Direct translation not = Formal Correspondence

Direct translation is not a synonym for formal correspondence. In the last post we observed how the goal of optimal relevance might lead a translator to omit words, phrases or even a clause found in the source text because it increases the processing effort without adding much in the way of cognitive rewards. However, there are risks associated with this kind of recension. The wordy awkward introduction to Apollo’s oracle in Electra may serve a discourse function[1], slowing down the reader/auditor and building up anticipation for what follows. The quote from Apollo is central to the plot of Electra. For this reason it might be justifiable to retain all of  χρῇ … τάχα[2] in the target language. However, the introduction to Apollo’s oracle has already run for three lines, so the damage inflicted by shortening the fourth line might be judged a trivial price to pay in comparison to annoying the reader/auditor with a lot seemingly useless chatter. This illustrates how translation decisions involve weighing arguments from multiple linguistic frameworks.         

Orestes seeks guidance from Apollo part 2

Sophocles Trag., Electra 32-37
When I went to the Pythian
oracle to learn how I might
avenge my father’s murder
Apollo told[1] me:
alone, without weapons or troops
with cunning and stealth
your own hand with justice
will slaughter the guilty.
 
Sophocles Trag., Electra 32-37
Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἡνίχ' ἱκόμην τὸ Πυθικὸν
μαντεῖον, ὡς μάθοιμ' ὅτῳ τρόπῳ πατρὶ
δίκας ἀροίμην τῶν φονευσάντων πάρα,
χρῇ μοι τοιαῦθ' ὁ Φοῖβος ὧν πεύσῃ τάχα·
ἄσκευον αὐτὸν ἀσπίδων τε καὶ στρατοῦ
δόλοισι κλέψαι χειρὸς ἐνδίκους σφαγάς.

[1] Over encoding as a form of discourse marking is discussed by  Longacre, Robert E. 1996. The grammar of discourse. 2nd edition. Topics in Language and Linguistics. New York: Plenum Press.

[2] The introduction to Apollo’s oracle is long and awkward, “Phoebus told me such things as you will quickly learn” χρῇ μοι τοιαῦθ' ὁ Φοῖβος ὧν πεύσῃ τάχα.  Ann Carson and Pound-Fleming reduce it to “Apollo/Phoebus answered.” This significantly reduces the processing effort. The long version is more difficult and doesn’t repay the extra effort. 

Orestes seeks guidance from Apollo

Sophocles Trag., Electra 32-37
When I went to the Pythian
oracle to learn how I might
avenge my father’s murder
Apollo told[1] me:
alone, without weapons or troops
with cunning and stealth
your own hand with justice
will slaughter the guilty.
  

Sophocles Trag., Electra 32-37
Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἡνίχ' ἱκόμην τὸ Πυθικὸν
μαντεῖον, ὡς μάθοιμ' ὅτῳ τρόπῳ πατρὶ
δίκας ἀροίμην τῶν φονευσάντων πάρα,
χρῇ μοι τοιαῦθ' ὁ Φοῖβος ὧν πεύσῃ τάχα·
ἄσκευον αὐτὸν ἀσπίδων τε καὶ στρατοῦ
δόλοισι κλέψαι χειρὸς ἐνδίκους σφαγάς.


[1] The introduction to Apollo’s instructions is long and awkward, “Phoebus told me such things as you will quickly learn” χρῇ μοι τοιαῦθ' ὁ Φοῖβος ὧν πεύσῃ τάχα. J. H. Kells claims that τοιαῦθ' marks a vague and indirect quotation. However, Ann Carson and Pound-Fleming treat it as direct speech and reduce it to “Apollo/Phoebus answered.” This significantly reduces the processing effort. The long version is more difficult and doesn’t repay the extra effort. 

“direct translation” μονογενης θεος, part 3

John 1:18  θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε· ⸂μονογενης θεος⸃ ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο. SBLGNT,   Michael W. Holmes ed.

Looking at how μονογενης θεος in John 1:18 was translated in the last century[1], one option that does not appear is “only child …”.  The word μονογενης is used by Luke for a daughter Luke 8:41 and a son Luke 9:38.

Luke 8:41 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν, καὶ πεσὼν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας [τοῦ] Ἰησοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ,  42 ὅτι θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέθνῃσκεν.

Luke 9:38 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου ἐβόησεν λέγων· διδάσκαλε, δέομαί σου ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν μου, ὅτι μονογενής μοί ἐστιν,

There are good reasons for reading μονογενής as “only son” even when υἱός is not present.  The word μονογενής can be used as a stimulus to trigger the inference “only son” in a co-text where the referent is obviously male. In Heb. 11:17 where μονογενῆ is used in reference to Isaac.

Heb. 11:17 Πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ πειραζόμενος καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν, ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος, 

In light of this we might argue that μονογενὴς in Jn 1:18 should be rendered “only son.” While “only child” is contemporary English, it does not trigger the same inferential associations as μονογενὴς in Jn 1:18. If we accept “only son” as a direct translation, what are we going to do with θεος? The NAB gives a formal correspondence rendering of μονογενης θεος:

John 1:18 … The only Son, God, ...

The avoidance of paraphrase does not in an of itself constitute direct translation. Someone who was working within an ostensive-inferential framework might arrive at the same place but it is how you get there, not where you end up, that matters.[2]

The code model of communication (CMC) can produce results all across the spectrum which is illustrated by the history of the NIV: “God the only Son” NIV1973, 1978, “God the One and Only” NIV1984[3] and “the one and only Son, who is himself God” NIV2011[4]. One might argue that “God the only Son” is an acceptable direct translation. By way of contrast, the NIV2011 is very far into E. A. Nida territory; what we have here is an interpretive comment on the text presented as a translation. However, the rendering  “God the only Son” was not the result of embracing an ostensive-inferential framework, quite the contrary. It was more likely a residual conservatism inherited from the formal correspondence english bible tradition. In regard to the rendering of μονογενης θεος[5] the timeline shows the NIV committee moving away from that tradition and becoming more aligned with the E. A. Nida school of translation.  

[1] M. J. Harris,  “Jesus as God,” pp. 88-92.

[2] “How you get there depends on where you are at.”  Zabriskie Point

[3] My source for the NIV 1973,1979,1984 is M. J. Harris,  “Jesus as God,” pp. 89-90

[4] My source for the NIV2011 is biblegateway.com.

[5] This is analysis of one minute text. I am not making general statements about where the NIV committee was headed.

