us the foremost actress of Antioch, the star of the local theatre. She was seated on a donkey and accompanied by a great and fanciful procession. She seemed to be clothed in nothing but gold and pearls and other precious stones. Even her feet were covered with gold and pearls. The male and female slaves accompanying her were extravagantly clothed in costly garments, and the torcs round their necks were all of gold. Some of them went before, others followed after.
The worldly crowd could not get enough of their beauty and attractiveness. As they passed by us the air was filled with the scent of musk and other most delicious perfumes, but when the bishops saw her passing by so immodestly, with her head bare, and the outlines of her body clearly visible, nothing over her shoulders as well as her head, and yet the object of such adulation, they all fell silent, groaned and sighed, and averted their eyes as if being forced to witness some grave sin.

Chapter III
The most blessed Nonnus, however, looked at her long and hard, and even after she had passed by he looked after her for as long as she remained in sight. Not till then did he turn round and speak to the other bishops.
"Weren't you delighted to see such beauty as hers?"
They answered nothing. He leant his head down on to his knees and shed tears into the handkerchief which he held on his lap between his holy hands. He sighed deeply and turned again to the bishops.
"Weren't you delighted to see such beauty as hers?"
Again they answered nothing.
"Truly, I was extremely delighted. Her beauty pleased me very much, for God has preordained to bring her here into the presence of this worthy and eminent bishop of Antioch as a judgment on us all personally as much as on our episcopacy. Think, my beloved brothers. How many hours did this woman spend in her dressing room, washing herself and dressing herself and decorating herself with the utmost care and attention, so that there might be nothing lacking in the beauty of her ornamentation, simply so that she would not disappoint all her various admirers, who are here today and gone tomorrow? But for us there is an almighty father in heaven, an immortal spouse who makes promises to those who serve him, who offers heavenly riches and eternal rewards which are beyond estimation, which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet have entered into the heart of mankind, which God has prepared for them that love him (1 Corinthians 2.9).
"What more can I say? We have his promise that we shall see the great and splendid and inestimable face of our bride, which Cherubim dare not gaze upon, but we do not take care to adorn ourselves, or purge ourselves of all the filthy thoughts of our wretched souls. We just let them lie there."

Chapter IV
Having said all this he took me, his sinful deacon, to the hospice where a cell had been assigned to us. He fell down and laid his face on the floor, [The Latin text literally has 'threw himself face down on the floor'. But it is impossible to beat one's breast in such a position, so I assume that what is meant is that he assumed the position which we are familiar with today from TV pictures of Islamic men prostrating themselves in the mosque]  beating his breast and crying.
"O Lord Jesus Christ, forgive me an unworthy sinner, for the decoration of a harlot lasting but a day is greater than the decoration of my soul. How can I show my face before you? What words can I offer to justify myself in your sight? But I will not hide my heart from you, for you know all our secret thoughts. Woe to me, an unworthy sinner, for I stand before your altar, and I do not offer the beauty of soul that you expect of me. That woman vows to make herself pleasing to men, and she succeeds. I vow to make myself pleasing to you, and I fail because of my slothfulness. I stand stripped bare before you in heaven as in earth, for I do not fulfil your commandments. I cannot put any trust in my own achievements. My hope lies solely in your mercy, by which I trust to be saved."
With these words, and a great deal of loud weeping, we celebrated the feast of the day.

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

According to the NIV, Ishmael was always in his brothers' face. But was he?

Genesis 16:12 O/T/N/NIV
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward[b] all his brothers.”
[b] Or live to the east of

Genesis 25:17-18 O/T/N/NIV
Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people. His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt, as you go toward Ashur. And they lived in hostility toward[b] all the tribes related to them.
[b] Or lived to the east of

The Hebrew phrase is the same both places, and literally means, "in the face of all his brothers."

Now, what we have here is an idiom carried over literally from Hebrew to English, and then paraphrased.

However, it is nonsense. If Ishmael lived in hostility with all his brothers,  then we would expect to read about it. However, nothing is ever said about Ishmael fighting with Isaac, Esau, Jacob, and the six sons of Keturah. In fact, he married off his daughter to Esau! And whatever differences he had with Isaac, they patched them up enough to cooperate in conducting their father's burial. Yes, his descendants took their second cousin Joseph captive to Egypt, but they did it in collusion not only with their other second cousins, the Midianites/Medanites, but also Joseph's own half-brothers! So, nothing to indicate the fulfillment of any particular prophecy about Ishmaelites not getting along with ANY of their relatives.

