alternate readings

The Son of God, Peter, Nathaniel and the Demon

2012-02-01T13:30:00.001-08:00

The biblical expression "Son of God" has been a point of contention among bible translators who work among Islamic peoples for a long time. In the last twelve years this discussion has wandered into Christology and NT lexical semantics[1]. One point of controversy: Is “Son of God” in reference to Jesus a messianic title? A different question: Are “Son of God” and Messiah/Christ synonyms? In this post we will examine texts where “Son of God” is used in reference to Jesus by Peter, Nathaniel and demons.

Peter’s confession:

Matt. 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mark 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.”
Luke 9:20 And he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”

In Matthew 16:16, do we have two affirmations or a single affirmation repeated? Mark and Luke appear to support the notion that Peter was affirming Jesus as the Messiah.

John 1:49 Nathaniel answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Should we read this as an equivalent to Peter’s confession in Matt. 16:16? Is Nathaniel making one or two affirmations about Jesus?

All three accounts of the Gerasene demoniac use “Son of God” language.

Matt. 8:29 “What have you to do with us, O Son of God?”
Mk 5:7 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?”
Lk. 8:28 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?”

The other demonic affirmations use a messianic title “Holy One of God”

Mark 1:24 “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”
Luke 4:34 “Ah! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”

Are all the demons affirming the same notion, that Jesus is the Messiah? My natural inclination is to read trinitarian dogmatic definitions developed in the fourth century back into “Son of God” title. In other words, to understand this expression as equivalent to God the Son, the second person of the trinity. I don’t think the NT uses “Son of God” as a technical term. On the other hand, I think that calling “Son of God” merely a messianic title and nothing more is also an error. The evidence from Peter’s confession suggests that there was significant semantic overlap between “Son of God” and Christ. But that alone does not entail a restriction on the meaning of “Son of God.” When the gospels were written the title Christ had probably absorbed all the implications of divine sonship. In other words, the semantic significance of the Messiah had expanded to include all implications of “Son of God.”

[1] most of these articles are available as .pdf files on the web.

Abernathy, D. (2010). Translating “Son of God” in Missionary Bible Tranalstion: A Critique of “Muslim-idiom Biblie Translations’: Claims and facts.” St. Francis Magazine, 6(1).

Abernathy, D. (2010). JESUS IS THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD St Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010).

Horrell, J. S. (2010). Cautions Regarding “Son of God” in Muslim-idiom Translations of the Bible: Seeking Sensible Balance. St. Francis Magazine, 6(638-676.

Brown, R., Penny, J., & Gray, L. (2009). Muslim-idiom Bible Translations: Claims and Facts. St. Francis Magazine, 5(6), 87-105.

Brown, Rick. 2000. The ‘Son of God’: Understanding the messianic titles
of Jesus. International Journal of Frontier Missions. 17(1):
41–52.

Brown, Rick. 2005a. Explaining the biblical term ‘Son(s) of God’ in Muslim
contexts. International Journal of Frontier Missions. 22(3):
91–96.

Brown, Rick. 2005b. Translating the biblical term ‘Son(s) of God’ in Muslim
contexts. International Journal of Frontier Missions. 22(4):
135–145.

Brown, Rick. 2004. Son of Man, Son of God, Word of God, Christ: An
exegesis of major titles of Jesus, with suggestions for translation
and explanatory notes. Unpublished monograph.

Brown, Rick. 2001. Presenting the deity of Christ from the Bible. International
Journal of Frontier Missions. 19(1): 20-27.

Matt. 8:28 ἰσχύειν with an in infinitive

2012-01-16T14:39:00.000-08:00

Matthew's version of the Gerasene Demoniac pericope is quite different from either Mark or Luke. This is just a technical note, the exegesis will come later.

Matt. 8:28 Καὶ ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πέραν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἐξερχόμενοι, χαλεποὶ λίαν, ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης.

BDAG, F. Danker 3rdEd under ἰσχύω says this verb can take an infinitive which we see above ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν. What Danker doesn’t talk about and none of the NT greek grammars talk about is ἰσχύειν (an infinitive) taking another infinitive. My previous experience with NT grammars suggests that if A.T. Robertson doesn’t mention it, nor N. Turner, BDF, M. Zerwick and numerous lesser lights (R.Young, S.Porter, Moule, to name a few), if some syntax pattern goes without comment then it probably isn’t unusual.

The following is evidence from Diodorus Siculus and Philo of ἰσχύω as an infinitive which joins statically with another infinitive.

Diodorus Siculus Hist., Bibliotheca historica 10.30.1.1-5

Ὅτι τοῦ Μιλτιάδου υἱὸς ὁ Κίμων, τελευτήσαντος
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ δημοσίᾳ φυλακῇ διὰ τὸ μὴ
ἰσχῦσαι ἐκτῖσαι τὸ ὄφλημα, ἵνα λάβῃ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ
πατρὸς εἰς ταφήν, ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν φυλακὴν παρέ-
δωκε καὶ διεδέξατο τὸ ὄφλημα.

30 Cimon, the son of Miltiades, when his father had died in the state prison because he was unable to pay in full the fine, in order that he might receive his father's body for burial, delivered himself up to prison and assumed the debt.

Philo Judaeus Phil., Legum allegoriarum libri Book 2, section 82, line 2

ἀλλὰ φέρε τινὰ ἰσχῦσαι ἀκοῦσαι, ὅτι τέτοκεν ἡ ἀρετὴ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν Ἰσαάκ, καὶ εὐθὺς συγχαρητικὸν ὕμνον ὑμνήσει.

(82) ... But suppose that any were able to hear that virtue has brought forth happiness, namely, Isaac, immediately he will sing a congratulatory hymn.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De posteritate Caini Section 72, line 2

τὰ γὰρ ἡδονῆς ὁλκοῦ δελέατα αὐστηρῷ τόνῳ καθελεῖν ἰσχῦσαι τὸν ἐφ' ἑκουσίοις ἔχει κατορθώμασιν ἔπαινον.

(72) for to be able, by a vigorous exertion, to destroy the baits of attractive pleasure, properly receives that praise which belongs to good actions, done with a deliberate purpose.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De fuga et inventione Section 14, line 2

ὁρῶν δ' ὅτι πρὸς μάθησιν καὶ νόμιμον ἐπιστασίαν κεκώφωται, δρασμὸν εἰκότως βουλεύεται· δέδιε γάρ, μὴ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν ἰσχῦσαι ὀνῆσαι ἔτι καὶ ζημιωθῇ.

(14) But seeing that he is dumb with respect to learning and to all desirable and legitimate authority, he very naturally thinks of flight. For he is afraid that in addition to not being able to derive any advantage, he may even be injured.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De confusione linguarum Section 120, line 3

πάντες γὰρ οἱ φαυλότατοι λαμβάνουσιν ἐννοίας περὶ τοῦ μὴ λήσειν τὸ θεῖον ἀδικοῦντες μηδὲ τὸ δίκην ὑφέξειν εἰσάπαν ἰσχῦσαι διακρούσασθαι· ἐπεὶ πόθεν ἴσασιν, ὅτι σκεδασθήσονται;

(120) For all the most wicked of men adopt ideas that they can never escape the knowledge of the deity when doing wrong, and that they shall never be able to ward off altogether the day of retribution.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De ebrietate
Section 112, line 3

ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ φρέατος ἐξάρχει, οὐκέτι μόνον ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῶν παθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ τὸ κάλλιστον κτημάτων, σοφίαν, ἀνανταγώνιστον ἰσχῦσαι λαβεῖν, ἣν ἀπεικάζει φρέατι· βαθεῖα γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἐπιπόλαιος, γλυκὺ ἀναδιδοῦσα νᾶμα καλοκἀγαθίας διψώσαις ψυχαῖς, ἀναγκαιότατον ὁμοῦ καὶ ἥδιστον ποτόν·

(112) And the same prophet begins a song to the well, not only for the destruction of the passions, but also because he has had strength given to him to acquire the most valuable of all possessions, namely incomparable wisdom, which he compares to a well; for it is deep, and not superficial, giving forth a sweet stream to souls who thirst for goodness and virtue, a drink at once most necessary and most sweet.

Philo Judaeus Phil., De plantatione Section 8 line 3

τὰς δυσωπίας οὖν εἴ τις ἀποδιδράσκειν βούλοιτο τὰς ἐν τοῖς διαπορηθεῖσι, λεγέτω μετὰ παρρησίας, ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν ἐν ὕλαις κραταιὸν οὕτως, ὡς τὸν κόσμον ἀχθοφορεῖν ἰσχῦσαι, λόγος δὲ ὁ ἀίδιος θεοῦ τοῦ αἰωνίου τὸ ὀχυρώτατον καὶ βεβαιότατον ἔρεισμα τῶν ὅλων ἐστίν.

(8) If therefore any one wishes to escape from the difficulties of this question which present themselves in the different doubts thus raised, let him speak freely and say that there is nothing in any material of such power as to be able to support this weight of the world. But it is the eternal law of the everlasting God which is the most supporting and firm foundation of the universe.

Philo Judaeus Phil., Quis rerum divinarum heres sit Section 143

ἔοικεν οὖν ὁ θεὸς μόνος ἀκρι- βοδίκαιος εἶναι καὶ μέσα μόνος δύνασθαι διαιρεῖν τά τε σώματα καὶ πράγματα, ὡς μηδὲν τῶν τμημάτων μηδ' ἀκαρεῖ καὶ ἀμερεῖ τινι πλέον ἢ ἔλαττον γενέσθαι, τῆς δ' ἀνωτάτω καὶ ἄκρας ἰσότητος μεταλαχεῖν ἰσχῦσαι. εἰ μὲν οὖν τὸ ἴσον μίαν εἶχεν ἰδέαν, ἱκανῶς ἂν τὰ λεχθέντα εἴρητο, πλειόνων δ' οὐσῶν οὐκ ἀποκνητέον τὰ ἁρμόττοντα προσθεῖναι.

God alone therefore seems to be exactly just, and to be the only being able to divide in the middle bodies and things, in such a manner that none of the divisions shall be greater or less than the other by the smallest and most indivisible portion, and he alone is able to attain to sublime and perfect equality.

Gerasene Demoniac & Christology

2012-01-15T14:20:00.000-08:00

Luke 8:28 “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beseech you, do not torment me.” RSV

Luke 8:32 Now a large herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside; and they begged him to let them enter these. So he gave them leave. RSV

Luke 8:38 The man from whom the demons had gone begged that he might be with him; but he sent him away, saying, 39 “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him. RSV

Luke 8:38 ἐδεῖτο δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀφ᾿ οὗ ἐξεληλύθει τὰ δαιμόνια εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ· ἀπέλυσεν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγων· 39 ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου καὶ διηγοῦ ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καθ᾿ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

In the pericope of the Gerasene Demoniac, the manner in which Jesus is addressed by Legion “Son of the Most High God?” has obvious christological significance and the exchange between Jesus and Leigon demonstrates Jesus’ authority over unclean spirits when Legion begs permission permission to go into the heard of swine. The theological significance is somewhat less obvious at the end of the story where Jesus tells the man, now free of demons, to go home and tell his story to his people.

Luke 8:39 “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him. RSV

The literal rendering of the RSV preserves both the ambiguity and parallelism of the original. Focusing our attention on the end of Luke’s version we see a formal pattern repeated:

... how much God has done for you
... ὅσα ἐποίησεν σοι ὁ θεός R-P[1]
... ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός NA27
... how much Jesus had done for him
... ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς NA27 & R-P[1]

The parallelism is disrupted a little bit in the reading adopted by the NA27 σοι ἐποίησεν “for you has done” instead of ἐποίησεν σοι “has done for you” Byzantine Textform[1]. This word orderer variation is somewhat less important than the position of ὁ θεός “God” the subject which is clause final and in-focus in both NA27 and R-P[1]. Placing the subject-agent ὁ θεός “God” at the end of the clause signifies that ὁ θεός “God” is the most salient information. Obviously the RSV converts this into standard English syntax but preserves the parallel structure. What is lost in the English rendering is the in-focus salience marking of ὁ θεός “God” which isn’t easy to accomplish in natural sounding English. Now we should take careful note that in the second statement Jesus the subject-agent is also found in clause final position and here both NA27 and R-P[1] have identical word order. This marks Jesus as the most salient information. To sum up, the subject-agent is marked for salience in both clauses, telling us that it is important that God did this and that Jesus did this.

christological significance

What is not at all obvious is the intended christological significance of this exchange between Jesus and the man released from demonic domination. Jesus tells the man to go home and give a report to his people what God had done for him but the man goes home and tells everyone he can find what Jesus did for him. There is ambiguity here. Did the man disobey Jesus? Does the author of the gospel intend for us dwell on the difference between what Jesus said and what the man said? Jesus tells the man to declare what God did for him. However, Jesus is the speaker-agent in the verbal exchange with Legion. What are the christological implications? The Gerasene man tells it the way he experienced it which is not the way Jesus framed it for him.

My first inclination is to read this in light of Jesus repeated statements in John’s gospel[2] about being sent by “The Father” to speak for Him and do mighty works as the Father’s agent. On this reading, Jesus would be telling the Gerasene man that God was ultimately responsible for his deliverance and that he should give God the credit when telling his story.

On further reflection I am wondering if there might be something more here. The original text marks as salient the discrepancy between Jesus words and the words used by the Gerasene man. The question of who delivered the Gerasene man from demonic control is highlighted. The fact of his deliverance is not as important as who delivered him. What if we suggest that Jesus is claiming not only to speak and work on behalf of God but also speak and work as God himself. I can hear in my mind multiple objections that would raised against that sort of reading of Luke. Never the less, I find it worth contemplating.

[1] The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont
Chilton 2005

[2] I do not habitually keep Jesus from one gospel separated in my mind from the Jesus of another Gospel.

adnominal genitive and semantic inference.

2012-01-02T23:54:00.000-08:00

The adnominal genitive merely predicates that there is a meaningful relation between the (pro)noun in the genitive and the head nominal. It is up to the addressee to infer the nature of that relation in the context of the utterance. When New Testament writers want to increase the level of explication, they may choose and indeed do choose more specific morphosyntactic devices. Compare the more explicit tēn ek theou dikaiōsunēn,“the righteousness from God” in Philippians 3:9a containing the source preposition ek with the more implicit adnominal genitive in Romans1:17, dikaiōsunē theou, “righteousness of God.”[1]

In the opening words of the Apocalypse of St. John, "the revelation of Jesus Christ" apokalupsis Ihsou Christou, John left the relationship between the head noun apokalupsis and genitives Ihsou Christou underdetermined (unspecified). As it stands the genitive tells us that there is some meaningful relationship between the head noun and the nouns in genitive case. That is the total extent of what is in the "code." In linguistic terminology that is the explicature (what is explicit in the text). The implicitures (what is implied, but derived by inference) are multiple. In other words, had John wanted to narrow down the explicit meaning he would have used a preposition with Jesus Christ, indicating that Jesus was the source, subject, agent, object, ... of the revelation. But John didn't do that so it is reasonable to conclude that he didn't intend to restrict the meaning to any one of these options.

I suspect there might be some greek readers who think that apokalupsis Ihsou Christou in Rev 1:1 is an obvious example of the subjective genitive. Certainly there are plenty of commentators who read it that way, D. Aune (Rev. WBC, v1 p.6) translates it "This is a revelation from Jesus Christ ..." which makes Jesus the source but in the notes he calls it a subjective genitive. A. J. Hort breaks from the heard, but few follow him. It isn't important IMO whether we follow Hort or the rest of them.

The problem is the compelling urge (an artifact of bad grammars and instruction) to nail down the semantic significance with either/or style analysis, where the essence of the adnominal genitive is semantic open-endedness (see N. Turner Syntax, pp. 210-211 and M. Zerwick pp. 13-14). Overly specific translation "a revelation from Jesus Christ" dramatically alters the meaning by placing undo stress on the "source" aspect of the genitive. G. Beale (Rev. NIGTC p. 184) gets it right, John intentionally left the meaning of apokalupsis Ihsou Christou open-ended.

[1] Biblical Scholars, Translators and Bible Translations, Lourens de Vries, S&I 2, no. 2 (2008): 141-159

2011-11-30T08:45:00.001-08:00

Jesus goes to feast of Tabernacles John 7:1-10

John 7:1 RSV After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him. 2 Now the Jews’ feast of Tabernacles was at hand. 3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. 4 For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his brothers did not believe in him. 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil. 8 Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 So saying, he remained in Galilee.

John 7:10 But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in secret.