“direct translation” μονογενης θεος, part 2 (revised)

[revision: I have cleaned up some infelicities in the original post. ]

John 1:18  θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε· ⸂μονογενης θεος⸃ ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο. SBLGNT,   Michael W. Holmes ed.

The question again: What would a “direct translation” (E. A. Gutt et. al) of μονογενης θεος look like in American English as is it used by native speakers in 2011 on the streets of Seattle?

NASB “the only begotten God”
NIV1984 “God the One and Only”

To achieve a “direct translation” I would assume we need to use vocabulary from the target language (TL). I don’t think “only begotten God” qualifies as contemporary American English.  The word “begotten” is archaic. For this reason, I don’t seen how we can call the NASB “the only begotten God” direct translation.

The term μονογενης θεος was not in common use and was probably not a part of the vocabulary of the original audience. The author apparently assumed the term would be transparent for his target audience since the two words used to form the term were both in use. In other words, the somewhat shocking combination of μονογενης with θεος would trigger an inferential process for the audience leading to an adequate comprehension of the authors intent. The term μονογενης θεος appears to be a metaphor where the author assumed the inferential process would lead to a figurative reading by the original audience. Perhaps we are permitted to do the same with our target audience, coin a term out of two common words and employ this new term metaphorically.

Perhaps it is easier to talk about direct translation in terms of what it rules out. I would assume any rendering of μονογενης θεος which attempts to embed in the translated text an explanation however brief of what the term means would not qualify as “direct translation.” In other words an attempt to get a jump on the exegetical process in the target language is ruled out. The Nida-Chomsky waltz: source language surface structure, deep structure propositions, transformation to target language; this is not the method we want to use. NIV1984 “God the One and Only” looks to me like an attempt to explain the meaning of μονογενης θεος. It also unpacks the metaphor, which is something we would like to avoid[1].

To achieve the goals of direct translation the word(s) in the target language need to trigger an inferential process which employs a network of shared meaning within the cognitive framework of the target culture. These words will not bear the burden of explaining what the source text means. The source text didn’t do that for the original audience so a direct translation will not do that either.


[1] On unpacking metaphors see,  David K. H. Gray,. 2006. A study of the influence of new literary critical approaches on translation of the Old Testament with special reference to the story of Isaac's family. M.A., University of Gloucestershire. 80 p.

Kenneth A. McElhanon, From Simple Metaphors to Conceptual Blending: The Mapping of Analogical Concepts and the Praxis of Translation
Journal of Translation, Volume 2, Number 1 (2006)

“direct translation” μονογενης θεος, John 1:18

John 1:18  θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε· ⸂μονογενης θεος⸃ ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο. SBLGNT,   Michael W. Holmes ed.

I was wandering in the wasteland this morning and ran across a post by a pastor-translator taking issue with the NASB’s treatment of John 1:18b. This is a text critical (TC) issue of a complex nature. A very full treatment will be found in “Jesus as God,” M. J. Harris, pp. 73-103. I am going to accept Harris’ decision to read μονογενης θεος. Having dispensed with the TC issue, what would a “direct translation” (E. A. Gutt et. al) of μονογενης θεος look like in American English as is it used by native speakers in 2011 on the streets of Seattle? Two popular versions I found that appear to follow this reading are the NIV1984[1] and NASB:

NASB “the only begotten God”
NIV1984 “God the One and Only”

My question: do either of these constitute a “direct translation”? The question is limited to the expression μονογενης θεος only, not the rest of the verse or the Gospel of John or the entire version. Really, what on earth is a “direct translation” of μονογενης θεος supposed to look like? Answers should be stated in terms of what E. A. Gutt and his colleagues have been saying about “direct translation.”       

[1]Michael W. Holmes’ SBLGNT apparatus indicates that the the text behind the NIV1984 is  μονογενης θεος. The TNIV follows a different text “the one and only Son”

Angels take a meal with Abraham

 Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis[1] points out how Luke makes sure that the post resurrection Jesus has a bite to eat. He claims that this would prove that Jesus was not an angel/spirit according to the popular notion of angels at that time.

Luke 24:41RSV And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them,  “Have you anything here to eat?”  42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,  43 and he took it and ate before them.

Jesus “proves” he is more human than a spirit by having them touch his body and eating some fish before their eyes. The later action relies on the widespread contemporary belief that angels do not eat - or at least they don’t eat ordinary food. [1]

Right in the same context,  Fletcher-Louis compares Luke’s Road to Emmaus pericope to Abraham’s hospitality for the three men at the Oak of the Mamre Gen. 18 which appears to contradict the notion that Angels do not eat.

Gen. 18:8b … and he stood by them under the tree while they ate. 
והוא־עמד עליהם תחת העץ ויאכלו
αὐτὸς δὲ παρειστήκει αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τὸ δένδρον

[1]Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Third Oxford Lecture on the Development of Christology; Narrative Christologies: The Transfiguration and Post-Resurrection Stories

liberating the translator …

Anyone who doesn’t think the doctrine of scripture is undergoing major revision should take a close look at what one bible translation [super]-consultant[1] is saying:

… freeing translators from the conceptual shackles imposed by the twin legacies of an Aristotelian philosophy of language and an enlightenment era rationality frees them from being slavishly bound to the wording of the SL text.[2][3]

I am sure there will be much rejoicing in heaven over the liberation of translators from being slavishly bound to the wording of the biblical text.

[1] Kenneth McElhanon was graduated with a B.A. from Wheaton College (IL) in 1961 with two majors: anthropology and Greek. By 1970 he had completed seven years in Papua New Guinea with SIL and was graduated with a Ph.D. in linguistics from the Australian National University. From 1971 to 1986 he served in various consultative and administrative roles in SIL/PNG. After he and his wife completed a translation project for the Selepet people (PNG) in 1986, he joined the faculty of the E. Stanley Jones School of World Mission and Evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary (KY). Since 1991 he has taught in the TXSIL, and its successor, the GIAL. He currently serves as an SIL International Anthropology consultant.

[2] SL text: source language text, in this case I am assuming the referent is the protestant bible, ideally the greek NT and Hebrew OT, but more realistically a translation since the translator is normally a native speaker of the target language often not proficient in biblical languages.