"To the east of" is even stupider. The area of Havilah and Shur is WEST of the areas where the other descendants of Abraham settled. The only place it is EAST of is Egypt itself.

What the translation should read is "in the presence of all his brothers."  In other words, Ishmael's descendants settled in the same general area as the rest of Abraham's descendents. In fact, their seed intermingled to the point now that you can't distinguish the descendents of Abraham through Keturah, Sarah, and Hagar. They are all now known as Arabs, with the exception of the seed of Jacob.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Pangur Bán: An indoor cat made immortal by writer's block

This Old Irish poem was found at the bottom of a manuscript in the Benedictine Abbey of Reichenau, situated on an island in the lake bordering Austria and Germany. It seems to have been written by an Irish monk--possibly Sedulius Scotus--sometime in the ninth century. 

Messe ocus Pangur Bán, cechtar nathar fria ṡaindan
bíth a menmasam fri seilgg, mu menma céin im ṡaincheirdd.

Caraimse fos, ferr cach clú, oc mu lebran leir ingnu
ni foirmtech frimm Pangur Bán – caraid cesin a maccdán.

O rubiam (scél cen scís) innar tegdais ar n-oendís
taithiunn (dichrichide clius) ni fristarddam ar n-áthius.

Gnáth huaraib ar gressaib gal glenaid luch inna línsam
os mé dufuit im lín chéin dliged ndoraid cu ndronchéill.

Fuachaidsem fri frega fál a rosc a nglése comlán
fuachimm chein fri fegi fis mu rosc reil cesu imdis.

Faelidsem cu ndene dul hi nglen luch inna gerchrub
hi tucu cheist ndoraid ndil os me chene am faelid.

Cia beimmi amin nach ré, ni derban cách a chele
maith la cechtar nár a dán, subaigthius a óenurán.

He fesin as choimsid dáu in muid dungní cach oenláu
du thabairt doraid du glé for mu mud cein am messe.

There are several different translations of this poem. I give them in order of quality, the most literal first:

I and Pangur Bán, each of us two at his special art:
his mind at hunting (mice), my own mind is in my special craft.

I love to rest—better than any fame—at my booklet with diligent science:
not envious of me is Pangur Bán: he himself loves his childish art.

When we are—tale without tedium—in our house, we two alone,
we have—unlimited (is) feat-sport—something to which to apply our acuteness.

It is customary at times by feat of valour, that a mouse sticks in his net,
and for me there falls into my net a difficult dictum with hard meaning.

His eye, this glancing full one, he points against the wall-fence:
I myself against the keenness of science point my clear eye, though it is very feeble.

He is joyous with speedy going where a mouse sticks in his sharp-claw:
I too am joyous, where I understand a difficult dear question.

Though we are thus always, neither hinders the other:
each of us two likes his art, amuses himself alone.

He himself is the master of the work which he does every day:
while I am at my own work, (which is) to bring difficulty to clearness.
- by Whitley Stokes & John Strachan

Now for one that actually sounds like a poem:

Myself and Pangur, cat and sage
Go each about our business;
I harass my beloved page,
He his mouse.
Fame comes second to the peace
Of study, a still day
Unenvying, Pangur's choice
Is child's play.
Neither bored, both hone
At home a separate skill.
Moving after hours alone to the kill.
When at last his net wraps
After a sly fight
Around a mouse; mine traps
Sudden insight.
On my cell wall here,
His sight fixes, burning,
Searching; my old eyes peer
At new learning,
And his delight when his claws
Close on his prey
Equals mine when sudden clues
Light my way.
So we find by degrees
Peace in solitude,
Both of us, solitaries,
Have each the trade He loves:
Pangur, never idle
Day or night Hunts mice;
I hunt each riddle
From dark to light.
- by Eavan Boland

And one that scans like one:

Each of us pursues his trade,
I and Pangur my comrade,
His whole fancy on the hunt,
And mine for learning ardent.
More than fame I love to be
Among my books and study,
Pangur does not grudge me it,
Content with his own merit.
When ­ a heavenly time! ­ we are
In our small room together
Each of us has his own sport
And asks no greater comfort.
While he sets his round sharp eye
On the wall of my study
I turn mine, though lost its edge,
On the great wall of knowledge.
Now a mouse drops in his net
After some mighty onset
While into my bag I cram
Some difficult darksome problem.
When a mouse comes to the kill
Pangur exults, a marvel!
I have when some secret's won
My hour of exultation.
Though we work for days and years
Neither the other hinders;
Each is competent and hence
Enjoys his skill in silence.
Master of the death of mice,
He keeps in daily practice,
I too, making dark things clear,
Am of my trade a master.
- by Frank O'Connor

But this is the best one:  

I and Pangur Bán, my cat
'Tis a like task we are at;
Hunting mice is his delight
Hunting words I sit all night.
Better far than praise of men
'Tis to sit with book and pen;
Pangur bears me no ill will,
He too plies his simple skill.
'Tis a merry thing to see
At our tasks how glad are we,
When at home we sit and find
Entertainment to our mind.
Oftentimes a mouse will stray
In the hero Pangur's way:
Oftentimes my keen thought set
Takes a meaning in its net.
'Gainst the wall he sets his eye
Full and fierce and sharp and sly;
'Gainst the wall of knowledge I
All my little wisdom try.
When a mouse darts from its den,
O how glad is Pangur then!
O what gladness do I prove
When I solve the doubts I love!
So in peace our tasks we ply,
Pangur Bán, my cat, and I;
In our arts we find our bliss,
I have mine and he has his.
Practice every day has made
Pangur perfect in his trade;
I get wisdom day and night
Turning darkness into light.
- by Robin Flower

Tuesday, 24 December 2013

A Review of R. H. Allen's "Guidance on Abortion"

I recently came across what purported to be a Bible-based look at the abortion issue, written by a youth pastor. Since probably most abortions are of a child of a youth group member, this would be an important issue. The link to the pdf can be found here.

The full title of Allen's article is, "A Christian Looks to the Bible for Guidance on Abortion," but when Allen looks to the Bible, he doesn't look very far. In fact, he doesn't get much past Exodus 21:22-25, which he quotes from the King James Version:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Convenient that he did this, because just about any other English translation will totally defeat his purpose, which is to show that abortion is biblical, based on the conclusion that
"The scripture directs that if the fetus is aborted as a result of the injury, the offending man must pay retribution as determined by the woman’s husband. However, if the woman herself dies, then the man must die (i.e., “give life for life”)."

Take, for example, the ONIV:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life"
 [a] Or she has a miscarriage

The NNIV, of course, changes 'men' to 'people,' which brings in the off-the-wall possibility that the mother herself is at least partially responsible for the abrupt delivery of her child. But there's still nothing about the woman being killed in the process.

Here are the possible interpretations of the English text:

1) Child dies: man fined. Woman dies: capital punishment. (Allen's view)
2) Child is born prematurely but lives: man fined. Child born prematurely but dies: capital punishment. (possible view based on NIV text)

The view derived from the NIV marginal reading is a bit hard to pin down. If causing a miscarriage isn't 'serious injury' (and it is so considered in all 50 states), then what is, short of the woman herself dying? The passage really just doesn't make sense as translated from Hebrew to English.

What happens, though, if we look at the Greek translation of this passage?

22 ἐὰν δὲ μάχωνται δύο ἄνδρες καὶ πατάξωσιν γυναῖκα ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσαν καὶ ἐξέλθῃ τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον ἐπιζήμιον ζημιωθήσεται καθότι ἂν ἐπιβάλῃ ὁ ἀνὴρ τῆς γυναικός δώσει μετὰ ἀξιώματος 23 ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ἦν δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς   --Septuagint

Daniel L. Christiansen has provided the following translation:

"If two men are fighting, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her not-fully-formed child comes out, the man should be punished by a fine: in keeping with the court's decision, he is to pay as much as the woman's husband might demand. 23 But if [the child] was fully-formed, the man is to give [his] life in exchange for [the child's] life."