Jesus statement in verse eight “I am not going up to this feast ...” ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην caused difficulties for at least one early scribe who replaced the negative particle οὐκ “I am not going up to this feast” with οὔπω “I am not yet going up to this feast.” The reading οὔπω is found in several early manuscripts (p66, p75, B). The theological motivation for this variant is fairly obvious, to remove the appearance that Jesus lied to his brothers.

On the other hand, a close reading of the pericope removes the difficulty. Jesus’ brothers were not just asking him to go up to the feast in Jerusalem. The main thrust of their request was that Jesus should go up publicly: “... show yourself to the world.” The scenario that Jesus’ brothers envision includes a demonstration of Jesus’ works before his disciples and the rest of world. Jesus rejects this entire scenario with a simple statement “I am not going up to this feast.” Going up to the feast secretly is not the scenario suggested by Jesus’ Brothers. [1]

[1] see Robert Horton Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation, p. 388.

Anastasia’s reading of John 5:1-18

2011-11-21T13:45:00.001-08:00

In the last post Anastasia the head librarian from the lost tribe of Koine speaking Greeks ran into difficulty making sense of John 5:1-18 the story of the healing at pool. She didn’t understand why why the invalids were found gathered around the pool. The response to Jesus’ question “Do you want to be healed?” appears unrelated to the question and Jesus responds as if the man had given a simple affirmative reply. Anastasia’s inability to make the story coherent can be attributed to ignorance of the healing scenario, a cultural artifact which is implicit in the story. The healing scenario is provided by a textual variant/gloss fond in some NT manuscripts:

“for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made well from whatever disease that person had.” —NRSV [note]

This variant/gloss provides the key to the healing scenario and makes story coherent. It also illustrates that the meaning of the story is not entirely in the text as code. The healing scenario associated with the pool called Bethesda is a part of the shared cultural assumptions among first century palestinian Jews from Jerusalem.

Anastasia notes that once the man is healed the story takes an abrupt turn and becomes a dispute over the Sabbath. She has been reading the Gospel of John for a month now and has been able to construct a tentative framework for this dispute between Jesus and those who want to kill him. Never the less, the importance of the Sabbath to the leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem is still something mysterious. The prohibition against certain activities on a certain day doesn’t seem to follow any pattern. No matter what a person does on this day it seems to be prohibited. Once again the Sabbath observance scenario is only partially discoverable from the the text [code] of John’s Gospel. Sabbath observance is a part of the shared cultural assumptions among first century palestinian Jews.

Anastasia and the lost tribe of Koine speaking Greeks (fiction)

2011-11-19T12:50:00.001-08:00

In the final years of twentieth century a culturally isolated tribe of Greek speaking people were discovered who spoke a perfectly preserved form of first century AD Koine Greek but had never heard of Judaism or Christianity. This lost tribe was highly literate, having preserved most of ancient greek literature in a huge library. A New Testament linguist Russell Booth interviewed the head librarian Anastasia and determined that she had a mastery of the syntax and lexicon of first century AD Koine Greek far beyond any living scholar in the “modern” world. Dr. Booth gave Anastasia a copy of the Gospel of John from the greek new testament and she agreed to read it and be tested for comprehension.

A month later Anastasia participated in a session with Dr. Booth and a panel of New Testament scholars to ask her questions about the Gospel of John. Anastasia was asked to retell the story of the healing at the pool (John 5:1-18) with comments. Anastasia identified Jesus as a mantis (seer, prophet, diviner) and magos (magician, wise man) who had supernatural powers of healing and who performed food miracles. In her exposition of the healing at the pool she identified several disturbances in the text where story seemed to her incoherent. There was no explanation why the invalids were found gather around the pool. When Jesus asked a man if he wants to be healed the man tells him he wants to bathe and has no servant to help him into the pool when the water is disturbed and it appears that only one person is allowed to bathe in the pool at a given time. Jesus appears to ignore the request to bathe, doesn’t offer to help him into the pool but tells him to get up and carry something. The man complies and this becomes the center of a dispute with some group who say it is against accepted custom to carry this thing on a certain day. The disputants are exceedingly prone to violence and want to have Jesus killed for violation of their customs and claiming to be the son of a deity. Anastasia finds the story incoherent, like the fragments of several stories randomly glued together.

As a highly literate native speaker of the language Anastasia has a mastery of “the code” but she comes away from the text confounded by the story. Apparently the meaning of the story isn’t in the text. If it were, she would be able to comprehend it.

unholy marriage between the code model and propositional revelation

2011-11-16T14:36:00.001-08:00

One of the artifacts of the fundamentalist modernist controversy of the twentieth century is found in ARTICLE VI of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics[1]

We affirm that the Bible expresses God's truth in propositional statements, and we declare that Biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts.

The meaning based translation model pioneered by Eugene A. Nida was associated with a very early version of Noam Chomsky’s treatment of syntax structures (late 1950s). Stay with me here, this is important. Micheal W. Palmer, a biblical linguist told me in a public discussion (late 1990s) that Nida had adopted some ideas from Chomsky but essentially his notion of semantic deep_structure was Nida’s own “spin” on semantic theory. What takes place in Nida’s model is the source language text (e.g., Greek NT) is reduced to propositional statements (deep_structure) in some modern language (e.g., English), which are intended to capture the “meaning” of the original. These propositions are then “transformed” in to the target language (e.g., Swahili) not necessarily as propositions but in some form suitable for representing the genre of the original text.

The key issue here is that “meaning” is considered to be a property of the source text “code” which can be extracted and reduced to propositional statements. This theory of meaning has been demonstrated to be inadequate over the last thirty years.[2]

David J. Weber borrows a metaphor from Edward de Bono:

... Edward de Bono likened the mind to a contoured surface composed of something like gelatin. Thoughts are like warm marbles. When placed on the surface, they roll according to the contours of the surface. As they go, they melt the surface slightly, leaving a trace of their course. This metaphor captures some important aspects of the human mind and the brain on which it is implemented.

Context is like the contoured surface of set gelatin. An utterance is like a warm marble. Its explicature is like the place where the marble is set down on the surface, the starting point of the path it takes. ... The interpretation is like the endpoint of that path. ... The impression an utterance makes on a mind is the path the marble takes. This is not the starting point (explicature). It is not the ending point (interpretation). It is the path left by the warm marble moving from the explicature to the interpretation as influenced by the contoured surface (context).[3]

Reducing the "meaning" to a propositional statement disregards the path of the marble and the trace left by the marble. It flattens out the notion of meaning treating it like a discreet object.

We have been led to think of “meanings” much like fixed objects out in some Platonic space, out there with integers and other things, discrete objects that we can manipulate symbolically, ones we can grasp and stuff into a text. [4]

[1]The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics Copyright 1978, ICBI.

[2] A Tale of Two Translation Theories, David J. Weber, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 2

[3] ibid, p63

[4] ibid, p64

authorial intent and multivocality

2011-11-15T12:32:00.001-08:00

In the second half of the 20th century authorial intent was championed among conservative evangelical scholars as the anchor for biblical hermeneutics. Appeals to authorial intent were made to shore up the interpretation of scripture against the tide of subjectivity that had swept over secular literary criticism where “the death of the author” and the “autonomous text” had produced all sorts of new “readings” of works both within and outside of literary canon.

The notion of authorial intent does not rule out multivocality. The teaching of Jesus in the gospels is riddled with semantically underdetermined texts. Multivocality is built in and regular misinterpretations by the disciples illustrate this. Jesus occasionally corrects the disciples when the are completely off but he does not nail down the correct understanding resulting in a fixed, unyielding, cross cultural, context independent, universal for all time and every place reading of his words. In other words multivocality remains after the disciples are corrected:

John 4:31 Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Has any one brought him food?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.” RSV

Jesus hasn’t really cleared up the issue of why he doesn’t need to eat. His answer directs the attention of the disciples away from topic of eating physical food to a more important topic but it still leaves very many questions unanswered. The expression “do the will of him who sent me” is semantically underdetermined and yet it reflects the intent of the author.

every translation an interpretation

2011-11-15T10:52:00.001-08:00

I currently reading a recent book by a sociologist[1] who is bemoaning the fact that there is no consensus on what the bible means among those who claim to take the bible seriously. The author claims this effectively undermines their doctrine of scripture.

In all this discussion there wasn’t much said about bible translation. If we start with the view[2] that the inspiration of scripture was a divine providential process by which the very words written by the human author became “God’s Words” then nothing short of the original words are God’s Word[3]. Any other words used to represent the original constitute an interpretation of God’s Word. So in the English speaking world we have a rather large number of published interpretations currently in circulation.

Since the vast majority of people who take the bible seriously read it in translation, the authority they attach to the "original writings" is significantly reduced when reading a version in their own language. Confidence in the “original writings” does not translate into confidence in a translation. What constitutes a good translation is one of the most controversial topics in the bible believing subculture.

[1]Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible.

[2]This is the core issue in bible believing subculture which Christian Smith is deconstructing.

[3] We will just set aside the issue of textual criticism.

The Code Model (CM) & the healing at Bethesda

2011-11-14T10:58:00.001-08:00

The Code Model (CM) & the healing at Bethesda

I was reading the greek text of John 5 and came across a useful illustration how meaning is “radically underdetermined” in speech.

John 5:2 NRSV Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha, which has five porticoes. 3 In these lay many invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. 5 One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up, take your mat and walk.” 9 At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk.

If we read this passage and proceed on the assumption that meaning is contained or determined by the syntax and lexicon what happens in verse seven? At the end of verse six Jesus asks a simple question “Do you want to be made well?” The man’s reply is long winded and appears to be totally irrelevant. It looks like it was dropped into the text from some other discourse. Jesus appears to ignore it. Semantic analysis based on syntax and lexicon leaves us nowhere.

After the text of John was removed by time and distance from the original cultural setting the problem in verse seven became intolerable for some scribes and a gloss was inserted between verse three and five which read:

“for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made well from whatever disease that person had.” NRSV notes

This is a glaring example of meaning being “radically underdetermined” in a text or speech. The code including syntax and lexicon underdetermines the meaning. What this example doesn’t illustrate is that meaning is always underdetermined. Even the most simple and apparently lucid statement is dependent on an inferential process providing “context” from the cultural framework. The code does not contain or determine the meaning.[1]

[1] A Tale of Two Translation Theories, David J. Weber, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 2 (2005), p. 39.

ARTICLE VII THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

2011-11-13T13:09:00.001-08:00

Compare ARTICLE VII from The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics to a statement from A Tale of Two Translation Theories, David J. Weber:

ARTICLE VII

We affirm that the meaning expressed in each Biblical text is single, definite and fixed.
We deny that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates the variety of its application.[1]

Texts do not contain meanings; meanings are in the minds of communicators. Texts do not determine meanings; along with context they guide interpretation. Interpretation is not like opening a tin and removing sardines.[2]

It appears we have a problem here. The Chicago Statement is constructed on a foundation which includes "the code model of communication"(CM). The issue of communication models never comes up in the statement on Hermeneutics. At the time of writing CM was not controversial.

[2] A Tale of Two Translation Theories, David J. Weber, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 2 (2005) p.39.

discontinuous syntax in Ajax

2011-11-08T08:05:00.000-08:00

The following are some examples of discontinuous syntax in Ajax.

Sophocles Ajax 793-794 Eng. Trans. R.C. Jebb Perseus/Tufts.

οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν πρᾶξιν, Αἴαντος δ᾽ ὅτι,
θυραῖος εἴπερ ἐστίν, οὐ θαρσῶ πέρι.

I have no clue of your condition, but know only that, if Ajax is away, I have little hope for him.

Hyperbaton or discontinuous syntax is evident in the distance between Αἴαντος … πέρι. The conditional construction θυραῖος εἴπερ ἐστίν, οὐ θαρσῶ is bounded by the proper noun Αἴαντος and the postpositive πέρι. In other words: “I don’t know about your situation [οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν πρᾶξιν] … concerning Ajax [ Αἴαντος … πέρι] if he is out and about [θυραῖος εἴπερ ἐστίν], I have no confidence [οὐ θαρσῶ].

When an element from a phrase/clause is broken off and placed within another phrase/clause which results in yet another discontinuity within the second phrase/clause, this is called interlaced hyperbaton.

Sophocles, Ajax 804
οἲ 'γώ, φίλοι, πρόστητ᾽ ἀναγκαίας τύχης,
καὶ σπεύσαθ᾽, οἱ μὲν Τεῦκρον ἐν τάχει μολεῖν
οἱ δ᾽ ἑσπέρους ἀγκῶνας, οἱ δ᾽ ἀντηλίους
ζητεῖτ᾽ ἰόντες τἀνδρὸς ἔξοδον κακήν.

Ah, me! My friends, protect me from the doom threatened by fate!
Hurry, some of you, to speed Teucer's coming;
let others go to the westward bays, and others to the eastward,
and there seek the man's disastrous path.

οἱ δ᾽ ἑσπέρους ἀγκῶνας, οἱ δ᾽ ἀντηλίους … ἰόντες
let others go to the westward bays, and others to the eastward

ζητεῖτ᾽ ... τἀνδρὸς ἔξοδον κακήν
seek the man's disastrous path

The tail end of the participle clause ἀντηλίους … ἰόντες is interlaced with the beginning of the main (finite verb) clause ζητεῖτ᾽ ... τἀνδρὸς.

For more examples with commentary, read

Hyperbaton in theGreek Literary SentenceDaniel Markovic, Nov. 2005

syntax in first drafts

2011-10-23T12:44:00.000-07:00

I post plenty of syntax errors on my blog, I call it "first draft syndrome" and I don't always get back to correct them. This morning I found a professional journalist making a simple revision error where a sentence was recast in a new form but not all the adjustments were cleaned up. This is a common problem with first drafts. How many errors do you see in the following sentence?

"Ohio Gov. John Kasich said on Friday that he would is advocating for a moratorium on exotic animal auctions. "

article Posted by DANNY GRONER of The Huffington Post: 10/23/11 01:58 PM ET ": What's the Lesson From the Ohio Exotic Animals Incident?

As an exercise in conjectural emendation, we might change "he would is advocating for a moratorium" to read "he is advocating for a moratorium" or "he would advocate a moratorium." The transitive verb "advocate" with the prepositional phrase "for a moratorium" sounds awkward to me. However, a moment ago Google found 66,100 examples of "he is advocating for a" but only one other example of "he is advocating for a moratorium."

interrogative pronouns introducing indirect speech

2011-09-17T11:14:00.000-07:00

In Socrates’ reply[1] to the question “What sort of indictment has been brought against you?” we see indirect discourse[2] (oratio obliqua) introduced by a verb of speaking φησιν followed by a verb of knowing οἶδε. The two interrogatives τίνα τρόπον and τίνες introduce the content, what is claimed to be known by the young man bringing an indictment against Socrates. Interrogative pronouns introduce both direct and indirect speech[3] (questions).

ἐκεῖνος γάρ, ὥς φησιν, οἶδε τίνα τρόπον οἱ νέοι διαφθείρονται καὶ τίνες οἱ διαφθείροντες αὐτούς.

“For he says he knows how the youth are corrupted and who those are who corrupt them.”

[1]Plato Euthyphro
Stephanus page 2, section c, line 4
English Tanslation: Harold North Fowler

Σωκράτης
ἥντινα; οὐκ ἀγεννῆ, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ: τὸ γὰρ νέον ὄντα τοσοῦτον πρᾶγμα ἐγνωκέναι οὐ φαῦλόν ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος γάρ, ὥς φησιν, οἶδε τίνα τρόπον οἱ νέοι διαφθείρονται καὶ τίνες οἱ διαφθείροντες αὐτούς. καὶ κινδυνεύει σοφός τις εἶναι, καὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀμαθίαν κατιδὼν ὡς διαφθείροντος τοὺς ἡλικιώτας αὐτοῦ, ἔρχεται κατηγορήσων μου ὥσπερ πρὸς μητέρα πρὸς τὴν πόλιν. καὶ φαίνεταί μοι τῶν πολιτικῶν
Socrates

What sort? No mean one, it seems to me; for the fact that, young as he is, he has apprehended so important a matter reflects no small credit upon him. For he says he knows how the youth are corrupted and who those are who corrupt them. He must be a wise man; who, seeing my lack of wisdom and that I am corrupting his fellows, comes to the State, as a boy runs to his mother, to accuse me. And he seems to me to be the only one of the public men who begins in the right way; for the right way

[2] Most grammars would call this an indirect question, but it functions like indirect discourse. See G. L. Cooper, Attic Greek Prose Syntax, v.1 p553, 1:51.17.0

[3] See G. L. Cooper, Attic Greek Prose Syntax, v.1 p554, 1:51.17.2.

Why read Plato?