[3] Kenneth A. McElhanon, When Quality Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Paradigm communities and the certification of standards for judging quality, Journal of Translation, Volume 3, Number 1 (2007) 25

Apollo sends Oerstes on a special op

Sophocles Electra 32-41

In Orestes opening speech, he tells Paedagogus how he approached the shrine of Apollo seeking guidance on how to avenge the murder of his father Agamemnon. Apollo tells him not to mount an invasion force with battle ships, carriers and cruise missiles, but to go in under the radar and gain entrance by stealth into the presence of his enemies and carry out the bloody deed of justice with his own hand. Now Orestes is sending Paedagogus ahead to gather intelligence; to gain an entrance into the royal compound by what ever means necessary to learn the patterns of daily life and to return with a detailed report.

This in a rough manner, conveys the “meaning” of the original. It is not a translation.

implicit possessives made explicit John 8:38

In the previous posts we have been looking at pronouns used to make implicit information in the  source text explicit in the target language. In John 8:38 we see possessive personal pronouns attached both in translation and in textual variants.

John 8:38 CEB[1] I’m telling you what I’ve seen when I am with the Father, but you are doing what you’ve heard from your father.”

John 8:38 ESV “I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

NA27 John 8:38 ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῶ· καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε.

SBLGNT[2] ⸂α εγω⸃ εωρακα παρα τῳ ⸀πατρι λαλω· και υμεις ουν ⸂α ηκουσατε⸃ παρα ⸂του πατρος⸃ ποιειτε.

α εγω WH Treg NIV ] Εγω ο RP
πατρι WH Treg NIV ] + μου RP
α ηκουσατε WH Treg NIV ] ο εωρακατε RP
του πατρος WH Treg NA ] + υμων NIV; τῳ πατρι υμων RP

RP[3]  εγω ο εωρακα παρα τω πατρι μου λαλω και υμεις ουν ο εωρακατε παρα τω πατρι υμων ποιειτε

The attachment of μου after πατρος/πατρι is also found in Sinaiticus and Beza reads τῳ πατρι υμων ταυτα. Metzger[4] argues that the longer readings can be explained by the need to clarify the referent of πατρος/πατρι. The shortest readings leave some ambiguity about who is intended, but this ambiguity is a significant feature of the John’s story development. Without the ambiguity the tension is resolved before the drama reaches a climax. The scribal clarifications could result in flattening the story and making it dull. It is difficult to say if the possessive pronouns in the english versions are a text critical decision or a translation decision. Following the shortest text word for word in english probably isn't a viable translation option and the ambiguity isn’t totally removed by the possessives.

[1] Common English Bible (CEB), Copyright © 2011 by Common English Bible

[2] SBLGNT with aparatus Michael W. Holmes ed.

[3] RP The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Textform 2005. Compiled and Arranged by. Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont.

[4] Bruce M. Metzger - A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971.

[our] fathers Hebrews 1:1

“to [our] fathers” Hebrews 1:1 p12vid., p46c, a few minuscules(?), Latin, Syriac versions 

Heb. 1:1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν [ὑμῶν] ἐν τοῖς προφήταις  2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ …

A while back, Peter M. Head posted on ETC a brief description of a variant reading in Hebrews 1:1; the genitive plural pronoun τοῖς πατράσιν [ὑμῶν]. If you look at the images Peter provides you will see that the p12 reading requires a fertile imagination to find [ὑμῶν] in the photograph. On the other hand the correction in p46c is clear and obvious.

The evidence supporting [ὑμῶν] from the versions may be an example of a translation making inferential information explicit. On the other hand,  P. J. Williams[1] notes the Syriac witnesses tendency to add a possessive pronoun. He suggests that the possessive pronoun substitutes for a definite article in Syriac.[2] 

P.J. Williams said...
When given the choice the Syriac witnesses often prefer to have 'our' with 'fathers', e.g. Acts 13:32; 22:3; 2 Peter 3:4. The latter case being particularly surprising because 2 Peter is not part of the original Peshitta, and therefore is generally thought to be a more 'literal' translation. The phenomenon of the addition of possessives to relational words (which I have written about somewhere in my Early Syriac Translation Technique) may be connected with the lack of a definite article in Syriac and may form one of the various ways that Syriac highlights definiteness. At any rate, though on balance I think that the Peshitta supports the pronoun in Hebrews 1:1 and in Acts 13:32, I wouldn't like to say that it certainly supports the pronoun in either case.

The use of a possessive pronoun to mark definiteness isn’t limited to versions in languages that lack the definite article. Hebrews 1:1[2] ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ … is rendered in some english versions “in [his] son” or “by [his] son”, where [his] adds definiteness without the additional potential implications of  “in [a] son” where “a” might suggest one of many.  

Changing the subject a little, note the semantic connection between “God spoke τοῖς πατράσιν  [ὑμῶν]” and “He spoke ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ,” where τοῖς πατράσιν [ὑμῶν] and ἐν υἱῷ open a scenario of fatherhood, sonship and also patriarchal lineage, τοῖς πατράσιν [ὑμῶν] the patriarchs. This important ancient cultural scenario title/keyword τοῖς πατράσιν is lost in the androgynous versions “God spoke to our ancestors” (NIV2011, etc).  Translations which intentionally avoid patriarchal inference distort the ostensive-inferential process by blocking an inference which was an essential component in the cognitive universe of the original intended audience.         


[1]  see the comments following  Peter M. Head’s post.

anarthrous “son” in Hebrews 1:2 part two

Heb. 1:1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις  2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

Timothy Dwight[1] calls attention to the difficulty presented by ἐν υἱῷ for english translators. He claims there really isn’t an equivalent english idiom. The preposition ἐν is semantically ambiguous which is goodness according to the ostensive-inferential language model. The english translator may be forced to decide between options like “in [a/his] son” or “by [a/his] son”.  The search for an english expression should not be confused with semantic analysis of hellenistic greek. The meaning of the greek text is not constrained by the semantic structure of the english language. If your reading from the greek text, the ambiguity in the original isn’t a problem that needs to be solved. However, the english translator will probably struggle with the target language idiom.

The ostensive-inferential approach to translation advocates retaining the source text ambiguity in the target language text, however, the choice between reading ἐν υἱῷ  “in [a/his] son” or “by [a/his] son” will unavoidably constrain and distort the original. The other option is to paraphrase “[in/by] one who is [a/his] son” which moves away from the principles of direct translation.

If we supply an english indefinite article “a son” we activate an english language scenario which suggests the possibility of multiple persons who posses the status “son” in relationship to ὁ θεὸς. This is a distortion, since υἱῷ was definite hearer old information[2] for the intended audience. The anarthrous[3] υἱῷ “is marked salient as a key theme of the whole letter” R. A. Hoyle [4]. The english translation should indicate that υἱῷ is definite and salient. The indefinite article “a son” is not marked salient and is not definite. Supplying a possessive pronoun “his son” makes explicit a semantic feature (possession) which is inferential in the original. The paraphrase “one who is a son” is rhetorically weak, not marked salient and not definite.   