A more literal translation would be:

"If two men are fighting, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her not-fully-formed child comes out, the man should be punished by a fine: in keeping with the court's decision, he is to pay as much as the woman's husband might demand. 23 But if it was fully-formed, he is to give life for life."

Both of these offer a third possible interpretation:

3) Child is born so prematurely that it can't survive: man fined. Child is born prematurely, though viable, but dies anyway: capital punishment. (Daniel L. Christiansen's view)

One thing that all these interpretations have in common is that they accept the fact that striking a pregnant woman may cause her pregnancy to terminate early. There are actually not just three, but four possible results from this:

1) A pregnancy that could have proceeded to term is ended before the fetus is viable, causing avoidable death;

2)  A pregnancy that could have proceeded to term is ended after the fetus is viable, but before it is strong enough to survive outside the womb, still causing avoidable death;

3) A pregnancy that could not have proceeded to term anyway--because of a defective fetus--is ended before the fetus has a chance to spontaneously abort, causing death that would have happened later anyway;

4) A pregnancy that could have proceeded to term is ended after the fetus is viable, and strong enough to survive the experience, resulting in emotional harm to the mother, but not physical harm to her child.

This third possibility comes out in Breton's translation of the Greek:

"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life"

Neither the second nor fourth possibility is in view in either translation of the Greek. It is assumed in verse 23 that the expelled child dies; the only possibilities are the death of an imperfectly formed fetus that couldn't have survived outside the womb, or the death of a fully formed fetus that could have.

Now, we know more about human physiology than did the Greek scholars who first translated the Pentateuch. Unless we get our education from watching television and movies, we know that a fetus is well-protected inside its mother's womb, and a blow to the outside of her body is not going to hurt it directly. While the trauma may send her into labor early, the only danger to the child is that it may not yet be ready for the experience.

So the idea of a perfectly formed fetus dying from this sort of trauma only makes sense if it were extremely premature--basically, first or second trimester (although, with modern medical intervention, viability is pushed back a ways into the second trimester). Thus, according to the Greek translation of this passage, causing a woman to abort her child IS grounds for the death penalty, the only defense being that a postmortem revealed the fetus to have been doomed regardless of when it was born.

So, here's the scenario: A woman gets involved in a fight between two men, gets punched in the gut, and stumbles off to recover. Before she is fully recovered, however, she experiences a miscarriage. The question is, was this just a coincidence, or is the miscarriage a direct result of the blow she received?

The only way to determine this is to examine the fetus. If it proves defective, like other fetuses from miscarriages not know to have been associated with an abdominal blow, the man is not subject to charges of murder (of the child), but only assault and battery (of the mother). The possible death of the mother is not at all in view here, contra Allen.

Now, that's what the Greek translation says. But what about the Hebrew?

22 וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃  וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ 23

"If men strive, and strike a pregnant woman, and her children come forth, and no mishap comes about*-- fining he shall be fined, according as the woman's husband will impose upon him; and he shall pay in pleadings. 23  And if mishap comes about*, then you shall give soul in place of soul."

It's important that the Hebrew word here is not that of an embryo, but of a baby. It's probably in the plural to avoid the misconception that only a male child is in view here. The text is ambiguous, but only to a limited extent: the LXX interpretation is certainly possible, but only as Breton translates it; it's not an unformed embryo, but a baby.

So, in conclusion, R.A. Allen is way off base linguistically. He takes an obscure translation of an obscure passage, twists it like a pretzel, and viola--gets the interpretation he started with. Ironically, most of his article is a warning against doing this very thing.

Now, perhaps you're in agreement with me, that there is nothing in this verse laying a different valuation on the life of an inviable fetus, versus a viable one.  But, it turns out, that's not the way the ancients understood it.

Thanks are due to Thomas F. McDaniel for the following quotes.

Philo (Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia, xxiv 137):
"And with respect to these matters the following law has been enacted with great beauty and propriety: “If while two men are fighting one should strike a woman who is great with child, and her child should come from her before it is completely formed, he shall be mulcted in a fine, according to what the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall pay the fine deservedly. But if the child be fully formed, he shall pay life for life. For it was not the same thing, to destroy a perfect and an imperfect work”

He goes on, (De Specialibus Legibun, iii 108–109):
"But if any one has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor's workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world."