2011-09-16T12:17:00.000-07:00

I am currently looking for something to read. Having spent a number of weeks reading Ezekiel in the LXX (Septuagint), it seems to me that ones ability to read “real” ancient greek isn’t enhanced much by reading a text which follows the Hebrew in such a strict manner. I have worn myself out working in Sophocles, so I don’t really want to wrap up any of the projects I have half finished in Attic tragedy. I discovered that the county library has most of the Loeb texts of Plato, an author I have never read. Greek philosophy has little intrinsic interest. I picked up the first volume of the dialogues of Plato and started reading Euthyphro. The irony in Socrates’ discussion of the charge brought against him makes it entertaining. I have no intention of doing anything serious with Plato, could care less about the secondary literature, but I will dabble in it for a while and use my classical grammars (Smyth, Cooper) to deal with the syntax. I may post on it now and then but don’t expect any serious exegesis, I’m not qualified.

ruach/pneuma in the vision of dry bones Ezekiel 37:1-14

2011-09-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

What is represented by ruach/pneuma (which might be translated breath, wind or spirit) in the vision of dry bones Ezekiel 37:1-14?

Two representative mid-twentieth century dispensationalists Charles L. Feinberg and Ralph H. Alexander both understand the second stage of the dry bones vision where the four winds are called to revive the lifeless bodies as a metaphor representing the spiritual renewal of Israel. The first stage of the vision, the reconstruction of the dead bodies from the dry bones, is understood as representing a return to the land in a state of unbelief. Ezekiel’s treatment of this theme in chapters 36-37 appears to lend some support to this view but it isn’t perfectly obvious. The terms ruach/pneuma (breath wind spirit) are used with what appears to be different referents in different places. Some places it appears to be a metaphor but not always the same metaphor. Other places it is not clear that the term is used as a metaphor.

Ezek. 36:24 I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

In Ezek. 36:26 we see “new spirit” in a parallel construction with “new heart” both of these appear to be metaphors. The heart metaphor is developed “heart of stone” … “heart of flesh” but in verse 27a the “new spirit” metaphor now becomes “my spirit.” The expression “my spirit” at first glance looks simple and lucid to a post-pentecost trinitarian, however, post-pentecost was not Ezekiel’s cognitive framework which chapter thirty-seven should demonstrate.

Ezek. 37:1   The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD …

In Ezekiel 37:1b there is a little problem with the syntax. Most English translations read ruach as a construct with the divine name “the Spirit of the LORD” but the LXX translator has kurios in the nominative case “the Lord brought me out in a spirit” NETS. This is not a really big deal but keep it in mind.

Ezekiel 37:8 RSV And as I looked, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no breath in them. 9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great host.

The word “breath” in the RSV renders ruach which appears to be a metaphor. The prophet is commanded to “Prophesy to the breath” and call the breath from the four winds [ruchot] to breathe on the lifeless bodies laying on the plain. When the breath responded the great host stood up. We are really deep into figurative language here. It is not safe to read ruach (breath spirit wind) here within a post-pentecost cognitive framework. The term ruach here appears to represent the principle element in life, that which makes alive but that doesn’t solve the problem. The “exceedingly great host” being brought to life is itself a metaphor. The metaphor is partially explained in the text:

Ezekiel 37:14 And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken, and I have done it, says the LORD.”

But this explanation “and you shall live” is not what the mid-twentieth century dispensationalists have in mind. They appear to be looking back at Ezek. 36:24-27 where “I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances” demonstrates that “spiritual renewal” is the ultimate referent behind the layers of figurative language.

Acts 17:18 Paul Socrates Xenophon Plato

2011-08-31T15:19:00.000-07:00

The question, is there an allusion to Xenophon’s Memorabilia 1.1 is raised in every respectable commentary on Acts, e.g., F.F. Bruce NICNT Acts 2nd Ed. p131n5 mentions also Plato Euthyphro 3B, Apology 24B-C. H. A. W. Meyer p329, H. Alford p193, C. K. Barrett p830.

The wording isn’t identical.

Xeno Mem 1.1

… ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης οὓς μὲν ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων·

Socrates is accused of a double sided theological error, he doesn’t affirm the conventional gods ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων and he brings in other new deities ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων. Note the distinction between δαιμόνια and θεοὺς, perhaps implying that Socrates replaced the important gods recognized by the society ἡ πόλις νομίζει with inferior dieties δαιμόνια. The only significant word shared between Acts and and Xeno is δαιμόνιον. If Paul is also being accused of this double error, it isn’t explicit in the words quoted in Acts 17:18.

Acts 17:18 τινὲς δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων καὶ Στοϊκῶν φιλοσόφων συνέβαλλον αὐτῷ, καί τινες ἔλεγον· τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν; οἱ δέ· ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι, ὅτι τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο.

Acts 17:18 RSV Some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him. And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities” — because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.

ξένων δαιμονίων δοκεῖ καταγγελεὺς εἶναι
“He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities [strange deities]”
ξένων δαιμονίων foreign divinities -or- strange deities

Xenophon
Memorabilia 1:1f
Πολλάκις ἐθαύμασα τίσι ποτὲ λόγοις Ἀθηναίους ἔπεισαν οἱ γραψάμενοι Σωκράτην ὡς ἄξιος εἴη θανάτου τῇ πόλει. ἡ μὲν γὰρ γραφὴ κατ' αὐτοῦ τοιάδε τις ἦν· ἀδικεῖ Σωκράτης οὓς μὲν ἡ πόλις νομίζει θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων, ἕτερα δὲ καινὰ δαιμόνια εἰσφέρων· ἀδικεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὺς νέους διαφθείρων.

I have often wondered by what arguments those who drew up the indictment against Socrates could persuade the Athenians that his life was forfeit to the state. The indictment against him was to this effect: Socrates is guilty of rejecting the gods acknowledged by the state and of bringing in strange deities: he is also guilty of corrupting the youth.

Xenophon. E. C. Marchant. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; William Heinemann, Ltd., London. 1923.

Plato Euthyphro 3A—C

[3α] μὲν ἡμᾶς ἐκκαθαίρει τοὺς τῶν νέων τὰς βλάστας διαφθείροντας, ὥς φησιν: ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο δῆλον ὅτι τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἐπιμεληθεὶς πλείστων καὶ μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν αἴτιος τῇ πόλει γενήσεται, ὥς γε τὸ εἰκὸς συμβῆναι ἐκ τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς ἀρξαμένῳ.

Euthyphro
I hope it may be so, Socrates; but I fear the opposite may result. For it seems to me that he begins by injuring the State at its very heart, when he undertakes to harm you. Now tell me, what does he say you do that corrupts the young?

Σωκράτης
[3β]ἄτοπα, ὦ θαυμάσιε, ὡς οὕτω γ᾽ ἀκοῦσαι. φησὶ γάρ με ποιητὴν εἶναι θεῶν, καὶ ὡς καινοὺς ποιοῦντα θεοὺς τοὺς δ᾽ ἀρχαίους οὐ νομίζοντα ἐγράψατο τούτων αὐτῶν ἕνεκα, ὥς φησιν.

Socrates [3b]Absurd things, my friend, at first hearing. For he says I am a maker of gods; and because I make new gods and do not believe in the old ones, he indicted me for the sake of these old ones, as he says.

[3ξ] ὅταν τι λέγω ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ περὶ τῶν θείων, προλέγων αὐτοῖς τὰ μέλλοντα, καταγελῶσιν ὡς μαινομένου: καίτοι οὐδὲν ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθὲς εἴρηκα ὧν προεῖπον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως φθονοῦσιν ἡμῖν πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν χρὴ φροντίζειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμόσε ἰέναι.

[3c] when I say anything in the assembly about divine things and foretell the future to them. And yet there is not one of the things I have foretold that is not true; but they are jealous of all such men as you and I are. However, we must not be disturbed, but must come to close quarters with them.

***comment***

Compared with Xeno Mem 1.1, the accusation in Plat. Euthyph. 3b is even more unlike Acts 17:18. Socrates claims he was accused of being a maker of [new] gods.

φησὶ γάρ με ποιητὴν εἶναι θεῶν
For he says I am a maker of gods

καὶ ὡς καινοὺς ποιοῦντα θεοὺς
because I make new gods

τοὺς δ᾽ ἀρχαίους οὐ νομίζοντα
and do not believe in the old ones

The last clause shares an important word with Zeno νομίζω

Excerpt from the LSJ article on νομίζω:

*II. [select] own, acknowledge, consider as, “ὡς δούλους ν. τινάς” Hdt.2.1; “τὸν προέχοντα ἔτεσι ν. ὡς πατέρα” Pl.Lg.879c: ὡς is freq. omitted, “ὄμμα γὰρ δόμων νομίζω δεσπότου παρουσίαν” A.Pers.169; “τοὺς κακοὺς χρηστοὺς ν.” S.OT610, cf. Ant.183, El.1317; “τοὺς αὐτοὺς φίλους νομιῶ καὶ ἐχθρούς” IG12.71.20; “νομίσαι χρὴ ταῦτα μυστήρια” Ar. Nu.143; θεὸν ν. τινά believe in one as a god, “σὺ Ἔρωτα οὐ θεὸν νομίζεις” Pl.Smp.202d; “θεὰν οὐ τὴν Ἀναίδειαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν Αἰδῶ ν.” X.Smp.8.35; ν. τούτους [θεούς] believe in these [as gods], Hdt.4.59; “οὓς ἡ πόλις ν. θεοὺς οὐ νομίζων” X.Mem.1.1.1, Ap.10, Pl.Ap.24b; “τοὺς ἀρχαίους οὐ ν.” Id.Euthphr.3b; but ν. θεοὺς εἶναι believe that there are gods, Id.Ap. 26c, Lg.886a (cf. infr. 4): without εἶναι, δίκην καὶ θεοὺς μόνον ν. [ἄνθρωπος] Id.Mx.237d; τὸ παράπαν θεοὺς οὐδαμῶς ν. to be an atheist, Id.Lg.885c, cf. 908c, Ap.18c, Prt.322a; “θεοὺς ν. οὐδαμοῦ” A.Pers. 497:—Pass., to be deemed, reputed, considered, “οἷς τὸ πέλειν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶναι ταὐτὸν νενόμισται” Parm.6.8; “Ἕλληνες ἤρξαντο νομισθῆναι” Hdt. 2.51; οἱ νομιζόμενοι μὲν υἱεῖς, μὴ ὄντες δέ . . D.40.47; ἡ -ομένη (v.l. ὀνομαζ-) “πολιτεία” Arist.Pol.1293b22.
2. [select] esteem, hold in honour, “χρυσὸν . . περιώσιον ἄλλων” Pi.I.5(4).2; “οὔτε θεοὺς οὔτε ἀνθρώπους ν.” Lys.12.9:—Pass., to be esteemed, Pl.Grg.466b.
3. [select] c. acc. rei, hold, believe, “ταὐτὰ περί τινος” Id.Phdr.258c, etc.; “ἐποίει ἄλλα παρ᾽ ἃ ἐνόμισεν” Id.Min.320b; ἀκοῇ ν., opp. πείρᾳ αἰσθάνεσθαι, Th.4.81.
4. [select] c. acc. et inf., deem, hold, believe that . . , πότερα νομίζεις δυστυχεῖν ἐμέ; S.OC 800, cf. OT549, X.HG3.4.11; “θεὸν νομίζουσι εἶναι τὸ πῦρ” Hdt.3.16: c. fut. inf., expect that . . , S.OT551: aor. inf. is sts. found in codd. referring to fut., “ἐνόμισαν ἐπιθέμενοι ῥᾳδίως κρατῆσαι” Th.2.3 (κρατήσειν in same phrase, Aen.Tact.2.3), cf. Th.3.24, Lys.13.6; in S. Aj.1082 the aor. inf. may be gnomic.

Plato Apology 24b … Σωκράτη φησὶν ἀδικεῖν τούς τε νέους διαφθείροντα καὶ θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει οὐ νομίζοντα, ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά.

Plato Apology 24b … it states that Socrates is a wrongdoer because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings.

Σωκράτη φησὶν ἀδικεῖν
it states that Socrates is a wrongdoer

τούς τε νέους διαφθείροντα
he corrupts the youth

θεοὺς οὓς ἡ πόλις νομίζει
the gods the state believes in

οὐ νομίζοντα
does not believe

ἕτερα δὲ δαιμόνια καινά
but in other new spiritual beings

Here we see δαιμόνια and νομίζει used again. The only wording shared with Acts 17:18 once again is δαιμόνια.

Ezek. 37:1b LXX/MT

2011-08-27T13:00:00.000-07:00

Ezek. 37:1 RSV The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was full of bones.

Ezek. 37:1b
ἐξήγαγέν με ἐν πνεύματι κύριος
and the LORD brought me out in/by [a] spirit
ויוצאני ברוח יהוה
and he brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD

Here the LXX reads YHWH יהוה at the end of the clause as the subject of the verb. This is improbable syntax, since the subject would normally not follow the adverb ברוח. The expression ברוח יהוה is an equivalent of ברוח אלהים Ezek. 11:24 (cf. W.Zimmerli, M. Greenberg).

Ezekiel 37:10 Host, Army or Multitude

2011-08-25T22:12:00.001-07:00

There is a tantalizing scrap of lexical minutia at the end of Ezekiel 37:10 which, given a less than scholarly hermeneutic, might be employed to produce an illusion of prophetic fulfillment in the modern state of Israel.

Ezek. 37:10 NRSV I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.

Ezek. 37:10 RSV So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great host.

Ezek. 37:10 NASB So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life, and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

Ezek. 37:10 ESV So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

The hebrew חיל army/host/multitude, on the correct reading of this word see M. Greenberg, W. Zimmerli, D. Block. If I were writing a popular end-times novel, this would certainly be a text I would misuse. Modern Israel is both a nation and an army. Given the size of the nation the army is huge. But Ezekiel most probably isn’t talking about an army. The rendering “vast multitude” NRSV is more transparent to a contemporary audience and than “exceedingly great host.” Host is an archaic word which could be used of an army or a large group of people without military overtones. Host is probably more accurate but the generation that used and understood the word is long gone.

The LXX version provides some clues about how the translator understood the term in this context. In several places in Ezekiel where חיל is used of a large mass of people and might have military overtones the LXX translator uses δυνάμεις or ἰσχύς. We will pass over the obvious ambiguities of those translation choices. In Ezek. 37:10 we find חיל rendered as συναγωγὴ which could be understood as “host” or “multitude” with or without military overtones. If we look for συναγωγὴ in Ezekiel we discover it also translates קהל a word which covers some of the same semantic territory, a large group of people called together for worship, council or warfare.

Ezek. 38:4 καὶ συνάξω σε καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμίν σου, ἵππους καὶ ἱππεῖς ἐνδεδυμένους θώρακας πάντας, συναγωγὴ πολλή, πέλται καὶ περικεφαλαῖαι καὶ μάχαιραι,

Ezek. 38:4 NETS "I will round up you and all your force, horses and riders, clothed in all their armor, a great gathering, shields and helmets and daggers”

Ezek. 38:4 NRSV I will turn you around and put hooks into your jaws, and I will lead you out with all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed in full armor, a great company, all of them with shield and buckler, wielding swords.

In this passage the word חיל is translated τὴν δύναμίν force, πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμίν σου “all your force” NETS. The expression קהל רב “a great company” NRSV is translated συναγωγὴ πολλή “a great gathering” NETS. It looks like our translator prefers δυνάμεις for explicit military reference and συναγωγὴ for more general reference but that may be a case of reading the English translation back into the MT and LXX. Note the following example where חיל and קהל appear in parallel.

Ezek. 38:15 NRSV and come from your place out of the remotest parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army;

Ezek. 38:15 καὶ ἥξεις ἐκ τοῦ τόπου σου ἀπ᾿ ἐσχάτου βορρᾶ καὶ ἔθνη πολλὰ μετὰ σοῦ, ἀναβάται ἵππων πάντες, συναγωγὴ μεγάλη καὶ δύναμις πολλή,

Ezek. 38:15 NETS And you shall come from your place out of the extreme north and many nations with you, all riders on horses, a great gathering and a large force

Here δύναμις renders חיל and συναγωγὴ renders קהל.