[1] Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Epistle to Hebrews by Gottlieb Lunnemann, … Notes on the American Edition by Timothy Dwight, Professor of Sacred Literature at Yale College.

[2]  Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation, SIL 2008, p.735. H. Alford and B. F. Westcott agree that the lack of the article draws attention to ἐν υἱῷ by contrast to the articular ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.  

[3] anarthrous, without an article

[4]  R. A. Hoyle 2008:735.

Edith Sitwell on Design

Reading the autobiography of Edith Sitwell, ran across this captured thought from her childhood. I typed a few words into google and found this, posted it before looking at the book.

Seeing the immense design of the world, one image of wonder mirrored by another image of wonder – the pattern of fern and of feather echoed by the frost of the windowpane, the six rays of the snowflake mirrored by the rock crystal’s six-rayed eternity – I ask myself: Were those shapes moulded by blindness? Who, then, shall teach me doubt?
      — Edith Sitwell
                                     

Then I glanced at the page and noticed there were several points where the text differed. So I typed the missing text from the book. On close inspection, I discovered a dozen or more minor discrepancies. I made about seven passes through the text, reading forwards, backwards, each phrase, clause, sentence and with each pass turned up more variants. Apparently this text was published in more than one form.

Ever since my earliest childhood, seeing the immense design of the world, one image of wonder mirrored by another image of wonder — the pattern of fur and feather by the frost on the windowpane, the six rays of the snowflake mirrored in the rock-crystal’s six-rayed eternity—seeing the pattern on the scaly legs of birds mirrored in the pattern of knot-grass,  I ask myself, were those shapes moulded by blindness?
        — Edith Sitwell, Taken Care Of  p. 40

anarthrous[1] “son” in Hebrews 1:2

Heb. 1:1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις  2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

You will find several explanations in the literature for the lack of an article with υἱῷ, with one that struct me initially as quite plausible: This is the first mention of the “son” in Hebrews, therefore  it is new information. This explanation presupposes a code model of communication. It looks at the cotext[2] and determines that υἱὸς is unknown to the intended audience at at Heb. 1:2 since it is the first appearance of the lexeme.  

Adopting an ostensive-inferential language model changes the picture. R.A. Hoyle argues that υἱῷ is discourse new but hearer old because the author assumes his audience will be able to uniquely identify the referent of υἱῷ the first time it is mentioned. Think of a pastor launching his sermon with the statement  ὁ θεὸς … ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ. Hoyle[3] explains:

Hebrews begins without a typical letter opening. The letter’s theme is marked by the anarthrous use of “son” in Hebrews 1:2:

ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ

in last of-the days these He-spoke to-us in Son

Given the context of a letter to Jewish Christians, “son” here is clearly intended to have the “Hearer-old” reference to God’s Son, Jesus Christ, so in unmarked use the article would be expected. Lack of the article then is statistically unusual and hence salient.

The word “son” at first sight appears to be contrasted with “the prophets” in 1:1, but whereas the prophets are not a key theme in Hebrews (hence have the article marking Hearer-old and appear in a Participial clause), the son is marked salient as a key theme of the whole letter. The thematic salience of “the Son” at the highest Discourse level, the whole letter, is clearly justified from the wider context, e.g. “son” occurs 21 times in Hebrews, of which 12 (13 including 2:6 as exegeted by the writer of Hebrews) refer to Jesus. (Only the Gospels and 1 John have more occurrences). Also the Son is contrasted explicitly with angels (1:2–2:18), with Moses (3:1–4:13, especially 3:6), and with high priests (3:14–10:39, especially 7:28 and 10:29). Moreover, Jesus, to whom the son in 1:1 refers is also clearly thematic at TEXT level, e.g. 2:9, 3:1, 4:14, 6:20, 10:19, 13:20–21, etc. — Richard A. Hoyle
    

[1] anarthrous, without an article

[2]Cotext refers to the surrounding text in the document under consideration. Context refers to the total cognitive universe of the author and his assumptions about the cognitive universe of his audience.

[3]  Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation, SIL 2008, p.735.

making the implicit explicit: Hebrews 1:2a [revised]

Heb. 1:1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις  2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

Formal correspondence (FC) english translations will on occasion make what is implicit in the greek text explicit in the translation. This procedure makes the translation more specific, narrows it and shuts down the inferential process. For example in Hebrews 1:2a ἐν υἱῷ is translated by several FC versions “his son.” The author of Hebrews was a master craftsman, using language as an art form. If the author wanted to write “his son” that is how the text would read.


The comparison is drawn between two modes of speaking. God spoke in times past  ἐν τοῖς προφήταις and in the last days ἐν υἱῷ, therefore rendering υἱῷ … “his son” does more than over specify the reference, it also subtly changes the focus from the mode of speaking to the identity of the person. The author assumed his audience already knew the referent of υἱῷ.     

Furthermore, we don’t see any explicit indication in the text that τοῖς πατράσιν refers to the Hebrew patriarchs, but the original audience as conceptualized by the author would have known. Once again, no explicit indication that τοῖς προφήταις refers to God’s prophets. The author assumed the original audience knew what prophets he was talking about. It would be pedantic and blunt the force of the rhetoric to over encode reference to the fathers and the prophets. Rendering υἱῷ “his son” might relieve anxiety caused by the lack of the article, since the rendering “a son” might imply multiple sons in english but not in greek. A wrong inference is an inevitable risk associated with translation.

Because communication involves inference, it is risky business. And Bible translators tend to be very risk-averse. Douglas Robinson (1996:xvi) wrote about “a collectivized anxiety about sacred texts that has survived massive demystificatory assaults and has generated through the centuries an astonishing variety of avoidance behaviors that can best be explained, it seems to me, through the notion of taboo.” Translators need to overcome this anxiety because—by playing it safe, by pre-empting the hearer’s responsibility— they are likely to produce a translation that is tedious and distasteful, one that fails just as miserably as one that leaves too much responsibility to the hearer.
      — David J. Weber [1]   

In keeping with the ostensive inferential understanding of communication, the interpretive resemblance of the translation is sacrificed when implicitures in the source text are made explicit in the target language. 


[1] David J. Weber A Tale of Two Translation Theories Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 2 (2005), page 57.