*According to McDaniel, this phrase should be translated, "[not] perfect it has become."

   **********************************************

So, we see the possibility of my interpretation after all. In either case, a postmortem ensues, no doubt before the same judges who are to decide whether to apply a fine or the death penalty. The expelled fetus is examined, and if it can be see to be perfectly formed, it is assumed that it could have survived if left to term; if it is still too early in gestation to determine whether some fatal genetic abnormality is present, then the accused retains the assumption of innocence as regards to murder, and is only fined for assault.

What then, is the implication for R. A. Allen? Simply that according to this verse, anyone who causes the death of a fully formed yet unborn human, is guilty of murder.

That's not a pro-choice position.

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

Was Rachab a Harlot?

Was Rahab Really a Harlot?

So asks the title of an article in the September-October issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.  But that's not the real issue--it's just a catch phrase. The real questions about Rahab may not be any easier to answer, but they're of much more significance to the scholastic disciplines of biblical inerrancy and translation.

The first question to be answered, I suppose, is the most basic: was Rahab an actual historical figure? Bible skeptics, who don't believe that Joshua even conquered the city of Jericho--despite all agreeing that a particular mound of rubble along the lower Jordan is in fact the city of Jericho that Joshua didn't destroy--will of course say 'no.' But even for those who take Scripture at its word, questions remain as to Rahab's identity.

For example, was there just one Rahab, or two? Because the bewildering variety of ways in which Rahab is referenced in the hagiographic literature could point to distinct personalities.

There is the Rahab of Joshua chapters two and six. She treasonously protected the two Israelite spies in exchange for protection when Israel destroyed her city. She has quite an entry in Jewish hagiography, going on to marry Joshua himself and becoming the ancestress of at least nine notable Judeans.

On the other hand, the more ancient tradition of Rahab as the wife of Salmon and ancestress of Boaz (and thus eventually of the entire Davidic line right down to Jesus the Messiah) comes from the Christian scriptures--which nonetheless hold out the possibilities of two distinct individuals, Rachab in Matthew 1:5 (spelled Ῥαχάβ) as the mother of Boaz, and Rahab in Hebrew and James where she is identified quite unambiguously as   Ῥαὰβ πόρνη, or Rahab the Harlot.

In either case, there has been cultural pressure to redeem Rahab's occupation, first suggested in the turn-of-the-era Targums, which used a cognate Aramaic word that meant 'feeder' (and thus translated 'innkeeper,' for example by Josephus) rather than the original Hebrew word which has always been translated 'prostitute.'

Germane to that point is the question of Rahab's husband: if she didn't have one, it would definitely strengthen the case for her being a prostitute, as no unmarried woman of good repute would have put up men in her own home.  As it turns out, the book of Joshua does mention her family members, rather specifically in fact. And here, once again, we run up against the translation philosophy of the NIV's Committee for Bible Translation--whether for good or ill, remains to be demonstrated.

Joshua 2:12-13 "Swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death"  --KJV

 Joshua 2:12-13 "Now then, please swear to me by the LORD that you will show kindness to my family, because I have shown kindness to you, that you will spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them--and that you will save us from death" --NIV

Now, there are two noticeable differences between the KJV and the NIV here, and they both relate to the identity of those who Rabab is requesting to be spared.

1. "my father's house" v. "my family."  The English term "my family" is rather ambiguous. It can refer to either of two subsets, or to both, along with an even larger circle of extended family.  "My father's house," on the other hand, specifies only a single lineage and their spouses.  Inasmuch as Rahab goes on to delineate exactly who is in her father's house, the NIV's ambiguity here is as harmless as it goes. But the harm starts as soon as we get to the list of relatives, because the testimony here is far from unanimous.

2. "all that they have" v. "all who belong to them."  This is a question of translation--whether 'all' should be taken as neuter or masculine plural. Inasmuch as both the Codex Vaticanus copy of Joshua and the NKJV translate it as neuter (all the things that they have), one would think this to be a legitimate translation. But the exact same phrase is found in the Hebrew of 6:17, where there didn't appear to be any question (except to the LXX, who at least were consistent here) that those saved were people, not things. [CORRECTION: the word πάντα  appears to be a form shared by the masculine singular and neuter plural declensions in the accusative, so that the Greek would be ambiguous as to 'all things' or 'all people' where it refers to Rahab in the book of Joshua.]