After reviewing the use of חיל and קהל in Ezekiel and seeing how the LXX handles each case, it appears that this military language in the vision of the dry bones is used in a sort extended metaphor. The bones are the remains of a defeated army laying on the battlefield eons after the battle has faded from memory. When the bones are revived they become the army again. All of this a metaphor for the revival of the whole house of Israel as explained in the text. Not a literal army, otherwise, what is the purpose of this huge army? (c.f. Moshe Greenberg Ezekiel AB)

Wilderness of the Nations Ezekiel 20:35

2011-08-23T14:46:00.000-07:00

Ezekiel 20:35 I will bring you into the wilderness of the nations, and there I will judge you face to face. ESV

The wilderness of the nations in the second exodus corresponds to the wilderness of Egypt in the first exodus. It need not be a geographical location. A number of 20th century commentators including Charles L. Feinberg saw it as figurative reference to a place of judgement typified by the forty years of wandering in the wilderness under Moses.

The gathering of the whole house of Israel in Ezekiel 20 chronologically precedes bringing the chosen into the land of promise. The weeding out of Ezekiel 20 under the shepherd metaphor results in a select group which will return to the land. All we are told about the fate of the remainder is that they will not enter the land. This again answers to the type of the first exodus generation who died in the wilderness.

The pattern of the restoration to the land of promise found in Ezekiel doesn’t appear to answer in any of the particulars to a secular zionist vision. Secularism is the religion of modernism. It is a form of idolatry. One thing we can be sure of, the messianic eschatological kingdom in the land of promise will not be secular.

Israel’s return in unbelief: counter evidence

2011-08-20T13:13:00.000-07:00

Ezekiel 20:34-38 gathering and purging Israel before they enter the land of promise

This passage appears to be incompatible with a return to the land in unbelief. The house of Israel is gathered from the dispersion among the nations to a place called “the wilderness of the peoples” ‎מדבר העמים τὴν ἔρημον τῶν λαῶν. This Hebrew expression translated “the wilderness of the peoples” is found in the War Scroll 1QM 1:2-3

1QM 1:2 … The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, those exiled to the wilderness, shall fight against them 3 with […] against all their troops, when the exiles of the Sons of Light return from the Wilderness of the Peoples to camp in the Wilderness of Jerusalem. [1]

The referent of the expression “the wilderness of the peoples” is difficult to identify but we are safe in assuming it is not part of the the promised land “the land of Israel.” The location is not important. Ezekiel makes it the scene where the Lord God enters into judgement with Israel.

Ezekiel 20:34-38 RSV I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out; 35 and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face. 36 As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, says the Lord GOD. 37 I will make you pass under the rod, and I will let you go in by number. 38 I will purge out the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against me; I will bring them out of the land where they sojourn, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

The sequence of events here is generally chronological, with some overlap, restatement and expansion; “with wrath poured out” at the end of v34 which may refer to the judgement “face to face” at the end of v35 which is repeated again in v36 “I will enter into judgment with you” and elaborated in v37-38. The narration is not strictly linear, but the gathering precedes the arrival at the place of judgement and the judgement precedes the return to the land of promise. Most important, the rebels “ those who transgress against me” are explicitly excluded from the group who will return to the land.

This doesn’t bode well for 1948 as a prophetic event.

[1] “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New English Translation,” edited by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr. and Edward M. Cook (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996).

Israel’s return to the Land: Ezekiel 36:24

2011-08-19T10:25:00.001-07:00

The legal language used in the infamous trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher (Perugia, Italy) includes an expression “the evidence is … compatible with …” which indicates that some piece of evidence does not contradict a certain reconstruction of the crime scenario. This is a very weak form of evidence.

Looking at Ezekiel 36:22-27 we might detect some evidence which is compatible with the “House of Israel” returning to the land in unbelief. In verse 22 the Lord tells the House of Israel that nothing Israel has done serves as a motivation to restore them to the land. In other words, the restoration is a unilateral action taken by the Lord for reasons of his own, independent of Israel’s history or current moral/religious state. This is perhaps compatible with the scenario of Israel returning to the land in unbelief.

The sequence of the actions predicted in this passage begins with the return to the land. That is one way of reading it. Verses 22-23 present the goal to be achieved by the action. Verse 24ff presents a series of actions which will bring about the desired result. The sequence of the series does not constrain the reader in reconstructing the scenario. We are not required to view the presentation of the return to the land prior to the purification as a linear temporal model of the future events. However, the sequence might be “compatible with” a return to the land in unbelief.

Ezek. 36:22 RSV “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them; and the nations will know that I am the LORD, says the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Charles L. Feinberg[1] reads verses 24-25ff as a chronological sequence. The return to the land first and then the purification and regeneration. Reading a sequence of prophetic predictions as temporal and sequential is typical of mid-20th century dispensationalism. The language is a sequence of propositions and the predictions must be presented in some order, but not necessarily linear or chronological order. Verse 24 isn’t linear, the first two statements are parallel “I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries” and the third statement shows progression “and bring you into your own land.” The purification and spiritual regeneration in verses 25-27 are not linear, the relationship between the statements is a combination of parallelism and synthesis. An attempt to force the transition between the the return to the land and the spiritual renewal into a chronological sequence, based on this text alone, probably isn’t going to withstand close scrutiny.

[1] Charles L. Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel: The Glory of the Lord, Moody Press 1969, page 209.

Secular Israel in Biblical Prophecy: Ezekiel

2011-08-18T11:43:00.000-07:00

Stephen Sizer recently posted a sermon by the late John Stott “The Place of Israel? http://www.stephensizer.com/2011/07/john-stott-the-place-of-israel/. There is nothing unusual about Stott’s position:

“… true Israel today is neither Jews nor Israelis, but believers in the Messiah, even if they are gentiles.”

“Is the setting up of the State of Israel a fulfillment of the prophecy? Well, I cannot go into this in a detail. I can only say this: Some people think so. Especially dispensationalists, as we call them. There may be some here. They say in effect that the prophets promised that the Jews would return to the promised land. They even delineate the boundaries that the Jews would occupy in the promised land. Those promises were not fulfilled in the Old Testament literally, so we look for a fulfillment in the future. It is a reasonable view to hold, and many do hold it. And we regard them with respect and love.”

“The Old Testament promises according to the apostles are fulfilled in Christ and in the international community of Christ. The New Testament authors apply the promise of Abraham’s seed to Jesus Christ. And they apply to Jesus Christ the promise of the land and all the land which is inherited, the land flowing with mild and honey, because it is in Him that our hunger is satisfied and our thirst is quenched. A return to Jewish nationalism would seem incompatible with this New Testament perspective of the international community of Jesus.”

Both Stott’s position and the “dispensationalists” present difficulties. The claim that the NT invalidates the promise of ethnic Israel’s return to the land makes Ezekiel a false prophet. Israel and the Land are not metaphors in Ezekiel. On Stott’s position which is shared by a large number of theologians and biblical scholars, Ezekiel’s view of the future is reduced to nonsense.

In Ezekiel we find a prophet who was under an exceedingly strict constraint to speak only what the Lord God told him to speak and only when the Lord God told him to speak. The prophetic utterance is introduced over and over again by an elaborate expression of the Divine command to speak and the Divine seal on the words spoken. In this manner the promise of restoration to the land is given the highest level of authority. The promise of return to the land is not contingent. It is a unilateral proclamation of what the God of Israel intended to accomplish for His name sake. The return to the land is to serve as a manifestation of the Glory of God.

On the other hand, against the prevailing “end times” notion that something biblical happened in 1948, I have not found anything (so far) in Ezekiel about a secular nation of Israel, a return to the land in unbelief. Later on I will take a look at the dry bones (Ezekiel 37) argument presented by some mid-20th century dispensationalists.

Ezekiel, Hermeneutics

2011-08-10T11:40:00.000-07:00

The 20th century end times prophecy movement has times without number been castigated for employing a “literal” hermeneutic. The phrase “a literal interpretation of the bible” has often been employed in a manner which implies the ignorance and stupidity of anyone who reads the biblical text and takes it seriously. In the popular “end times” literature the hermeneutical model is often lacking in sophistication. On the other hand, serious biblical scholars like Charles Feinberg show a full appreciation of literary genre and figurative language in the prophetic literature.

The book of Ezekiel includes visions and oracles. Within the oracles we find metaphor and allegory as well as non-figurative prediction of future events. Generally there is little difficulty keeping these sorted out. The visions of the throne chariot are announced as visions. In chapter 24 the figurative nature of the oracle is explicitly announced. In chapter 37 the symbols are explained.

In the oracles against the nations we find some easily identifiable ancient peoples and their leaders like Egypt and Pharaoh. On the other hand we have problems knowing exactly what to do with Gog and Magog. Throughout the book of Ezekiel “the house of Israel” and Judah function as global VIPs (very important participants). With Israel and Judah the referent is never severed from its connection with the historical entity known by that name. Ezekiel did not provide any signals that indicate Israel and Judah should be read as a figurative indirect reference to something else. This is one of the main points under discussion. I am setting if forth here as an axiom with the intention of looking for contrary evidence.

a careful and strict Inquiry into the prevailing notion that the modern secular state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophesy

2011-08-08T12:10:00.000-07:00

I am currently engage in a not very careful nor particularly strict inquiry into the prevailing notion that the modern secular State of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophesy

Israel and the Nations in Ezekiel.

For several weeks now I have been reading and meditating on the later part of Ezekiel using the ancient Greek version (LXX) as my primary text with occasional forays into the Masoretic Text (MT). My first objective was to look at what Ezekiel has to say about the restoration of Israel as a nation and the return to the land. Ezekiel uses a lot figurative language, metaphors are numerous but I have not so far found any evidence that Ezekiel ever uses Israel or “the land” in a figurative manner. We will begin by setting up a “straw man.” We will assume that someone at sometime, somewhere proposed that Israel and “the land” in Ezekiel function as metaphors for something else. By looking at Ezekiel’s use of metaphor we will evaluate the validity of that claim.

I am going to assume without argument that the future Ezekiel describes for “the house of Israel” and “the land” was never fulfilled in ancient times. Later on I will look at the question of the modern secular state of Israel and ask if Ezekiel has anything to say about that.

When Israel became a state in 1948 some of the mid-century proponents of the end times movement considered it a portent of great significance. I don’t have easy access to all of that literature so the documentation here is going to be pretty spotty. I do have Charles Feinberg’s commentary on Ezekiel so I will consider Feinberg a representative voice from that era. Feinberg’s credentials as an old testament scholar were impeccable so we are dealing with a serious author even though his commentary was aimed at a popular audience.

ἄλλον ἄγγελον Rev. 14:6 — part 2

2011-06-29T13:07:00.000-07:00

Rev. 14:6 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον πετόμενον ἐν μεσουρανήματι, ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον εὐαγγελίσαι ἐπὶ τοὺς καθημένους ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔθνος καὶ φυλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν καὶ λαόν,

Rev. 14:6   Then I saw another angel flying in midheaven, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; RSV

Yesterday we looked at ἄλλον ἄγγελον in Rev. 14:6 and raised the question, who is the “other” angel, the antecedent of ἄλλον. One solution is to look back several chapters to the last mentioned angel. Another solution is to understand ἄλλον ἄγγελον in Rev. 14:6 as an introduction to a series of two or more angels in close succession. John 4:37 shows ἄλλος introducing a comparison. The first ἄλλος has no antecedent. It marks the beginning of a comparison.

John 4:37... ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ σπείρων καὶ ἄλλος ὁ θερίζων.
… One sows and another reaps.

This is not an exact parallel to what we see in Rev. 14:6 where the first ἄλλον is the beginning of a longer series[1] and the notion of comparison is not prominent. However, John 4:37 does illustrate an initial ἄλλος used without an antecedent. I’m not inclined at the moment to adopt this solution. Angels are always discourse active in the Apocalypse of John so an antecedent in the normal sense isn’t required for the expression ἄλλον ἄγγελον. The antecedent is supplied from John’s apocalyptic framework, we need not search for it in the immediate co-text.

Searching for the antecedent has lead to further confusion in regard to ἄλλος ἄγγελος in Rev. 14:15

Rev. 14:14 Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη λευκή, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, ἔχων ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ στέφανον χρυσοῦν καὶ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ δρέπανον ὀξύ. 15 καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ κράζων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης· πέμψον τὸ δρέπανόν σου καὶ θέρισον, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα θερίσαι, ὅτι ἐξηράνθη ὁ θερισμὸς τῆς γῆς.

Rev. 14:14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat upon the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.”

M. R. Hoffmann[2] argues that ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου “seated on the cloud one like a son of man” must be an “angel” since this participant immediately precedes ἄλλος ἄγγελος “another angel” in verse 15. On this point I part ways with Hoffmann. Angels abound[3] in the immediate co-text, the introduction of a non-angelic participant in the midst of several angels does not cause problems for ἄλλος ἄγγελος “another angel” in verse 15. To illustrate, we could alter the narrative so that a riderless horse is introduced in verse 14. Given that scenario reading ἄλλος ἄγγελος in verse fifteen we would not be inclined to view the riderless horse as an angelic participant since the riderless horse is not used as a symbol of angelic beings. I argue that the Daniel 7:13 allusion in Rev. 14:14 like the riderless horse opens a different scenario. This reading and Hoffman's are both controversial.

   [1] This series could be understood as having three elements, Rev. 14:6,8,9 or five elements including 14:5,17.

Rev. 14:6 Καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον …
I saw another angel …

Rev. 14:8 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος δεύτερος ἠκολούθησεν λέγων·
Another angel, a second, followed, saying …

Rev. 14:9 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος τρίτος ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων
Another angel, a third, followed them, saying …

Rev. 14:15 καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ
Another angel came out of the temple …

Rev. 14:17 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
Another angel came out of the temple in heaven

[2]Matthias Reinhard Hoffmann, “The destroyer and the lamb: the relationship between angelomorphic and lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation” Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

[3]The angelic messengers are ubiquitous, the scenario invoked by ἄλλος ἄγγελος “another angel” is always active and open, but John opens numerous other scenarios nested within the high level apocalyptic framework.

ἄλλον ἄγγελον Rev. 14:6 — a crux interpretum or a crux interpretorum

2011-06-28T14:04:00.000-07:00

Naming Angels in Qumran texts

2011-06-14T18:40:00.000-07:00

In the last post we noticed that John the author of the Apocalypse very rarely identifies angels by name. Darrell D. Hannah[1] makes note of a similar pattern at Qumran which he attributes to reticence among the Qumran sectarians to name angels. Hannah cites a well known passage from Josephus (War ii. 142) concerning an oath taken by Essenes “Not to communicate their doctrines … and to preserve in like manner both the books of their sect and the names of the angels.[2]” We do not know if John had any connection with Essenes or the Qumran sectarians but there may have been other cultural factors that made the naming of angels undesirable.

[1] Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. 1999, Mohr Siebeck, p.68.

[2]Josephus (War ii. 142) … κἂν μέχρι θανάτου τις βιάζηται. πρὸς τούτοις ὄμνυσιν μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς μετέλαβεν, ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας καὶ συντηρήσειν ὁμοίως τά τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν 4 βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα. τοιούτοις μὲν ὅρκοις τοὺς 5 προσιόντας ἐξασφαλίζονται.

Angels & participant reference in the Apocalypse of John the Apostle

2011-06-13T13:38:00.000-07:00

The question, does the Apocalypse ever identify Jesus Christ as an Angel, might sound simple to someone who hasn’t looked into it with any seriousness. I’ve been thinking about it for a while, wondering what a text linguist might do with the problem. Patterns of participant reference are a fascinating feature of the Apocalypse. In numerous passages John almost appears to have intentionally created confusion about who is the agent of some action or the speaker of some proclamation.

The Apocalypse shows distinctive patterns of participant reference in regard to Angels. They appear on stage, perform certain actions, make proclamations and then disappear. On rare occasions an angel may be given a name:

Rev. 9:11 ἔχουσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῶν βασιλέα τὸν ἄγγελον τῆς ἀβύσσου, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἑβραϊστὶ Ἀβαδδών, καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἑλληνικῇ ὄνομα ἔχει Ἀπολλύων.

Rev. 9:11 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon. RSV

Rev. 12:7 Καὶ ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πολεμῆσαι μετὰ τοῦ δράκοντος. καὶ ὁ δράκων ἐπολέμησεν καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ,

Rev. 12:7   Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,

John leaves most angels unnamed and occasionally introduces them with indefinite modifiers ἄλλον ἄγγελον “another angel”[1] or εἷς ἄγγελος ἰσχυρὸς “a certain strong angel”[2]. John provides identity when it suits his purpose. In most cases the only identity offered is the role of the angel performs in the vision.