“direct translation” of Orestes’ opening lines

If we reject the functional equivalence framework in favor of “direct translation”, what does that mean? What is a “direct translation” of Orestes’ opening lines going to look like?  I am not sure what direct translation of Attic Tragedy would look like. After a decade of reading numerous monographs on translation using an ostensive-inferential language model the implications for actual translation are not particularly obvious.  


{ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ} 23
Ὦ φίλτατ' ἀνδρῶν προσπόλων, ὥς μοι σαφῆ
σημεῖα φαίνεις ἐσθλὸς εἰς ἡμᾶς γεγώς·

Most faithful friend,
your loyalty is clear
your deeds prove it.   


The first casualty is word order. An attempt to mirror the surface structure would result in gibberish. But a lot more has changed here than simply word order. Nothing is said about Paedagogus being a servant προσπόλων. Two concepts φίλτατ' (most honored friend) and ἐσθλὸς (faithful) are blended somewhat. The recipients of the faithful service,  which are explicit in greek εἰς ἡμᾶς (to us), are left implicit in english. The notion that Paedagogus’ deeds prove his loyalty is imported. The text says μοι σαφῆ σημεῖα φαίνεις you made known to us [your loyalty] by a clear sign. [Not sure what to do with μοι for/to me and εἰς ἡμᾶς to us.]  

This translation doesn’t include urban street language idioms, however the wording is simple and direct and should be intelligible to people who learned english after childhood.

This translation provides no clues that culture background information is required. A foot note after “Most faithful friend” could explain the relationship between Paedagogus and Orestes.

another brother taken down ...

Last night 5/9/11 after eleven thirty I got a call from my friend and street culture consultant BMW, he had just been told via the social network that a "minster" he new from his youth at Tabernacle Baptist had been arrested for conduct both unbecoming and unlawful. By morning the story of Timothy Dampier was all over the local news.

My friend BMW wanted to know what "the church" should do about this? I thought about while I was out walking today. I talked to a Seattle cop about it. The man confessed to the police, not the standard formula.  

later this evening I sent a reply

church should forgive him
he should clean up his act
jail time will not make him a better person.

I suspect he will probably die in prison.
the inmates don't like folks who mess with kids 

Actually I have no idea what the inmates like or don't like, just rumors I have heard and most of them old, very dated. I remember Perry Smith, the man who blew away four members of Clutter Family with a 12 gauge in Nov 1959. Perry didn't like people who mess with kids. It was something that bothered him about his partner Richard Eugene Hickock.

Fuller's criteria for approving Common English Bible

from the The Christian Post:

 One of the major draws for the CEB was its gender-inclusive language, according to members of the Bible translation committee at Fuller.

 "We wanted something that was an academically excellent translation from Greek and Hebrew, and one that reflected our strong position regarding women in leadership," Dr. Joel B. Green, professor of New Testament Interpretation and one of the committee members for Bible translations at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., told The Christian Post.

— no comment

Orestes to Paedagogus: “old man”

The first two lines of Orestes’ opening speech are addressed to Paedagogus, the house servant who took care of Orestes while Agamemnon was at war and  during Orestes’ exile. The target audience for this translation would not have grown up with a servant to take care of them. What we have here is an expression of affection and respect from a young man, son of the supreme commander and king of kings over the Greek forces at Troy, directed toward a social inferior. We need to keep in mind that Orestes is a prince from a royal family and not just any royal family but the only son of Agamemnon.  This speech is given from a young prince to his servant. Not exactly the same setup as an urban African American[1] young man talking to the grandmother who took care of him as a child.

{ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ}  lines 23-24

Ὦ φίλτατ' ἀνδρῶν προσπόλων, ὥς μοι σαφῆ
σημεῖα φαίνεις ἐσθλὸς εἰς ἡμᾶς γεγώς·

Ὦ φίλτατ' ἀνδρῶν προσπόλων
literally[2] “O most revered of [all] man servants”

φίλτατος is the superlative of φίλος, a common adjective for close friendship and not necessarily friendship between social equals. This is a difficult cross cultural problem since the affection between a young man and an old man in the urban street culture is a very complex issue laden with all sorts of ambiguities. Anne Carson’s rendering is simple but probably going to create misunderstanding for our audience.  

I love you, old man.  Anne Carson, “An Oresteia.”

The words “old man” used by a young man can refer to a father, but not typically someone who nurtured and protected you as a child. In street language “old man” as a term of derision has been largely replaced by “sir” which is laden with irony. However the residual negative connotations attached to “old man” are probably still active. It is likely to be understood as an insult and almost never conveys any sense of respect. For that reason “old man” would be unsuitable. The expression “old friend” is perhaps less troublesome but neither is it an ideal solution. I suspect that an expression equivalent to Orestes opening words are probably not available from contemporary urban street idioms. 

The expression “I love you” in the contemporary street culture is almost completely  meaningless and should be avoided, particularly in words from a prince to an old man servant. It conveys numerous meanings none of which are suitable for this context.

So far this discussion has focused on cross cultural equivalence in an attempt to find a functionally equivalent expression for the target language group. The unspoken frame work is functional equivalence (FE). We have been trying to find a street english expression which will make sense of  Ὦ φίλτατ' ἀνδρῶν προσπόλων within the target language culture. We are assuming that this is possible. This is one of the basic assumptions of FE. 

 ... Eugene Nida, whose publications in the 1960s proved to be a major turning point for Bible translation theory. ...  He based his theory on the prevailing code-model of communication. In so doing he made two fundamental assumptions: (a) any message can be communicated to any audience in any language provided that the most effective form of expression is found; (b) humans share a core of universal experience which makes such communication possible. [3]

This approach has problems:

“Since coding-decoding processes are only part of the communication act, any attempt to convey the entire message of the Bible by means of linguistic coding is doomed to failure. This … is the fundamental weakness of functional equivalence.”[4]     

... more on this later.

[1]African Cherokee  Seminole  Choctaw

[2] this literal glossing is not intended as any sort of translation, it is provided to help the reader and keep her from having to look up the greek words in a lexicon. 

[3] Kevin Gary Smith Bible Translation and Relevance Theory - The Translation of Titus a Dissertation Submitted for the degree of Doctor Litterarum at the University of Stellenbosch (South Africa) December 2000, page 11.

[4] ibid, page 38.

cross culture issues: Sophocles Electra

In the opening scene of Electra we run into a problem, what to do with the role of Paedagogus who opens the play with a speech to Orestes. The word Paedagogus at one time referred to a house servant who took a boy from home to school and brought him back again. In the case of Orestes, Electra handed her brother over to Paedagogus to take him away and protect him after the murder of Orestes’ father Agamemnon the king. Agamemnon was away at war for a decade and then came home and was murdered, so Orestes didn’t know his father. The absent father scenario should be intelligible to our target audience, but the servant-tutor would probably correspond to a grandmother or aunt.