So, if you're keeping score in the NIV's attempt to improve on the KJV, we have one win, one draw. And on this score, the New KJV doesn't come out any better than the Old. But what about the gender sensitivity question?

As we have seen elsewhere in our study of the NNIV, the CBT doesn't seem to know quite what to do with lists of relatives that include 'brothers and sisters' in the original. It doesn't sit very well with their firm belief that 'brothers' always really means 'brothers and sisters. But whether they intended to or not, they did miss a great chance improve significantly on the KJV, by taking into account the existence of polygamy in the Ancient Near East.

You see, the way the KJV reads, "my father's house" would include Rahab's father and all his wives, along with all their children--whether or not 'all that they have' ended up being translated as neuter (things) or masculine (people). But the NIV's "my family" wouldn't. One of Today's Young People does not think of his half-sibling's other parent as belonging to "my family."  And by putting "all who belong to them" at the end of the list of relatives, it's not at all obvious that the CBT intended to include any of Rahab's stepmothers.

6: 17  "only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house"  --KJV

6:17  "Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared"--NIV

Here is another question, one that could be either textual or translational (but only in the case of a really loose translation like the NIV). Clearly, the Hebrew reads "in the house" and the Vaticanus Greek reads "in her house."  Since the house in question was already identified as hers back in 2:1 and 19, it's a simple paraphrase to call it "her house" here, and that is apparently what the LXX did to set the example for future translators. We could maybe even be magnanimous here, and say that the literal meaning of 'at home to her' could well be accurately translated as "in with her in her house."

There's just a couple more verses to look at, and then we're done.

2:18 "thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household, home unto thee."  --KJV

2:18 "unless you have brought your father and mother, your brothers and all your family into your house" --NIV

Oh ho ho, suddenly the CBT doesn't feel a need to translate "brothers" as "brothers and sisters," even though the same loose approach to translation by which they translate "the house" as "your house" would demand it!  Is is that they are subtly trying to hide the elephant in the room, Rahab's stepmothers? Because, by leaving out specific mention of the sisters just this one time, they leave the impression that "all your family" encompasses them categorically (whilst rejecting, virtually every other place it occurs, the idea that 'brothers' could also encompass sisters categorically).  But, like so many writers of historical fiction, they are transplanting their modern (at least as of 1967) idea of what constitutes a 'family' back to a different time and place, where Rahab knew full well that her hypothetical stepmothers were part of her father's household, but wouldn't necessarily have considered them part of her 'family.'  And in so doing, they also skillfully disguise the obvious non-existence of Rahab's husband. He sneaks in under the guise of being a part of HER family, when in fact it was only her FATHER's family, which would not have included her husband, that was delivered. Thus they join a long line of theologians trying to salvage Rahab's reputation by concealing the obvious nature of her occupation.

There's one other note to make here: there's a textual problem in verse 13--the Masoretic Text reads 'sister,' but the Masoretes had a footnote reading 'sisters.' Codex Vaticanus left out the word entirely, probably indicating either that the original Hebrew was using 'brothers' collectively, or that the LXX did when they translated it. No one seems to think that Rahab had only one sister living in her father's house, although that is entirely within the realm of possibility, her married sisters not having been included in her father's household.

6:24-25 "And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho." --KJV

6:24-25  "Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the LORD's house. But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho--and she lives among the Israelites to this day." --NIV

Now, there are other members of Rahab's father's household who are less hypothetical: the slaves. Rahab's house was in a strategic location, built into the city wall so that her customers could come and go discreetly after the city gates were locked (an obvious choice, then, for the spies--who needed just such an accommodation).  It's commonly known in the business that prostitutes don't function as proprietors, but are always under the patronage of a pimp, to whom they remit the lion's share of their income. It would appear that Rahab's profession was one chosen by her father, who was wealthy enough to set her up for business in the prime location of the city. Ergo, he must have also owned slaves--some of whom no doubt served as her associates. In fact, there's a good chance that they did all the dirty work for her, and that her position was more of a madam rather than a streetwalker. Because whether you follow the Talmud or Matthew 1:5 in fitting Rahab further into Jewish history, she clearly married into the upper class of Jewish society.