Another means of identification is the angel’s close association with God. In Rev. 1:1, 22:6 we read ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ where the angel who is sent by God has a possessive genitive pronoun. This might be understood as a reference to מלאך יהוה ἄγγελος κυρίου The Angel of the Lord. We see a similar pattern in 22:16 Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου “I Jesus have sent my angel …” where the genitive pronoun μου might be understood as indicating a special status. However, מלאך יהוה probably functions as a title whereas μου and αὐτοῦ are simply descriptive modifiers. An amateur theologian might quibble that all the (elect) Angels could be referred to as ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ but that raises the question, why bother saying it at all. In other words, it fails the test of relevance. Jesus Christ doesn’t waste words, when he says ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου “I have sent my angel …” μου conveys some significant information. However, the pronoun is exceedingly ambiguous so the significance isn't perfectly obvious.

Another means of indicating close association with God is the position of the angel: Rev. 8:2 εἶδον τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλους οἳ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἑστήκασιν “I saw the seven angels who stand before God” Rev. 8:4 τοῦ ἀγγέλου ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ “the angel before God.”

At this moment in my project, I don’t think John’s pattern of identifying angels lends much support to those who see Jesus Christ as the referent of ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν Rev. 10:1. In the two cases where the identity of an angel was important to John (Rev. 9:11,12:7) he named them.

[1] For ἄλλον ἄγγελον “another angel” see Rev. 7:2, Rev. 8:3, Rev. 10:1, Rev. 14:6, Rev. 14:8, Rev. 14:9, Rev. 14:15, Rev. 14:17, Rev. 14:18, Rev. 18.

[2] εἷς ἄγγελος ἰσχυρὸς “a certain strong angel” Rev. 18:2

τὰ ῥήματα הדברים used in a narrative contextualizer

2011-06-09T14:10:00.000-07:00

This morning I was reading C. A. Gieschen’s monograph on Angelomorphic Christology[1]. In the chapter on hypostases, discussing “The Word of the Lord,” Gieschen cites Gen. 15 where Abram experiences a theophany which is introduced by the formula “After these things the Word of YHWH came to Abram in a vision.”[2]

Gen. 15:1
μετὰ δὲ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα
‎‏אחר הדברים האלה
ἐγενήθη ῥῆμα κυρίου πρὸς Αβραμ …
‎היה דבר־יהוה אל־אברם

Reading the LXX, I noticed that the clause initial adverbial contextualizer μετὰ δὲ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα “After these things” includes ῥήματα (words, things, events ...) which is repeated in the next clause ἐγενήθη ῥῆμα κυρίου “the Word of YHWH happened[3].” The LXX (old greek OG) follows the Hebrew closely. No english translation I have seen makes this play on words (if it is one) obvious. I couldn’t find any other examples of this in the MT (Hebrew Bible) or LXX.

The temporal contextualizer which includes τὰ ῥήματα rendering הדברים appears other places in the Hebrew bible[4] but only once (Gen. 15:1) with דבר in the following clause. The contextualizer μετὰ δὲ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα does not appear in the New Testament, although take a look at Luke 9:28 Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους where μετὰ τοὺς λόγους τούτους “after these sayings” functions as a contextualizer. In this case τοὺς λόγους is understood by the english translators as refering to speech not a generic term for events like τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα.

The New testament uses μετὰ ταῦτα (after these things) as a narrative contextualizer with the bulk of the examples in John and Revelation. This is common enough in ancient greek narrative.

Thucydides, Hist.
Book 1, chapter 56, section 1, line 1

Μετὰ ταῦτα δ' εὐθὺς καὶ τάδε ξυνέβη γενέσθαι τοῖς
Ἀθηναίοις καὶ Πελοποννησίοις διάφορα ἐς τὸ πολεμεῖν.

Thucydides, Hist.
Book 1, chapter 100, section 1, line 1
Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἡ ἐπ' Εὐρυμέδοντι ποταμῷ

[1] Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, Brill 1998, page 103.

[2] Gieschen’s translation.

[3] Most english versions say “the word of the LORD came …” which uses a travel metaphor but the hebrew and greek both use the existential verb ‏היה ἐγενήθη which isn’t a travel metaphor. The word of the Lord is an event, it happens. For the travel metaphor, see Jer. 17:15 ἰδοὺ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι πρός με ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος κυρίου ἐλθάτω. Jer. 17:15 Behold, they say to me, “Where is the word of the LORD? Let it come!” RSV.

[4]Gen. 15:1‏, ‎Gen. 22:1,‏ ‎Gen. 39:7,‏ ‎Gen. 40:1,‏ ‎1Kings 13:33‏, ‎1Kings 17:17,‏ ‎1Kings 21:1,‏ ‎Esth. 2:1‏ ‎Esth. 3:1,‏ ‎Ezra 7:1.‏

Is Jesus Christ an Angel in Revelation 1:1?

2011-06-06T13:47:00.000-07:00

Rev. 1:1 Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ

Rev. 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, RSV

Yesterday I was mulling over the chain of agency in Revelation 1:1. One way of reading it, adopted by many; God is the first agent, Jesus Christ the second, the Angel the third, and John the recipient who wrote it down, a fourth agent. In what follows, the Angel seems to drop out of sight. In the vision of the glorified Christ, the speaker is Christ not the Angel. So why was the Angel introduced as an agent if the Angel doesn’t participate in the vision at this point? Participants who, once they are introduced, do nothing and have no apparent function in the narrative are an anomaly.

There is an alternative reading of this text which solves the problem. The agent (subject) of ἐσήμανεν “ [he] made it known” is ambiguous. It could be ὁ θεὸς God or Jesus Christ. If we follow Robert H. Gundry[1] and read ὁ θεὸς God as the agent of ἐσήμανεν, then the next agent in the chain is Jesus Christ referred to as τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ “his Angel”, i.e. The Angel of the Lord[2].

Not everyone is pleased with this reading. Some argue that ὁ θεὸς God is the subject of a relative clause, which puts ὁ θεὸς in the background of the narrative. However, that argument assumes a certain parsing of the Rev. 1:1, where Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ a genitive modifier of Ἀποκάλυψις becomes the agent of a verb several clauses later. That analysis assumes that καὶ ἐσήμανεν “and [he] made it known” which is introduced by καὶ, following two relative clauses, returns to the top level of the discourse. In other words, it is assumed that everything between Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and καὶ ἐσήμανεν is backgrounded. This would make a certain amount of sense if we are reading historical narrative in a native Greek author. But John’s language habits make it somewhat hazardous to be dogmatic about the difference between a clause introduced by καὶ and a relative clause. John in the Apocalypse appears to move back and forth between hypotaxis and parataxis in manner which leaves the exegete guessing about the discourse structure. I would suggest that the syntax arguments against R. Gundry’s reading are inconclusive.

Perhaps a more compelling argument against Gundry’s reading could be advanced by considering similar language in

Rev 22:16 Εγω Ιησους επεμψα τον αγγελον μου μαρτυρησαι υμιν ταυτα επι ταις εκκλησιαις. — SBLGNT, M. Holmes ed.

Rev. 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.” ESV

C. A. Gieschen[3] considers this a refutation of Gundry’s reading. I am not totally convinced. Perhaps in the next post, we can take a look at this.

[1] Robert H. Gundry, “Angelomorphic Christology in the Book of Revelation” Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Pp. 672–673

[2] This connection with The Angel of the Lord, isn’t taken from Gundry, who I don’t have on hand.

[3] Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, Brill 1998.

The weak shall be strong Rev 1:2

2011-06-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

Rev. 1:2 ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν.

Rev. 1:2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. NIV2011

Gordon Fee, once again, wants to nail down the meaning of an ambiguous genitive. The NIV2011 rendered τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ directly as “the word of God” which is almost as ambiguous as the greek. Fee doesn’t like what E. A. Gutt calls “weak communication,” where multiple readings are possible. The job of the exegete is to explore the various options but not necessarily nail one of them down. Weak communication is what makes great literature different from an automobile maintenance manual. Weak communication is goodness. Fee argues that the genitive in τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ should be understood as “the word from God.” But this doesn’t seem that obvious. It is also a word that belongs to God, a word uniquely identified as God’s word, and not inconsequentially associated with the The Word in the prolog to the Gospel of John. All of these associations some others are shut down by making this strong communication, “the word from God.”   G. Fee treats the greek genitive as an enemy of clarity, i.e. one and only one sense. But that kind of clarity isn’t desirable in great literature. E. A. Gutt argues that multiple inference is a very desirable feature of great literature and the weak communication is very powerful.

Oecumenius (?) comment on Rev. 1:1b

2011-06-04T16:57:00.000-07:00

H. B. Swete (Rev. Com. p.2) has a citation from Arethas which I found in the TLG-E as a work by Oecumenius. The date and author are somewhat uncertain, never the less it is an early, perhaps not real early, work on Revelation which gives support for the reading of ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ found in most modern commentaries and translations.

Oecumenius Phil., Rhet., Commentarius in Apocalypsin (2866: 001)
“The complete commentary of Oecumenius on the Apocalypse”, Ed. Hoskier, H.C. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1928. Page 32, line 19

ἐντεῦθεν αὐτῷ τῷ εἰπεῖν ἀποκάλυψις, δέδοται μὲν παρὰ τοῦ πάτρος τῷ υἱῷ· δέδοται δὲ παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡμῖν τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ.

“Although the present revelation has been given by the Father to the Son, it has now been given by the Son to us” [1]

[1] John N. Suggit, trans. Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse The Fathers of the Church 112, page 22. Catholic University of America Press, March 2006

Christology of Revelation 1:1

2011-06-04T14:38:00.000-07:00

H. Alford (Greek Testament) discusses the christology of Rev 1:1, responding to a objection raised in his day that Jesus Christ should be cast in the role of a recipient who was given the Αποκαλυψις from God. If Jesus Christ was fully God, why does he, even in his glorified state need to be told what to say? The notion of Jesus as a mediator of divine speech and also agent of divine works is well developed in John’s Gospel. But that was the period when the eternal Word of God was in a state of humiliation, taking on the form of a man. The question then is not what Jesus did as a man on earth but what role the exalted Christ has in regard to the revelation found in the Apocalypse of John.

Revelation of John 1:
1 Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου, ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου, α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει, και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τῳ δουλῳ αυτου Ιωαννῃ, 2 ος εμαρτυρησεν τον λογον του θεου και την μαρτυριαν Ιησου Χριστου, οσα ειδεν. — SBLGNT Michael W. Holmes ed.

Rev. 1:1   The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. NRSV

The standard way to read the relative clause ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι is demonstrated in the NRSV “which God gave him to show.” It is of course always possible to find a scholar, one or two, who advocate an alternative reading of εδωκεν. The verb δίδωμι is extremely common with a wide range of use. Louw & Nida show sixteen semantic domains, here are two abbreviated entries:

13.128 δίδωμι: to cause to happen, used particularly in relationship to physical events

13.142 δίδωμι; παραδίδωμιd: to grant someone the opportunity or occasion to do something — ‘to grant, to allow.’

The dative pronoun αυτῳ makes good sense with both of these. If we were to read the genitive in Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου as one of possession (i.e. ownership) with a secondary notion of agency and δίδωμι as grant or allow, then we could perhaps eliminate the objection discussed (but rejected) by Alford. David Aune goes halfway there by translating εδωκεν “granted”. But he immediately points out the familiar Johannine theme, “God is the ultimate source of revelation, and Christ the agent of that revelation…” John 15:15 “ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν” “for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” RSV. Also in Matt. 11:27 we see the Son as God’s agent of revelation:

Matt. 11:27 Πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι. NA27

Matt. 11: 27 All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. RSV

There appears to be an unstated assumption in most of the secondary literature that Jesus earthly role as God’s spokesman also represents his exalted role after the resurrection and ascension. This question requires more thought.

Gordon Fee & direct translation of Revelation 1:1

2011-06-03T10:45:00.000-07:00

As most of you probably know, Gordon Fee’s book on Revelation was published early this year by Wipf & Stock. I found it at the local library. Gordon Fee is a professional textual critic and New Testament exegete. His works on Philippians and First Corinthians are required reading. The target audience for his Revelation commentary is general readers. The text used is the NIV2011 but his exegesis is most certainly based on the Greek text. This is not a review, rather a continuation of our discussion of direct translation.

In the notes on Revelation 1:1 Fee points out the ambiguity in the first verse of the Apocalypse and what the NIV committee[1] did to remove it. Removing ambiguity results in a curtailment of inferential options. In other words, there are alternative readings in the Greek text which are eliminated in the NIV2011 (hereafter, NIV).

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, NIV2011

Revelation of John 1:
1 Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου, ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου, α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει, και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τῳ δουλῳ αυτου Ιωαννῃ, — SBLGNT M. Holmes

Three words into the NIV the first ambiguity is removed, “from Jesus Christ” makes Jesus the source or agent of the revelation. The genitive construction Αποκαλυψις Ιησου Χριστου is ambiguous, Jesus Christ could also be the substance (object) of the revelation. John the Apostle[2] was a cleaver author. He certainly understood ambiguity and used it intentionally. Fee argues that the very next clause ην εδωκεν αυτῳ ο θεος δειξαι … “which God gave him to show” supports the NIV rendering of the genitive. But that argument is self defeating. If that clause makes it obvious in greek[3] it also makes it obvious in english and for that reason there is no need to remove the ambiguity. Retaining the ambiguity “the revelation of Jesus Christ” preserves the literary quality of John’s original, the intentional use of language with a potential double meaning. In other words, the original wording had inferential richness which the NIV removes. A direct translation would retain the ambiguity.

[1]G. Fee is a member of the NIV committee.

[2]I agree with Gordon Fee, that the author of the apocalypse was the Apostle John who was also the author of the John’s Gospel.

[3] Not everyone agrees that it is obvious, see F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John 1-3: The Greek Text with Introduction , Commentary, and Additional Notes, Macmillan and. Co., 1908.

Direct translation not = Formal Correspondence

2011-05-29T12:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-28T13:46:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

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)

2011-05-24T19:52:00.000-07:00

[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

2011-05-24T14:06:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-22T12:20:00.000-07:00

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 …

2011-05-20T16:24:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-20T13:27:00.001-07:00

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

2011-05-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-17T11:49:00.000-07:00

“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

2011-05-15T15:14:00.001-07:00

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

2011-05-14T16:35:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-13T13:34:00.000-07:00

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]

2011-05-13T10:11:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-11T10:23:00.000-07:00

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 ...

2011-05-11T00:24:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-10T21:35:00.000-07:00

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”

2011-05-10T13:41:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-09T13:51:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-08T14:53:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-07T22:44:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-07T00:12:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-06T16:13:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-06T14:36:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-04T15:08:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-05-03T15:53:00.001-07:00

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?

2011-05-02T23:01:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-02T11:42:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-01T16:42:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-01T13:26:00.000-07:00

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.

translation: theoretical models & art

2011-04-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

When I was doing still photography in the early 1970s, I had some friends who had studied design at Art Center in SoCal. Talking to them about visual art sparked an interest in the analytical principles of composition, color and gray scale. I spent many many hours reading about design, making extensive use of the public and university libraries. I tried to put design principles to work in my shooting but found it difficult to be analytical while working on location where the light and subject was in a constant state of change. The analytical approach seemed to kill something and produce stale results.

Recently I have been working on application of an ostensive-inferential communication model from cognitive linguistics to translation problems in Sophocles Electra. Looking over the the first speech of Orestes in the last few days I have been impressed by the skill evident in translations I have on hand; David Grene, Ezra Pound-Rudd Fleming and Ann Carson. Every time I think there is some important insight from an ostensive-inferential communication model that might be applied to the text while translating, I go and look at what these poets have done with Electra and discover that, for most part, they have applied these principles without having the formal theoretical model to work with. In other words, a good translator does a lot of things right intuitively without a formal theoretical framework.

On the other hand, the people who work from an analytical perspective using a formal theoretical framework often don’t produce brilliant translations. This is by no means a new observation but it has been impressed upon me in a new way. The theory is good to know when looking for failures in existing translations. But the theory does not in of itself produce good translation. You can study design until dooms day and never produce a work of art.

Horse Battle Terror scenario: Aeschylus Persians 29-32

2011-04-17T15:19:00.000-07:00

Looking for a scenario in Greek Tragedy which includes horses, battle and terror (δεινὸς) I landed in Aeschylus Persians 29-32. The greek text with translation:

Aeschylus, Persians 21-32
20 ...
οἷος Ἀμίστρης ἠδ᾽ Ἀρταφρένης
καὶ Μεγαβάτης ἠδ᾽ Ἀστάσπης,
ταγοὶ Περσῶν,
βασιλῆς βασιλέως ὕποχοι μεγάλου,
25 σοῦνται, στρατιᾶς πολλῆς ἔφοροι,
τοξοδάμαντές τ᾽ ἠδ᾽ ἱπποβάται,
φοβεροὶ μὲν ἰδεῖν, δεινοὶ δὲ μάχην
ψυχῆς εὐτλήμονι δόξῃ:
Ἀρτεμβάρης θ᾽ ἱππιοχάρμης
30 καὶ Μασίστρης, ὅ τε τοξοδάμας
ἐσθλὸς Ἰμαῖος, Φαρανδάκης θ᾽,
ἵππων τ᾽ ἐλατὴρ Σοσθάνης.