The scenario of Kings and Kings’ sons is not foreign to our audience which is exposed to regal fantasy by Hollywood and fantasy novels. So perhaps we can just leave the story as it is, a kings’ son who is a stranger to his father, seeking revenge for his father’s murder with aid of his tutor-mentor Paedagogus and his sister Electra. Calling Paedagogus “old man” our “tutor” would cause cross culture confusion, better off to stick with the Greek name. The contemporary fantasy genre is filled with exotic names. A footnote could explain his relationship to Orestes.

God has a Son: Hebrews 1:1-4

We just demonstrated that, according to an alternate reading of Titus 2:13b[1], Jesus Christ is exalted and shares the glory of [our] great God ῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ. Now we will look at Hebrews 1:1-4:

Heb. 1:1 RSV In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;  2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.  3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,  4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

Heb. 1:1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις  2 ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·  3 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,  4 τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ᾿ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα.

The author of Hebrews, similar to John’s gospel, launches his treatise with a magnificent affirmation of orthodox[2] christology. The new manner in which God speaks is different in kind from the revelation πάλαι of old τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις to [our] fathers by the prophets. The agent of this revelation is God’s Son ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ.

In Heb 1:3a the Son both shares in and manifests τῆς δόξης … αὐτοῦ  the glory of God. Here we see a more detailed exposition of the christology of God's glory than we found in the alternate reading of Titus 2:13b[1]. John's prolog also contributes: John 1:14b ... καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. John 1:14  ... and we gazed upon his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.
 

[1] θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος have separate referents, God the Father and Jesus Christ. 

[2] orthodox is not anachronistic, in “Lord Jesus Christ,” L. W. Hurtado pushes back the date on exalted christology earlier than Hebrews.

learning the idiom: Interracial Living Common English Street Language

To translate any text into a living language one needs to be a native speaker of that living language. Any project undertaken to produce a translation by a non-native speaker of the target language is doomed from the start. This is why I am undertaking this Sophocles' Electra project with a native speaker as a co-worker.

I received a call last night from my language consultant, just after midnight, during which a significant percentage of the verbal content was comprised of a verb, participle, adjective, all formed on the same root.  Paul Simon (Simon & Garfunkel) wrote a song about this word:

A Poem On The Underground Wall — Paul Simon

The last train is nearly due,
The underground is closing soon,
And in the dark deserted station,
Restless in anticipation,
A man waits in the shadows.

His restless eyes leap and scratch,
At all that they can touch or catch,
And hidden deep within his pocket,
Safe within its silent socket,
He holds a colored crayon.

Now from the tunnel's stony womb,
The carriage rides to meet the groom,
And opens wide and welcome doors,
But he hesitates, then withdraws
Deeper in the shadows.

And the train is gone suddenly
On wheels clicking silently
Like a gently tapping litany,
And he holds his crayon rosary
Tighter in his hand.

Now from his pocket quick he flashes,
The crayon on the wall he slashes,
Deep upon the advertising,
A single worded poem comprised
Of four letters.

And his heart is laughing, screaming, pounding
The poem across the tracks rebounding
Shadowed by the exit light
His legs take their ascending flight
To seek the breast of darkness and be suckled by the night

Copyright:  Paul Simon

This presents a translation difficulty, since the word in question plays an indispensable role in the "heart language" of urban interracial street culture. Any translation aimed at this language group would be considered inauthentic without this word. 

God is Great, Jesus is Great. revisited

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

In the manifestation of divine glory ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης, Jesus shares in the diving glory even if μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος are not coreferential. If we read μεγάλου θεοῦ as a reference to God the Father and both θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος as qualifying τῆς δόξης, we see Jesus Christ sharing in and manifesting the glory that belongs to God (cf. John 17). In other words, Jesus glory is the glory of the Great God τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ. Jesus Christ is exalted by reading τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ as a reference to God the Father. 

If this interpretation is adopted, then the point is that the glory of two persons (God and Christ) is made manifest through the appearing of one person (Christ). What is often not recognized is that this interpretation affirms the deity of Christ because δόξα refers to the divine nature. If this view is adopted, it would be expressed as the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Repeating glory would be even clearer, hence the appearing of the glory of the great God and the glory of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. [1]

[1] Bible translation and relevance theory: the translation of Titus, Kevin Gary Smith,  University of Stellenbosch , 2000, page 179.

The Electra of Sophocles: Today’s New Interracial Living Common English Street Language Version S.El-TNILCESLV

This is an announcement of a new series coming up on alternate readings. In keeping with the pressing need to make The Electra of Sophocles intelligible within the context of west-coast urban multiracial ethnic ambiguity and the current vernacular of the street, I am undertaking an update to the Ezra Pound — Rudd Fleming translation of The Electra of Sophocles, which was produced while Pound was under indictment for treason and a resident at  St. Elizabeth's Hospital for the criminally insane in Washington D.C.

While Pound was working on Electra I was living on the border of Oxon Hill Farm which was operated by patients from St. Elizabeth's Hospital. I used to take walks with our beagle in the hardwood forest that covered most of the farm. For this and other reasons I feel like Pound was a part of my life. He certainly had a significant impact on the poets and authors I have been reading for half a century. 

I have been working in the text of Sophocles’ Electra for several years. I will be working in conjunction with a 20-something multiracial[1] street language consultant who recently spent sixty days in King County Jail doing research on the local idiom.

[1]African Cherokee  Seminole  Choctaw

Greek Article, scenarios Acts 15:22-26

A single article with two nouns/substantives joins them into a single scenario. This is illustrated more than once in Acts 15:22-26:

Acts 15:22   Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,  23 with the following letter:  “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting.  24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,  25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,  26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

22 Τότε ἔδοξε τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις σὺν ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμψαι εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν σὺν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ, Ἰούδαν τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν καὶ Σιλᾶν, ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς,  23 γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν· Οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν χαίρειν.  24 Ἐπειδὴ ἠκούσαμεν ὅτι τινὲς ἐξ ἡμῶν [ἐξελθόντες] ἐτάραξαν ὑμᾶς λόγοις ἀνασκευάζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν οἷς οὐ διεστειλάμεθα,  25 ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν γενομένοις ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐκλεξαμένοις ἄνδρας πέμψαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς σὺν τοῖς ἀγαπητοῖς ἡμῶν Βαρναβᾷ καὶ Παύλῳ,  26 ἀνθρώποις παραδεδωκόσι τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Two groups of church leaders are mentioned in v22 and both are given an article τοῖς ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις. The ἀπόστολοι and the πρεσβύτεροι are portrayed here as opening distinct scenarios, probably because the ἀπόστολοι had higher level of authority and a different function within the church. In verse 23 this pattern is repeated Οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοὶ, they are all brethren but the groups as distinguished. But the addressees that follow are all joined together under one article τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν ἀδελφοῖς, these brethren are from various places but are considered here as one group, without distinctions.   