Okay, despite the inconsistencies of the KJV and the ambiguities of the NIV, I think we can finally come up with a list of the people who were eligible to escape total destruction by taking refuge in Rahab's house of prostitution (fortunately for them, it must have had a large capacity):

- Rahab, the proprietress
- Rahab's two parents
- Everyone who lived in Rahab's house (basically, her trafficked humans)
- Everyone who lived in Rahab's father's home compound (including his slaves and his married sons' families)

Of course, as in the case of Lot's deliverance from Sodom, only those who actually chose to take refuge escaped destruction. It appears from the text that, this time, nobody turned down the offer.

One more note on the 'things' versus 'people' question. Since all the riches of Jericho were to be devoted to utter destruction (witness the problem Achan got himself into when he couldn't bear to see some of those riches go to waste), it is germane to the question whether Rahab got to keep all of her wealth, or was spared with her life only, and those of her father's house. It appears obvious, if not from the text then from the context, that Rahab was spared not only her people, but also all their goods. This certainly would have made her more attractive as a potential wife to Salmon, prince of Judah. This reminds of of our post on Genesis 12:5, where there also appear to be used an expression which encompasses both all of one's goods, and all of one's people.

Thursday, 30 May 2013

Where in the Middle East was the Red Sea?

95,295 views
I've been online a bit of late researching the fairly recent (as Bible scholarship goes) theory that the Israelites, upon escaping from Israel, crossed that part of the Red Sea now known as the Gulf of Aqaba (in Israel, the Gulf of Eilat). Even Snopes has tried to debunk the theory, and the best they can come up with after five years is "Undetermined."

I'm not happy with the slipshod manner in which this theory has been investigated on the ground, but I will say one thing: It's clear that "the Red Sea" (when doubly capitalised in the KJV, it's always a translation of yam suf) does, in at least a handful of places in the Torah, refer to the shoreline of Edom on an arm of the Indian Ocean (interestingly, both 'Edom' and 'Indian' can carry the connotation of the colour red).

Thus it has to be at least a possibility, from a biblical perspective, that the Israelites walked across the Gulf of Aqaba on dry ground. Moreover, even Eusebius in his Encyclopedia located it there. However, apparently out of respect for Constantine's mother, who had located Mt Sinai in what is now (because of her) known as the Sinai Peninsula, he failed to explicitly locate Mt. Sinai in Midian (where it must have been, if the Gulf of Aqaba was crossed in the Exodus).

The problem is, it doesn't appear to be a physical possibility. The Gulf is at least 800 meters deep at the center of its portion of the Great Rift Valley. I have yet to see a sea chart of any stretch of the Gulf that would allow for passage by foot should the water level drop--unless it were to freeze over, and that goes against the statement that the Israelites crossed over "on dry ground."

The Gulf-of-Eilat theory requires that the Israelites covered about 200 miles in what appears from Exodus to be a three-day period. Usually proponents of this route are semantically able to stretch that out to about a week, but still--could an entire nation really cover 30 miles a day, even if that day were prolonged by a massive nightlight overhead?

I found documentation to show that this is basically impossible by natural means--of course if God wanted to, he could have made all the toddlers run 10 miles an hour around the clock, but were that the case, they could have made the trip in only one day!

The Spanish Road was a 16th-century supply line linking the Hapsburg Empire's domains in the Low Countries and Italy. Although sea travel around the Iberian peninsula was faster, the Road was preferred because it ran entirely through territory friendly to the Hapsburgs. Marching soldiers could average 12-15 miles a day along its 1000-km length. And it wasn't darkness that limited them to that--it was the sapping heat of summer, when the days were longest. The fastest trek on record, during the dark month of February, averaged 23 miles a day.

If an army at forced march couldn't top 23 miles a day, even 30 miles a day for an entire nation on the move is supernaturally fast. Fifty to sixty miles in three days over level land, however, is entirely within the realm of possibility. Thus we are forced to accept a Red Sea Passage over the Gulf of Suez.