Such are Amistres and Artaphrenes and Megabates and Astaspes, marshals of the Persians; kings themselves, yet vassals of the Great King, [25] they press on, commanders of an enormous host, skilled in archery and horsemanship, formidable to look upon and fearful in battle through the valiant resolve of their souls. Artembares, too, who fights from his chariot, [30] and Masistres, and noble Imaeus, skilled with the bow, and Pharandaces, and Sosthanes, who urges on his steeds.   — Herbert Weir Smyth (1857-1937).

In this scenario the terror is an attribute of the enormous host [στρατιᾶς πολλῆς], archers and horsemen [τοξοδάμαντές τ᾽ ἠδ᾽ ἱπποβάται] considered as a group. The host is fearful to look at [φοβεροὶ μὲν ἰδεῖν] and terrifying in battle [δεινοὶ δὲ μάχην]. The horses are part of the warfare/battle/combat scenario but not specifically in focus as subjects experiencing fear [φόβος] or terror [δεινὸς]. However, fear, terror and horses are all predictable members of the warfare/battle/combat scenario. Within this scenario the horses’ experience of the terrors of war would be assumed, inferential from the cognitive framework.

Horse Terror Scenario: Electra 25-28

2011-04-16T15:05:00.000-07:00

Sophocles Trag., Electra 25-28

Ὀρέστης
23 ...
25 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἵππος εὐγενής, κἂν ᾖ γέρων,
ἐν τοῖσι δεινοῖς θυμὸν οὐκ ἀπώλεσεν,
ἀλλ᾽ ὀρθὸν οὖς ἵστησιν, ὡσαύτως δὲ σὺ
ἡμᾶς τ᾽ ὀτρύνεις καὐτὸς ἐν πρώτοις ἕπει.

… just as an excellent horse,
even when it is old,
in the presence of danger,
does not cave in,
but pricks up his ears,
even so you urge me on,
and follow right up front.

The variations in the translation of Orestes opening lines in Sophocles’ Electra reflect slight differences in how the horse scenario is treated. The expression ἐν τοῖσι δεινοῖς combined with ἵππος may invoke any sort of situation (scenario) which inspires fear or terror in a horse. In the world of Sophocles this would probably be fear inspired by physical danger and often related to combat. This is reinforced by another allusion to battle καὐτὸς ἐν πρώτοις ἕπει “and place yourself in the front” which is the most dangerous position in the battle field. J. H. Kells makes the combat metaphor explicit “does not lose his courage in the moment of battle” along with Pound-Fleming “rarin’ for battle”. David Grene makes τοῖσι δεινοῖς more generic “hard conditions”. Ann Carson with “does not lose heart” omits the idea of terror or danger entirely.

For an urban audience in the 21st century, “horse terror” does not by itself invoke a combat scenario. Carson casts it is aside as an unimportant detail where Kell’s (1973:81) comment “τὰ δεινὰ = the ‘terrible moment’ when the enemy has to be met face to face” provides essential cultural context for understanding the ancient Greek scenario.

The combination of lexical choice “in the moment of battle” with the explanatory note about the ‘terrible moment’ is an illustration of scenario theory put into translation practice. I realize that Kells in 1973 would not have been consciously employing a linguistic framework which was still under development. However, the principles which have been formally captured in scenario theory have been understood for ages. Sophocles himself understood them.

cognitive frames & myth in Sophocles’ Electra

2011-03-28T14:15:00.000-07:00

Paedagogus in the opening lines of Sophocles’ Electra activates a macro level cognitive frame[1], the story/myth of Orestes the son of Agamemnon the supreme commander of the greeks in the Trojan war.

Παιδαγωγός
ὦ τοῦ στρατηγήσαντος ἐν Τροίᾳ ποτὲ 
Ἀγαμέμνονος παῖ, νῦν ἐκεῖν᾽ ἔξεστί σοι 
παρόντι λεύσσειν, ὧν πρόθυμος ἦσθ᾽ ἀεί.
Son of Agamemnon, who was once commander [of our armies] at Troy …

The mention of Orestes’ father Agamemnon was sufficient for Sophocles’ target audience to know in general terms what this story was about. The audience was expected to be familiar with the whole story, the unfolding of the curse on the house of Atreus, the Trojan War and all the subplots. The function of the play was not to inform the audience concerning these basic elements of the story. For a twenty first century reader[2] who is not familiar with all the details of the subplots, Sophocles’ Electra can be difficult reading since the whole story is not a part of our culture. Sophocles’ reliance on the ability of his audience to draw on shared cultural knowledge can serve as a model of a macro level cognitive frame.

Ambiguity begins with Sophocles’ opening reference to Orestes which is not by name but using the gender ambiguous παῖ [child] and then on line six we see reference to Orestes by name for the first time. While this isn’t standard protocol for introducing a new character to a discourse, five lines is not a long wait. To avoid confusion the English translations typically provide “Son” as the equivalent for παῖ since both Electra and Orestes qualify as a referent of παῖ and the modern reader is easily frustrated by ambiguous reference. Even then the translator assumes that “Son of Agamemnon” has unique referential identity for the reader. For audiences today that would not be a realistic assumption.

The epithet of Agamemnon τοῦ στρατηγήσαντος ἐν Τροίᾳ ποτὲ “once commander at Troy” assumes that Agamemnon’s role in that conflict is common knowledge. Again, the translator might find it necessary to make some inferential aspects of Agamemnon’s story explicit in the translation, e.g., “commander [of our armies] at Troy”.

[1] on scenarios and cognitive frames see: Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008
http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/50670_Hoyle_ScenariosDiscourseTranslation.pdf

[2] The contemporary reader should not jump to the conclusion that Sophocles’ Electra was opaque or obscure to the original audience. Were not dealing with something like “The Waste Land” by T. S. Eliot.

Peter’s question: Matt. 19:27

2011-03-25T15:42:00.000-07:00

Peter’s question τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμῖν Matt. 19:27

Matt. 19:27 Τότε ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήσαμέν σοι· τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμῖν;

Matthew attaches a question τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμῖν; to Peter’s statement not found in Mark or Luke. This could be understood as making an implied question explicit. Peter’s statement as reported in Mark and Luke, taken in isolation, might be understood as simply bragging. However, Jesus responds as if there were an implied question. Matthew account makes the implication explicit.

Relevance Theory (RT) draws attention to the part cultural assumptions play in understanding speech acts. What is said, the speech act or surface structure, is considered a stimulus not a code. Jesus didn’t decode Peter’s statement, he understood it as an inquiry about the disciples future status relative to τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. In early Chomsky this would have been called “skewing”, the disconnect between what is said and what is intended. In RT this illustrates what normally takes place in verbal communication. The contents of the speech act indicates the speakers intention to mean something but the content of that meaning is supplied from the cognitive framework shared by the speaker and hearer. Without the shared cognitive framework it would be either difficult or impossible to determine the speaker’s intention from an analysis of the speech act. “Skewing” is the wrong concept since all verbal communication functions this way. A shared cognitive framework is required to understand the most simple statements. The shorter the speech the more it relies on implications from supplied from outside the speech act.

John 19:30 ὅτε οὖν ἔλαβεν τὸ ὄξος [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· τετέλεσται, καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα.

The verbal expression τετέλεσται provides minimal information but the implications if they were written down would fill a library.

Mark 6:51-52 the disciples unbelief

2011-03-09T23:26:00.000-08:00

The disciples had just witnessed the feeding of the five thousand but when Jesus came walking over wind tossed waters to them in the dark of night and the wind died down when he joined them in the boat, Mark tells us that they still didn’t understand. Mark adds a narrator’s comment on their spiritual condition not found in the other gospels. The text:

Mark 6:51 NA27 καὶ ἀνέβη πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, καὶ λίαν [ἐκ περισσοῦ] ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἐξίσταντο· 52 οὐ γὰρ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις, ἀλλ᾿ ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη.

There are some textual variants for Mark 6:51-52. The following is the SBLGNT with apparatus edited by Michael Holmes.

Mark 6:51 SBLGNT και ανεβη προς αυτους εις το πλοιον, και εκοπασεν ο ανεμος. και λιαν ⸂εκ περισσου⸃ εν εαυτοις ⸀εξισταντο, 52 ου γαρ συνηκαν επι τοις αρτοις, ⸂αλλ ην⸃ αυτων η καρδια πεπωρωμενη.

Mark 6:51:

    •    εκ περισσου Treg NIV RP ] – WH
    •    εξισταντο WH Treg NIV ] + και εθαυμαζον RP

Mark 6:52:

    •    αλλ ην WH Treg NIV ] ην γαρ RP

key to apparatus: WH: Westcott & Hort, RP: Robinson-Pierpont, Treg: Tregelles

The majority text (RP) adds και εθαυμαζον which provides some rhetorical underlining in regard to the disciples mental state but it really doesn’t add much since ἐξίσταντο is a strong word and combined with λίαν [ἐκ περισσοῦ] leaves no question that disciples were overwhelmed by their experience in the boat. Mark’s comment οὐ γὰρ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις ties this pericope to the miracle of the bread and the fish. In all three accounts, Matthew, Mark and John, the feeding of the multitude comes immediately before the walking on the water but only Mark joins the two episodes explicitly by finding fault with the disciples for not drawing an obvious inference concerning Jesus after observing his multiplication of the loaves and fish. The language in Mark 6:52 is strong and harsh οὐ … συνῆκαν … ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη,   similar to language leveled at Jesus’ opponents. Later on in Mark 8:15-21 Jesus will upbraid the disciples for being preoccupied with concerns about food, reminding them of the food they collected after the feeding miracles.

a dialogue of death

2011-03-07T21:21:00.000-08:00

Sophocles Trag., Electra 1477-78
Orestes to Aegisthus
Οὐ γὰρ αἰσθάνῃ πάλαι
ζῶν τοῖς θανοῦσιν οὕνεκ' ἀνταυδᾷς ἴσα;

Orestes is speaking to Aegisthus who is just now discovering that Orestes is not only alive but present and speaking with him. We see γὰρ introducing a question where the preceding context supplies the grounds for an inference implied in the question[1]. This takes the form of a question but it is really a statement. The adverb πάλαι indicates time just past “for some time now” (J.H. Kells). The verb αἰσθάνῃ takes an object clause introduced by οὕνεκα with the verb ἀνταυδᾷς[2]. Sophocles stacks the arguments for ἀνταυδᾷς not only in front of the verb but in front of the conjunction οὕνεκα. Some scholars amended the mss reading ζῶν τοῖς to ζῶντας by conjecture which leaves us with two participles ζῶντας an accusative plural and θανοῦσιν a dative plural. Kells reads ζῶντας rendering “Why do you not perceive that you have for some time now been addressing living men as though they were dead?” If the mss reading ζῶν τοῖς is retained then the participle ζῶν applies to Aegisthus “you the living are speaking [face to face] with the dead” where τοῖς θανοῦσιν refers to those who are residents of the nether world, an ironic reference to Orestes, a double irony since Orestes who was considered dead is now alive and Aegisthus who was alive and exulting over Orestes’ death is now as good as dead.

[1] Guy Cooper compares this use of γὰρ to ἄρα, Greek Syntax vol. 4, 2:69:14:6:H.
[2] Guy Cooper, Greek Syntax vol. 3, 2:55:7:12:A, p. 2570.

I bear witness to you today ... a Hebrew idiom?

2011-03-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

The OT expression "I proclaim/announce/bear witness to you today [that]"‏ has been identified by some as a Hebrew idiom. It is often cited as evidence for joining σήμερον with λέγω in Luke 23:43. In this post we will take a look at the Hebrew evidence and the LXX rendering. The idiom takes various forms:

Deut. 30:18 הגדתי לכם היום כי
LXX ἀναγγέλλω σοι σήμερον ὅτι

Deut. 4:26 ‏העידתי בכם היום
LXX διαμαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον

Deut. 8:19 ‏העדתי בכם היום כי
LXX διαμαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον

Deut. 32:46 ‏אנכי מעיד בכם היום
LXX ἐγὼ διαμαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον

Jer. 42:19-20 ‏ידע תדעו כי־העידתי בכם היום כי‎‏
‎‏ LXX γνόντες γνώσεσθε ὅτι

Stretching things a bit some have cited 1Sam 12:5; 1Kgs 1:51 as evidence:

1Sam 12:5 ‏‏עד יהוה בכם ועד משיחו היום
LXX μάρτυς κύριος ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ μάρτυς χριστὸς αὐτοῦ σήμερον

1Kgs 1:51 ‏ישבע־לי כיום המלך שלמה
LXX ὀμοσάτω μοι σήμερον ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμων

The idiom represented in the OT evidence has no formal similarity to the NT idiom found in Luke 23:43[1]: [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν/σοι [ὅτι]. The NT idiom uses the verb λέγω which is a translation equivalent for the Hebrew verb ‏,אמר a word that is never used in the Hebrew idiom. The Hebrew idiom uses the verbs: עוד: to testify, bear witness, c. sf. against one; in favour of LXX διαμαρτύρομαι and ‏‏נגד: to publish, declare, proclaim; LXX ἀναγγέλλω.

Then prefixed [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν is an essential component in the NT idiom [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν/σοι [ὅτι]. [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν or an equivalent is never used in the Hebrew idiom we examined in this post. Iver found about 75 samples of the [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν ... idiom in the NT. This idiom is not found in the OT or LXX.

[1] In Luke 23:43 the pronoun is fronted ἀμήν σοι λέγω which Iver Larsen explains.
‏
‏‏

clause inital σήμερον in Luke 23:43

2011-03-06T15:30:00.000-08:00

I have seen arguments which claim that Luke prefers a post verbal position for σήμερον with an unstated implication that we can make exegetical judgments based on a microscopic sample of textual evidence. If Luke has a hand full of post verbal examples of σήμερον that might suggest reading the clause initial σήμερον as marked in some way. For example:

Luke 19:5 καὶ ὡς ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον, ἀναβλέψας ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· Ζακχαῖε, σπεύσας κατάβηθι, σήμερον γὰρ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ σου δεῖ με μεῖναι.

Luke 23:43 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.

In both cases we could argue that σήμερον was moved forward to mark salience. σήμερον is a movable constituent and clause initial movable constituents are often marked for salience. The sample is so tiny, it is best to avoid any sort of strong claims based on Luke's word order.

A while back Iver Larsen demonstrated that the solemn saying introduction formula: [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀμήν σοι λέγω, never takes and an adverb, not any sort of adverb. I searched TLG-E for λέγω σήμερον from Homer to 1st Cent. AD and found one example, Luke 23:43.

The Hebrew idiom represented in the LXX with διαμαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον or ἀναγγέλλω σοι σήμερον, doesn't really apply to the [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν λέγω σοι formula. These are different idioms.

Deut. 4:26 διαμαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον τόν τε οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ὅτι ἀπωλείᾳ ἀπολεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην ἐκεῖ κληρονομῆσαι αὐτήν οὐχὶ πολυχρονιεῖτε ἡμέρας ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἀλλ᾿ ἢ ἐκτριβῇ ἐκτριβήσεσθε

Deut. 8:19 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν λήθῃ ἐπιλάθῃ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ σου καὶ πορευθῇς ὀπίσω θεῶν ἑτέρων καὶ λατρεύσῃς αὐτοῖς καὶ προσκυνήσῃς αὐτοῖς διαμαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν σήμερον τόν τε οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ὅτι ἀπωλείᾳ ἀπολεῖσθε

Deut. 30:18 ἀναγγέλλω σοι σήμερον ὅτι ἀπωλείᾳ ἀπολεῖσθε καὶ οὐ μὴ πολυήμεροι γένησθε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἧς κύριος ὁ θεός σου δίδωσίν σοι εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην ἐκεῖ κληρονομῆσαι αὐτήν

Nor does the Acts 20:26 μαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ ὅτι have any bearing on [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν λέγω σοι formula. Once again these are completely different idioms.

Acts 20:26 διότι μαρτύρομαι ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ ὅτι καθαρός εἰμι ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος πάντων·

I would conclude from reviewing the main arguments about σήμερον in Luke 23:43 that Iver Larsen's observation about the lack of an adverb with the [ἀμὴν] ἀμὴν λέγω σοι formula is decisive.