In verse 22 Paul and Barnabas are joined under a single article τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ indicating that for the purpose of this narrative their ministry invokes a single scenario. When they are named again in verse 25 they are included in the construction σὺν τοῖς ἀγαπητοῖς ἡμῶν Βαρναβᾷ καὶ Παύλῳ where τοῖς appears to govern the entire construction.  A similar pattern from Eusebius:

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica
Book 7, chapter 5, section 6, line 2

καὶ μεθ' ἕτερά φησιν.
 »καὶ τοῖς ἀγαπητοῖς δὲ ἡμῶν καὶ συμπρεσβυτέροις Διονυσίῳ καὶ Φιλήμονι, συμψήφοις πρότερον Στεφάνῳ γενομένοις καὶ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν μοι γράφουσιν, πρότερον μὲν ὀλίγα, καὶ νῦν δὲ διὰ πλειόνων ἐπέστειλα».      

I am somewhat uncertain about how to analyze this in terms of scenarios. I would suggest that this opens a single scenario, the unified scenario is indicated by the attributives ἀγαπητοῖς and συμπρεσβυτέροις. The pattern: plural-dative-article plural-dative-adjective proper-name (noun dative singular) καὶ proper-name (noun dative singular) is not difficult to read but the presence/absence of the article with the proper names is dictated by the syntax of attributive adjectival constructions. Making one or both of the proper-names articular changes the syntax of the adjective noun construction. So we cannot treat the proper-names in this construction as we would in τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ in verse 22.

The two men sent in verse 22 were Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas. They were both “leading men among the brethren” but no article appears so we should not assume that they were considered somehow as a team like Paul and Barnabas.

appellative words — Timothy Dwight on Titus 2:13

Timothy Dwight[1], the late Professor of Sacred Literature at Yale College has something to offer in regard the τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος in Titus 2:13.

the text again, always the text.

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Timothy Dwight, without any mention of Granville Sharp, in his notes on the American Edition of J. E. Huther’s commentary[1] on the pastoral epistles, adds a different twist to what we might call “the rule”[2]. Dwight observes that “both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος are, in themselves and originally, appellative words” and cites “the general rule that where two appellative words are united by καὶ under a common article, they belong to one subject”. If we read θεοῦ and σωτῆρος as appellative words we would not expect them to have referents of their own. They would be associated with a substantive and the referent of that substantive. This is a yet another constraint on “the rule”[2], the words joined by καὶ under a common article are appellative words.  

[1] Critical and exegetical hand-book to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus by Joh. Ed. Huther, … Notes on the American Edition by Timothy Dwight, Professor of Sacred Literature at Yale College, pp. 307-308.

[2] It is best to avoid calling this the “Granville Sharp rule” since this leads to endless discussions about an historical issue “what was/were the Granville Sharp rule[s]”, a question which is completely outside the scope of the language and exegesis of Titus 2:13. The ongoing work of Greg Stafford, Ph.D, in occasional conversation with D. B.Wallace Ph.D (Prof. at DTS), in regard to establishing the historical Granville Sharp and his rules, certainly makes entertaining reading. If Dr. Stafford wants to send me a copy of his books I promise to review them. I have already read most of Dr. Wallace and my views on his 1996 grammar are well documented on b-greek from 1996-2002. Interestingly enough, the heavy weights on b-greek have for the most part come around to agreeing with the substance of my Wallace critique, but it took them nearly a decade.

God is Great, Jesus is Great.

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

The pattern, article substantive καὶ substantive, opens up a single scenario for both substantives. The most context specific scenario in Titus 2:13 is the manifestation of divine glory ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης. Jesus shares in the diving glory even if μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος are not coreferential. If we read μεγάλου θεοῦ as a reference to God the Father and both θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος as qualifying (dependent upon) τῆς δόξης[1], we see Jesus Christ sharing in and manifesting the glory that belongs to God (cf. John 17). In other words, Jesus glory is the glory of the Great God τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ. There is no demotion of Jesus Christ involved in reading τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ in reference to God the Father. Never the less, I still consider μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος coreferential.   

Larry W. Hurtado[2] notes how in the Pastorals both Jesus and God the Father are called σωτὴρ and in several contexts God the Father and Jesus are both referenced by σωτὴρ in close proximity: 

Titus 1:3 ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι, ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,  4 Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν, χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν.

Titus 2:11 Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις  12 παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι,  13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Titus 3:4 ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,  5 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου,  6 οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν,

In the historical context of the Pastorals σωτὴρ and ἐπιφάνεια/ἐπιφάινω (Titus 2:11-13)  invoke a scenario of divinity[3] where Jesus Christ is a member of the same scenario and not only shares the epithet σωτὴρ with θεοῦ σωτήριος he is the manifestation of θεοῦ σωτήριος:

2Tim. 1:10 φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου    

[1] Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, pp. 176

[2] Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003 pp. 515-517.

[3] Hurtado 2003:516

God is Great. What about Jesus?

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Henry Alford and J. E. Huther[1]  both consider God the Father to be the referent of μεγάλου θεοῦ in Titus 2:13. Alford asks the expositor to consider all the places in the NT and particularly the Pastorals where  [ὁ] θεὸς is joined with  [ὁ] σωτήρ and based on patterns of reference (i.e., the referent of σωτήρ) to consider the probability that both θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος would be applied to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in a single clause. Alford doesn't consider it very probable. 

Luke 1:47 καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου,

1Tim. 1:1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν

1Tim. 2:3 τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,

1Tim. 4:10 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα, ὅτι ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ θεῷ ζῶντι, ὅς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα πιστῶν.

Titus 1:3 ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι, ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,

Titus 2:10 μὴ νοσφιζομένους, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν, ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν.

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Titus 3:4 ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,

2Pet. 1:1 Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Jude 25 μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

The data from the Pastorals is particularly daunting for those of us who consider Jesus Christ the referent of  μεγάλου θεοῦ in Titus 2:13. The referent of τοῦ θεοῦ in 2Pet. 1:1 is just controversial as Titus 2:13 but Jude 25 is no contest, since διὰ grammatically subordinates Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In other words, the only support we find in the NT for joining both θεοῦ and σωτῆρος to Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is  2Pet. 1:1 which is not going to convince the likes of Alford or Huther.

greek article & scenarios John 20:28, Rev 2:26

It two previous posts here and here, we looked at the pattern: article noun καὶ noun, arguing that the two nouns were not necessarily coreferential but they did open up a single scenario. In this post we will look at the pattern where the article is repeated.

John 20:28 ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου. 

In a pattern:  article noun καὶ article noun, where the article is repeated with the second noun, the two nouns may be coreferential but they do not necessarily open up a single scenario. In the case of John 20:28 we know the two nouns are coreferential because they are introduced with a a standard verbal reply formula: ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ  with a singular dative pronoun αὐτῷ indicating the addressee. R. A. Hoyle’s analysis:

… both terms clearly refer to the same individual, Jesus. The article before θεός argues against Thomas’s words being a simple doublet, as does the repetition of μου. Either, then, Thomas identifies Jesus with two separate concepts, my Lord (whom I obey) and my God (whom I worship), or this is, like Revelation 2:26, a restatement “My Lord, that is to say my God”. I argue that the repetition of the article shows that it cannot be a doublet, two words referring to the same scenario, “my (Lord and God)”.     — R. A. Hoyle [1]

The scenario referenced by  ὁ κύριός μου is probably not the same as the scenario referenced by ὁ θεός μου. This does not keep the two noun phrases from being coreferential. We find another illustration in Revelation 2:26.

Rev. 2:26 Καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν 

In this example, the referent is a type of person, not a specific historical individual. Once again the use of the singular dative pronoun δώσω αὐτῷ indicates that the two participles ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν are coreferential. However, the two participles do not appear to open up the same scenario. ὁ νικῶν invokes a combat metaphor, engaging in spiritual warfare and prevailing against the enemy. ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου invokes an obedience scenario.  



[1]  Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation, SIL 2008, p.236.

greek article & scenairos

In Deut 14:7 LXX we see an illustration of the principle presented in the last post: scenarios & ambiguity in Titus 2:13.

Deut. 14:7 καὶ ταῦτα οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγόντων μηρυκισμὸν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν διχηλούντων τὰς ὁπλὰς καὶ ὀνυχιζόντων ὀνυχιστῆρας τὸν κάμηλον καὶ δασύποδα καὶ χοιρογρύλλιον ὅτι ἀνάγουσιν μηρυκισμὸν καὶ ὁπλὴν οὐ διχηλοῦσιν ἀκάθαρτα ταῦτα ὑμῖν ἐστιν

Deut. 14:7 Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger [rabbit lxx LEH], because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you. RSV

Deut. 14:7 And these you shall not eat of those that regurgitate the cud and of those dividing the hoofs and making distinct claws: the camel and hare and coney, because these regurgitate the cud but do not divide the hoof; these are unclean for you.  NETS  tr. Melvin K. H. Peters 

Here we see an example of a single article τὸν joining three nouns that make up a list of unclean animals: τὸν κάμηλον καὶ δασύποδα καὶ χοιρογρύλλιον. The nouns are not coreferential (three different types of animals) but they all belong the same scenario of unclean animals ἀκάθαρτα ταῦτα ὑμῖν ἐστιν “these are unclean for you”.  

Note that the RSV “the camel, the hare, and the rock badger” follows the MT which has an article with each noun:

את־הגמל ואת־הארנבת ואת־השפן

 

scenarios & ambiguity in Titus 2:13

Titus 2:13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

“conjoined nouns with a single article always opens up a single scenario which includes both concepts.” [1]

This construction  τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is ambiguous. For the sake of high Christology, we the orthodox would like to know for certain if μεγάλου θεοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are coreferential. But certainty is probably an unrealistic goal.  Murray J. Harris[2]   did a very fine job of exploring the exegetical options. R. A. Hoyle brings a different framework to bear on the question. Hoyle and Harris reach similar conclusions traveling somewhat different roads. Neither have claimed anything approaching certainty. 

… in the more theologically weighted verses, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, where there is a single article for both “God” and “Saviour Jesus Christ”, we must apply the same principle that these conjoined items refer to a single scenario.

… the parallel construction in Titus 2:13 τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘of the great God and Saviour of us Jesus Christ’, and 2 Peter 1:1 τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘of the God of us and Saviour Jesus Christ’ also refers to a single scenario, and the conjoined terms are most naturally understood as coreferential, Jesus Christ who is both God and Saviour.

— R. A. Hoyle  [3]

The claim that conjoined nouns with a single article open a single scenario is not a simple rewording of the Granville Sharp rule. A scenario is a semantic structure within a cognitive framework. The claim that μεγάλου θεοῦ, σωτῆρος ἡμῶν and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are members of the same scenario reaches a level of certainty which unattainable with the claim that μεγάλου θεοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are coreferential. We can demonstrate the stronger claim (... members of the same scenario) from within Titus and the Pastorals.

Titus 1:3 ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι, ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,  4 Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν, χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν.

Note in Titus 1:3-4 σωτῆρος is combined with both θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. If we take ὁ σωτὴρ as the title of a scenario, we can see that both θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ are members of that scenario. This is demonstrated by τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ in Titus 2:10, 3:4, 1Tim. 2:3 and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν in Titus 3:6,  τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 2Tim. 1:10.  

Titus 2:10 μὴ νοσφιζομένους, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν, ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν.

Titus 3:4 ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,

Titus 3:6 οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾿ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν,

1Tim. 2:3 τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ,

2Tim. 1:10 φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

The use of σωτῆρος with both θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (see especially Titus 1:3-4) closely associates God The Father, with Jesus Christ in the salvation scenario.[4] This, in and of itself, is a significant christological contribution. Whether μεγάλου θεοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ are coreferential in Titus 2:13 is another question. The attempts by apologists to absolutely nail this down with an air tight argument are unconvincing. R. A. Hoyle’s “… most naturally understood as coreferential”[3] is a fair statement all things considered.


[1]  Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation, SIL 2008, p.233.

[2] Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God, pp. 173-185.

[3] Hoyle:2008, p. 498.

[4] see I. H. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, ICC, p135.