Luke 23:43 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.

... let me take a look at the phrase AMHN (AMHN) LEGW hUMIN/SOI ...

In all the 75 occurrences a qualifying adverb is never added, SHMERON or any other. This, to me, is very compelling evidence. To add SHMERON to "I say to YOU" is not only redundant, but unprecedented. On the other hand it makes good sense to have it included with MET' EMOU ESHi EN TWi PARADEISWi. Not only will Jesus remember the criminal some day in the distant future when he comes in his kingdom as the criminal had asked for, but already SHMERON he will in spirit join the spirit of Jesus after death in PARADEISOS.

Joining σήμερον with λέγω in Luke 23:43 fails on the basis of relevance. Attaching σήμερον to λέγω increases the processing effort without offering any useful additional information.

waking up the wind John 6:18

2011-03-05T11:29:00.000-08:00

John 6:16 Ὡς δὲ ὀψία ἐγένετο κατέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν 17 καὶ ἐμβάντες εἰς πλοῖον ἤρχοντο πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς Καφαρναούμ. καὶ σκοτία ἤδη ἐγεγόνει καὶ οὔπω ἐληλύθει πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, 18 ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο.

John 6:16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, 17 got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. 18 The sea was awakened for a strong wind was blowing.

It looks like we might have an extended metaphor in John 6:18 where awakened translates the passive verb διεγείρετο.

Louw & Nida 14.20 διεγείρομαι: (a figurative extension of meaning of διεγείρομαι ‘to become awake from sleep,’ 23.74) to become rough, in reference to a surface of water — ‘to become rough, to become stormy.’ ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο ‘by now a strong wind was blowing and the sea was getting rough’ Jn 6:18.

The ancient background behind the metaphor is probably the notion of the sea as a monster which is sleeping during good weather but can be awakened.

the container metaphor

2011-03-03T22:37:00.000-08:00

I am wondering if the container metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980) is really all that important to exegesis and translation. My recent reading in K. A. McElhanon [1] has left me somewhat skeptical about the significance of what some analysts might consider a language universal. If it is really universal then the semantic significance recedes into the background. If we all use the metaphors then the metaphors don't really carry any information, they are frozen speech habits passed down from the prehistory of language.

Now that I am aware of the life as journey and other travel metaphors, I find them everywhere in my own writing. If you unpack the metaphor in translation you end up with a flat dry lifeless proposition. This was my initial objection to E.A. Nida theory put into practice, it killed the literary quality of the work. While the Nida disciples were bent on telling us what bad translations were had been reading all our lives, I would compare their renderings to any of the older English versions and say: This is literary art and that is not. Perhaps unpacking the metaphors had something to do with this but I think there is more going here than a collection of idioms built on body language. When I read all way through one of McElhanon's papers, at first I am agreeing with him but by the end I think he has gone off the rails[2]. I think that taking Lakoff and Johnson too seriously is just as dangerous as being a Nida disciple.

I prefer to skim these works, pick up a few useful ideas and move on. Getting too serious about any particular linguistic framework is counter productive. I've seen it turn good language students into shrill dogmatic promoters of some framework which is already on its way out.

[1] Kenneth A. McElhanon, From Word to Scenario: The Influence of Linguistic Theories Upon Models of Translation
Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 3 (2005)
www.sil.org/siljot/2005/3/46697/siljot2005-3-02.pdf

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)
www.sil.org/siljot/2006/1/48002/siljot2006-1-03.pdf

[2] note the travel metaphor.

Jesus' way of seeing ... Mark 6:48a

2011-03-03T15:36:00.000-08:00

48 καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτοὺς βασανιζομένους ἐν τῷ ἐλαύνειν, ἦν γὰρ ὁ ἄνεμος ἐναντίος αὐτοῖς, περὶ τετάρτην φυλακὴν τῆς νυκτὸς ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτοὺς περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς.

And seeing that they were being battered by contrary winds and making no progress ...

Mark makes swift transitions between the natural and supernatural without any indication that in his worldview there was any sharp distinction. Reading the gospels from within the modern framework these juxtapositions of the natural and supernatural are somewhat jarring. The hand full of modern commentaries I looked at spanning the last 150 years all attempted to find a natural explanation for Jesus' ability to see the disciples struggling in the boat against the contrary winds and the waves. This is a distortion of the story imposed by the modern worldview. Jesus my have had perfect natural vision but that would not explain his ability to see the disciples struggling in the boat. This had to be the same sort of seeing Jesus employed seeing Nathanael under the fig tree.

John 1:48 λέγει αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ· πόθεν με γινώσκεις; ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν εἶδόν σε.

Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”

I have lived by large bodies of water all of my life. I've experience strong winds and storms viewed from every conceivable vantage point. Visibility at night in a strong wind even from a high point even with a full Moon would be limited to very large or lighted vessels. I suspect that the boat in this story was not lighted. Mark does not tell us how Jesus walked on the water and he does not tell us how Jesus saw the disciples struggling in the boat. From Marks cultural framework, these questions were not important.

ambiguity, metaphor: the doctrine of scripture & revelation

2011-02-28T12:03:00.000-08:00

The inferential nature of natural language and semantic indeterminacy appear to raise a problem for the classical protestant doctrine of scripture and revelation. The reformed concept of perspicuity[1] of scripture combined with the doctrine of propositional revelation create problems in bible translation when dealing with metaphor and other forms of semantic indeterminacy in biblical language. In my thinking on this, it isn't the doctrine of perspicuity alone that causes difficulty. It is the combination of perspicuity and propositional approach to translation which is not just an Aristotelian model of truth but also a key component in E. A. Nida's implementation of early Chomsky where the translation model involved reducing the surface structure of the of source language text (SL) to a propositional deep structure from which it was rendered in the surface structure of the target language (TL). This three phase translation process assumed that biblical language can be reduced to propositional form. That, in my thinking, is the crux.

K. A. McElhanon[1] claims that an Aristotelian approach to metaphor continues to have a impact on translation strategy.

The belief that scripture must be clear has had a lasting impact on interpretation and translation. It was readily combined with an Aristotelian concept that metaphors are deviant, ornamental forms of language that serve to embellish language. The result has been that clarity is often regarded as dependent upon literal, propositional statements. Callow (1998:154-55) writes,
A proposition represents the simplest possible thought pattern, the weaving together of several concepts in a purposive way…. [P]ropositions are cognitively based, not word based; one proposition underlies the various expressions in different languages.4 The concepts, therefore, which combine to form the proposition, are at a cognitive level which relates to experiences not to words. Words follow later.
Moreover, propositions are generally regarded as expressing pure thought, and so truth is also associated with words that are understood literally. Thus Geisler (1999:742) writes,
Communication depends on informative statements. But correspondence to facts is what makes statements informative. All communication ultimately depends on something being literally or factually true. We cannot even use a metaphor unless we understand that there is a literal meaning over against which the figurative sense is not literal. So, it would follow that all communication depends in the final analysis on a correspondence to truth (italics added). 5

To be continued. (I don't like long posts).

[1] reformed doctrine of perspicuity according to CRI and L. D. Pettegrew (TMSJ 15/2 (Fall 2004) 209-225) who cites from Old Princeton:

Definition of Perspicuity
What does the assertion, “the Bible is a plain book,” mean? In further explanation, Hodge writes, “Protestants hold that the Bible, being addressed to the people, is sufficiently perspicuous to be understood by them, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and that they are entitled and bound to search the Scripture, and to judge for themselves what is its true meaning.” [6] His son and successor at Princeton Seminary affirmed, “[T]he Scriptures are in such a sense perspicuous that all that is necessary for man to know, in order to his salvation or for his practical guidance in duty, may be learned therefrom, and that they are designed for the personal use and are adapted to the instruction of the unlearned as well as the learned.”[7] Even more clearly, Callahan explains,
Scripture can be and is read with profit, with appreciation and with transformative results. It is open and transparent to earnest readers; it is intelligible and comprehensible to attentive readers. Scripture itself is coherent and obvious. It is direct and unambiguous as written; what is written is sufficient. Scripture’s concern or focal point is readily presented as the redemptive story of God. It displays a progressively more specific identification of that story, culminating in the gospel of Jesus Christ. All this is to say: Scripture is clear about what it is about.[8]

[6] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology 1:183.

[7] A. A. Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of
Christian Education, 1926) 63.

[8] Callahan, Clarity of Scripture 9.

[2] 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)
www.sil.org/siljot/2006/1/48002/siljot2006-1-03.pdf

the Jesus road: conceptual metaphor & propositional truth

2011-02-27T12:21:00.000-08:00

In his treatment of scenario and schema, K. A. McElhanon, toward the end of From Word to Scenario[1] talks about conceptual metaphors and immediatly wanders into contentious territory[1]:

The biblical concept of truth is integrated with the concept of life, in particular a life characterized by faith. This is true of both testaments of the Bible. The life of faith is grounded in the conceptual metaphor EXPERIENCING LIFE IS A GOING ON A JOURNEY.[2]

4.2.2 Truth as expressed by propositions

We have already noted that in the Aristotelian tradition truth is regarded as a property of sentences, so that what a sentence states has to correspond to reality. It is important to note that those who hold to the correspondence theory of truth can find biblical support. When Jesus indicates that what he is about to say is true, he uses the phrase ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ‘I tell the (solemn) truth’, with the reduplicated form, usually in John’s gospel, indicating emphasis (Louw and Nida 1988:I:673). In all cases the phrase is immediately followed by the statements regarded as true. In what follows we will further elaborate upon the biblical concept of truth. What we will see is that the biblical concept represents the notion of truth as primarily experiential rather than as rational. In particular we will see that it concerns more about how we ought to live rather than what we ought to know or say. Along with these elaborations we will reveal how the English translators have consistently misconstrued the biblical concept. [3]

McElhanon is not presenting us with an absolute either/or concerning the biblical concept of truth. However, he does consider the western preoccupation with propositional truth a source of frequent mistranslation and he makes a general claim which will not go down well[4] with some who continue to support the Chicago Statement[5]: "the biblical concept represents the notion of truth as primarily experiential rather than as rational"[see above].

McElhanon claims that the Aristotelian notion of truth as a property of sentences, propositional truth, is often imposed by western translators and exegetes on biblical texts where the scenario/schema is constructed using a conceptual metaphor of truth as a road within a larger conceptual metaphor life as journey.

I find interesting that an author who doesn't have any problem with cultural substitutions such as bamboo tubes for wineskins obviously is very very concern about the substitution of truth as an object (a property of sentences) for a conceptual metaphor truth as a road embedded within another metaphor life as journey. I certainly do not deny that these conceptual metaphors are real features of the biblical text. On the other hand McElhanon's propositional statement "the biblical concept represents the notion of truth as primarily experiential rather than as rational" is a truth claim formulated after what he calls the Aristotelian notion of truth.

There is overwhelming evidence that most, if not all, translators of the New Testament into English have unwittingly substituted the English conceptual metaphor TRUTH IS AN OBJECT for the Greek TRUTH IS A ROAD. It is important to recognize that the examples which follow are not simply cases of the nuanced meanings of isolated words. Rather, the substitution of the English conceptual metaphor for the Greek one is so consistent that it is likely the translators were unaware that they were doing so. If that is indeed the case, it testifies not only to the tacitness of the metaphor, but also to its power to structure our thoughts along certain lines rather than along others. Of many examples, I will present only a few of the most revealing. [6]

Both truth as an object and truth as a road are metaphors. Does the substitution of a conceptual metaphor in translation make the translation not true in the Aristotelian sense? Are conceptual metaphors a nonnegotiable semantic component in the text such that an alteration or replacement of a conceptual metaphor distorts the intended meaning? Once again, we cannot even pose the question without assuming the Aristotelian truth metaphor. If according to the New Testament truth is a road and life is a journey then what were the church councils leading up to Chalcedon all about? Apparently the early church went down the wrong road in regard to truth.

[1] From Word to Scenario: The Influence of Linguistic Theories Upon Models of Translation, Kenneth A. McElhanon, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 3 (2005), pp. 55-62.

[1] note the travel metaphor.
[2] ibid, p. 56.
[3] ibid, p. 59.
[4] note the eating metaphor.
[5] The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 1978.
[6] From Word to Scenario, p.60.

providing English translations

2011-02-27T08:24:00.000-08:00

In my posts to biblical language forums over the last decade or so I have ceased providing English translations unless the translation illustrates some point I am trying to make. I have had to rethink this policy in regard to blog posts. The English translations are bulky, interrupt the flow of thought and often don't contribute much of anything to the argument. However, the readership in the blogsphere is diverse and Hebrew/Greek readers are a small minority. For that reason I now usually include the RSV/ESV as an aid for readers. I don't like doing this but it seems to be the normal practice on other blogs dealing with linguistics and exegesis. I have noticed that SIL technical publications often provide interlinear text which even includes parsing information. This actually makes the the biblical citations more difficult for me to read, not easier. You will need to search hard and long to find any interlinear text in my posts. Once in a blue moon there is a reason to do this, not often.

... leaving Nida behind — part three

2011-02-26T15:05:00.000-08:00

Reading on in K. A. McElhanon From Word to Scenario[1], when a scenario in the SL culture has no counterpart in the TL culture, some translators will swap out the scenario in source text with one from the target culture. This is a controversial procedure. McElhanon gives an example from Lk 5:37[2]:

Consider, for example, Lk 5:37. Jesus says, “No one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.”

... the translators made a cultural adjustment that involved the whole scene in order to maintain the necessary coherence. A widespread Papua New Guinean method of cooking fresh vegetables is to pack the vegetables into a freshly cut bamboo tube. The tube is made from a 5 inches in diameter by 30-inches long section taken from a species of a large bamboo that has a thick wall with nodes about every twelve inches. All nodes but the bottom one are punched out, the food is packed in, and the open end is plugged with banana leaves. To cook it, a person places it on an open fire and turns it frequently. As the fire cooks the food, it dries out the bamboo which becomes brittle and is only useful thereafter as firewood. Thus the translation reads, “No one takes a used bamboo cooking tube, fills it with fresh vegetables, and places it on the fire. For if they do, the fire will consume the bamboo tube, the vegetables will be ruined, and the tube will be lost as well.”

The reductio ad absurdum of this approach was circulating among some people I knew who were working in East Africa roughly forty years ago. The story involved the biblical scenario of the sacrificial lamb being replaced by a sacrificial pig, e.g. the Pig of God John 1:29. Most obviously, the lamb was loaded with extensive inferential associations from religion of ancient Israel. The pig, as a unclean pagan sacrificial animal, was arguably the worst possible cultural substitution that could have been supplied. I have heard bible translation people vehemently deny that anyone working in their field would commit such an abomination. The story may be an old urban legend from Nairobi. I new a bunch of people who were working out of Nairobi.

Someone might object that the lamb/pig substitution is not on the same order with the wineskins/bamboo substitution. The bamboo container for roasting vegetables being a completely different scenario from wine and wineskins. I somewhat agree. However, the lamb in the ancient Jewish culture invoked a highly complex religious scenario which was unique to the history of Israel. Anything involving a pig in a pagan culture would be a more or less total cultural substitution. The target culture might or might not have sacrificed pigs but the inferential associations with regard to the Exodus would have been missing.

[1] From Word to Scenario: The Influence of Linguistic Theories Upon Models of Translation, Kenneth A. McElhanon, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 3 (2005).

[2] ibid, p. 51.

... leaving Nida behind — part two

2011-02-26T10:43:00.000-08:00

Kenneth A. McElhanon has written a brief history of translation theory since 1950[1]. He claims that Relevance Theory has not really escaped from the clutches of the Code Model of Communication (CMC)

In practice, many RT translators have chosen to reintroduce the contextual effects in footnotes. In effect the footnotes become a kind of catechism or study Bible. In most cases, the footnotes typically add (1) implicit SL information so that the TL readers can access the SL message or (2) TL contextual information to smooth the transference of the SL message. Removing the contextual effects from the text and placing them in footnotes does not enable RT translators to free the translation from the influence of the CMC. Rather, a copious use of footnotes is a clear indication that the CMC is implicit in the application of RT. The greater the use of footnotes, the stronger the implication that the CMC underlies the translation. [2]

So perhaps we have no need to overhaul or replace the Chicago Statement since the CMC apparently isn't dead, not yet. I was thinking about a conversation that took place over forty years ago with a young woman named Sue Jackson (fictitious name) who was the daughter of a successful businessman, a casualty of the late 60s cultural revolution, a heroin addict and a convicted felon. I had just made some comment about Richard Nixon, Henry A. Kissinger and the bombing of Cambodia. Sue Jackson replied with one word: Really. I remember my amazement at how much Sue Jackson could pack into that one word. It wasn't just an affirmation, or even an exclamation. It was delivered in monotone with only a slight stress on the first syllable. It communicated her entire worldview. And all of this information was inferential. None of it was in the code. The word and the flat enunciation was simply an indicator that she had an attitude. It was your problem to discover what that attitude involved.

A translator working within the CMC when confronted with the word Really in reported dialogue will be without recourse for solving the problem. On the other hand, a footnote might help for some readers, but I doubt very much that Sue Jackson's Really could be made intelligible to a reader born around 1990 in Kazakhstan using a foot note.

[1] From Word to Scenario: The Influence of Linguistic Theories Upon Models of Translation, Kenneth A. McElhanon, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 3 (2005).

[2] ibid, p. 41

getting over Chomsky and leaving Nida behind

2011-02-26T00:07:00.000-08:00

On February 19th of 1979 I flew to Chicago with a small team of training developers to work with the First National Bank of Chicago on a computer based teller training system for the banks initial transition from paper to electronic teller transactions. One of the members of our team was a woman who had done PhD work in linguistics at the Univ. of Washington. She was a Chomsky disciple and we heard a lot about him in the next several months. I have a nasty habit of picking up other peoples interests, sort of like catching a virus. Back in Seattle, we shared an office with another Chomsky devote so the linguistic dialog was in the background while I was writing teller training modules, an incredibly boring task.

I don't remember reading much of Chomsky directly. I went to the Seattle library and picked up the Cambridge text book on Generative Grammar and worked through it at my leisure. Chomsky wrote for geeks and I was working with geeks and trying to fit into the world of geekdom which was very very difficult since I was a literature, arts, religion and philosophy type with long term social connections to left wing-nuts and an assorted collection of pseudo-intellectuals who at that time (1979) wouldn't be caught dead in the same room with a computer.

While reading Chomsky I was also reading semantic theory. Dabbling in Lyons, and others the names have left me. All this had a very real day to day usefulness in the world of computers which was my day job. Five years later I started working through the Language of the New Testament by E.V.N. Goetchius. I was bored to death with Generative Grammar's preoccupation with English sentences. I read Goetchius for the syntax and more or less ignored morphology. I gradually picked up a little morphology by exposure but my primary interest was syntax. After a couple of years I picked up a UBSGNT3-Cor. at the SPU book store for $10. I was using their library since alumnae have lifetime privileges and they had a good biblical studies collect, best in Seattle at that time, probably still is. I found in the stacks a bunch of books by E. A. Nida from his early work up to the present. I read most of them. My initial impression was not favorable. Sounded a lot like anthropology and sociology, subjects which I had more than my fill of as an undergraduate. Nida's translation model had all those familiar flavors of cultural relativism. As a hard core disciple of Francis Schaeffer a decade earlier, I had strong feelings about cultural relativism.

Right now I am reading a paper by Kenneth A. McElhanon which leaves Chomsky and Nida behind. I can remember back in the late 1990's making a comment on b-greek forum about Nida's use of Chomsky. Micheal Palmer, the linguist, assured me that Chomsky & Nida were like elaphants and bananas. A bible translation professional (not-SIL) Paul Sellmer(?) joined the discussion and took issue with Palmer. I didn't get much out of it other than what I already new, linguists are eclectic and seldom understand one another unless they have worked together for long periods of time like Randall Buth and Stephen Levinsohn. Anyway, after all these years of exposure to cultural relativism I am now reading a paper which takes language theory to a whole new level of cultural relativism, makes Nida's framework look like just another variant of the Code Model of Communication (CMC) which of course it is. Why am I not upset about this? Primarily because I have abandoned the Chicago Statement approach to the doctrine of scripture. That approach is completely bound up with he Code Model of Communication. If CMC goes then the Chicago Statement goes with it.

I don't think that God intended us to be afraid of progress in language understanding. The bible still communicates the Divine Author's intended meaning. It just doesn't work they way the teach it in Texas. More on this later. Please ignore the errors, its after midnight, I clean it up tomorrow.

[1] From Word to Scenario: The Influence of Linguistic Theories Upon Models of Translation, Kenneth A. McElhanon, Journal of Translation, Volume 1, Number 3 (2005).

Jesus reveals & conceals his divinity: Phil.2:5-11

2011-02-25T11:24:00.000-08:00

For an adequate understanding of the incarnation Phil.2:5-11 is an important text. A serious exposition of this difficult passage would be hundreds of pages.

Phil. 2:5 Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος 8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, 10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων 11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός. — NA27

Phil. 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. — RSV

Jesus Christ in the preincarnate state was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ in the form of God and possessed equality with God (inferential)[1] but did not cling to his divine prerogatives. In verses seven and eight we see the mystery of the incarnation, God the Son becomes humble and a servant, sharing the woes of humanity even as far as death. Did Jesus Christ cease to be God in his incarnate state? No, but he did restrain the manifestation of his divine δόξα καὶ δύναμις power and glory to the extent that he could be treated and mistreated by men as any other man. The ultimate climax of the kenosis[2] was the crucifixion. The power and the glory ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις were mostly hidden but there were brief glimpses, like raising Lazarus from the dead and the transfiguration.

[1] The statement οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ is difficult. I read ἁρπαγμὸν something to be forcibly retained Louw & Nida 57.236. This cleary implies Christ's preincarnate possession of equality with God.

[2] kenosis: ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν he emptied himself

bearded bill of asheville

2011-02-23T15:48:00.000-08:00

Back when I was newbie on the b-greek forum there was an iconoclast poster form Asheville NC who left some long winded but somewhat fascinating diatribes. I managed to track down his posts and will publish here one of them with absolutely no editing. It should not be assumed that I share any of his views on any subject whatsoever. Here is the post:

epistolary aorist
BTHURMAN [at] unca.edu
Mon, 28 Apr 1997 07:01:43 -0400 (EDT)

i'm a lurker who waited to see if anybody'd cite any epistolary aorists from papyri, cause i saw request a couple of days ago.

don't have time now to speak of who i am or to explain my shape-based plus time honored latinate equivalent transliterations (and wil never argue the point).

will preface remarks with something that may rile up a good many. if ancient understanding of xpovoc aopictoc = chronus ahoristus had been kept, namely, that use of the tense ignores definite time (so that to put it in terms most of you may buy into: such forms really offer no N O 'aspect' other than being chronus indefinitus, meant otherly than infinitivus). so. punctiliar, if it have any validity as a term, could refer only to the ignoring of perfectivity, progressivity, or anything else that the setting suggests.

let's see if i can risk this generalization: a-horistus 'without boundaries' leaves it open to be used in a setting that might be clearly imperfective, perfective or plu = plus quam = more than perfective (e.g. the way i -- surely not most of you -- reconcile john's piercing with sinaiticus of matthew: a soldier had done it. aorists for ppf. is very frequent in ogr and johannines).

now with that almost sure to be rejected, but probably reasonably correct background, let me state that in speaking of 'epistolary aorist' i'm really playing along with what i consider to be mammoth philological mistakes: if you posit that some kind of punctiliarity inheres in a form (a notion easily exploded by thousands of instances). i'm an old man and talk the way i want to and if you get anthing from me, you might let age of fingers suffice as grounds to ignore typos. wwhere was i?

if you posit. cross that out. if you presuppose the such and such forms of themselves express punctiliarity or time of this or that kind, then you have to invent category after category -- like the silly constantive, inchoative, iterative &c. &c. ad nauseam & ad nauseam -- to cover your tracks. now those are not bad descriptions of ideas that can be inferred from the settiings, but only from he settings. the only reason it can be used in such a wide, wide variety of settings will have been that it was per se indefinite.

now with that rather stuffy pedagogical looking down my nose, and justly so, at so-called greek as taught in many seminary and bible school settings, let me point out a couple of papyrological items:

oops. forgot generalization that legal documents offer opportunity to show other verbs than forms of gpafw = grapho as 'epistolary', e.g. at end of legal instruments papyrological it's frequent to have wmologhca = [h]omologesa as in 'i so-and-so openly declared/agreed' and occasionally other terms like wmwca = omosa 'i swore' or die0emhv = diethemen 'i made this here will/testament'.

some respective exempla: & i ain't givin line numbers just the key to the document. look normally at end for the terms:

poxy 8,1121 has a common thing where who actually did the letters claimed "i done it for so-&-so who cout'n write." also phamb 1,4 (3s stad of 1s)

plond 3,992 wmologhcamev 'we submit our formal acknowledgement' +poxy 14,1626 pthead 8 also (that's p. jouguet's collection in cairo)

poxy 16,1881 wmocamev 'we put our solemn oath to this'

the hamb supra was hamburgensis, which yuou might not've recognized.

more for egpaya = egrapsa bgu 1,300 poxy 1,67

there're also lots of monographs on such legal documents, as those of C. B. Welles.

i'm quittin while i'm ahead. if i keep on, i'll get to liking this stuff and
won't have any time left at all to sail or to tell folks about the risen Jesus.

wasn't some of this material translated by those princeton semi-philologists whose work was edited by pharr for texas press, known as something like ancient roman statutes? reason i refer in such a snide way: i remember that the work that came to texas when i was there in the 50's looked like something some playboys had done. real scholars had to take so much time correcting, they might have worked it up from scratch and had their names on it.

don't believe all the stuff you read in thayer's translation of grimm and wilke or the arndt &c. translation of bauer.

shalom,
bearded bill of asheville
unca not having approved either whom or thereof.
********
****end of citation from b-greek archives,
read more of bearded bill of asheville

postscript:
in some subtle ways bearded bill's writing reminds me of certain poems by Lawrence Ferlinghetti or even lines from the Ezra Pound & R. Flemming translation of Electa.

John 1:18 ἐκεῖνος: christology — part three

2011-02-22T19:15:00.000-08:00

In the first post we presented a question about Christology raised by Edgar Foster:

The text: Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Assuming that the reading above is to be preferred, how would you understand the referent of ἐκεῖνος? Is it God with respect to his essence (in view of the anarthrous Θεὸν) that μονογενὴς θεὸς "explained" or is it more strictly speaking, the Father that was explained? It could be the Father specifically since John writes about εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς

Who did the Son likely explain? Was it God in his essence (since Θεὸν is anarthrous) or was it the Father more specifically?

The whole Gospel of John is an exposition on the this question. Jesus repeats in many places using various metaphors that he was sent by the Father to do the Father's will, to acomplish the Father's works and to speak the Father's words. In John 14:8 Philip raises the question:

John 14:8 Λέγει αὐτῷ Φίλιππος· κύριε, δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν. 9 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· πῶς σὺ λέγεις· δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα;

John 14:8 ¶ Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?

Now we could raise a different question. Did Jesus during his life on earth reveal the transcendent creator and sustainer of the cosmos?

Heb. 1:3a ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ

Heb. 1:3a He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.

One could draw a distinction between ἐξηγήσατο in John 1:18 and the wording in Heb 1:3a, but all of these are metaphors, ἐξηγήσατο is a metaphor.

Col. 1:15 ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· 17 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν,

Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

These texts don't actually answer the question raised. Did Jesus of Nazareth as he walked on earth ἐξηγήσατο the creator and sustainer of the cosmos? For that question I will need some more time.

Randall Buth counting coups on Stanley E. Porter

2011-02-22T17:08:00.000-08:00

Highlights from today's biblical greek forum, Randall Buth, once again, strikes his coup-stick[1] against S.E. Porter.

You should probably avoid Porter until trying to study how not to define tense and aspect, especially with Porter's skewing of discourse terminology and application in the opposite direction from the rest of the field of textlinguistics and discourse.

ERRWSO

Randall Buth, PhD

Of all the biblical greek grammar authors, Porter and Wallace are in a close race for having published the most nonsense. It took most of us nearly a decade to penetrate the fog of Porter's framework only to discover there wasn't much there once it was demystified.

[1] Crow Indians counted coups to demonstrate their bravery in combat. Killing an enemy isn't brave; but, striking an enemy with a coups-stick and living through the event, showed courage. Counting coups was one of four things a warrior had to do to becaome a chief: count coups, take a horse from an enemy, lead a successful raid, and take a weapon from an enemy. The warrior that had done the most of the four qualifiers was head chief.

John 1:18 ἐκεῖνος: christology — part two

2011-02-21T22:52:00.000-08:00

The first post presented Edgar Foster's brief foray into christology on b-greek. I think his question is worth exploring but before we get started on theology there are some linguistic issues that need some attention.

Foster's First post included:

Is it God with respect to his essence (in view of the anarthrous Θεὸν) that μονογενὴς θεὸς "explained" or is it more strictly speaking, the Father that was explained?

Foster approach to the anarthrous Θεὸν will probably have some supporters but recent developments in NT linguistics take a different approach. θεὸς is always "hearer old" in the NT therefore ὁ θεὸς is the unmarked form and the anarthrous θεὸς is a marked form. In John 1:18 Θεὸν is "hearer old", discourse-old and discourse-recent:

... if a Discourse-old and Discourse-recent item lacks the article it marks salience ... [1]

John 1:18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Iver Larsen (SIL, Africa, Denmark) is somewhat famous in the world of NT Greek for his promotion of fronted[2] salient constituents. Θεὸν in John 1:18 couldn't be more fronted. So we have two different frameworks within NT linguistics that confirm each other. Θεὸν is marked for salience. We really don't need to go looking for another reason for the anarthrous state.

[1] Hoyle, Richard A. Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation ©2008 SIL International, p.155.

[2] Word Order and Relative Prominence in New Testament Greek
Earlier version published in Notes on Translation Vol. 5 No. 1 (1991): 29-34 (© SIL Int.) This version is revised by the author in February 2001 Iver Larsen.

John 1:18 ἐκεῖνος: christology — part one

2011-02-21T15:58:00.000-08:00

The founding fathers of the b-greek forum didn't want to have people arguing about christology or any other theology for that matter. So for going on 20 years the moderators have been shutting down discussions that take a theological turn. Today, Edgar Foster[1], who is certainly no stranger to b-greek, showed up with a christology question. It should be no surprise to anyone that he was politely answered and then the thread was more or less terminated. Here is Foster's first post[2]

Greetings to all,

The text: Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Assuming that the reading above is to be preferred, how would you understand the referent of ἐκεῖνος? Is it God with respect to his essence (in view of the anarthrous Θεὸν) that μονογενὴς θεὸς "explained" or is it more strictly speaking, the Father that was explained? It could be the Father specifically since John writes about εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς

Regards,

Edgar

This is Foster's second post, a clarification:

Carl and B-Greekers,

My apologies for asking the wrong question. I should have paid more attention when typing this email. Of course, you are right about the referent of ἐκεῖνος. What I should have asked concerns the implicit object of ἐξηγήσατο in John 1:18. The text states that μονογενὴς θεὸς "explained" [understood "him"].

Who did the Son likely explain? Was it God in his essence (since Θεὸν is anarthrous) or was it the Father more specifically? I hope my question is worded properly this time around.

Thank you,

Edgar Foster

Here is the text again:

John 1:18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. — NA27

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

John 1:18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο — Robinson-Pierpont

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. — RSV

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. — ESV

The b-greek answers (not christology) are found here: Carl Conrad and George Somsel followed by Carl's closing comments. The christology question is going to take a little work and will appear in part two. Meanwhile your welcome to leave comments. Moderation is turned on so it might be a little while before your comment shows up.

[1] For those who do not know Edgar Foster, try a google on Greg Stafford and Edgar Foster, that should get you headed in the right direction.

[2] The b-greek transliteration has been replaced.

Luke's account of the Transfiguration - part one

2011-02-21T10:59:00.000-08:00

In the synoptic accounts of Jesus' transfiguration Matthew and Mark are generally similar with some disagreement in detail but Luke is an independent version.

28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray.

Luke 9:28 Εγενετο δε μετα τους λογους τουτους ωσει ημεραι οκτω ⸀και παραλαβων Πετρον και Ιωαννην και Ιακωβον ανεβη εις το ορος προσευξασθαι. — SBLGNT M. Holmes

The time reference is different. Both Matt. and Mark have Καὶ μετὰ ἡμέρας ἓξ παραλαμβάνει ὁ Ἰησοῦς And after six days Jesus taking with him. Luke introduces the story with reference to the forgoing words μετα τους λογους τουτους after these sayings and he attaches a hedge word ωσει about to the number ωσει ημεραι οκτω about eight days. Matt. and Mark have no hedge word, a different number, and they do not anchor the story to the previous speech μετα τους λογους τουτους after these sayings.

Both Matt. and Mark use a full noun phrase ὁ Ἰησοῦς Jesus to indicate the agent/subject with the participle. Jesus taking with him παραλαμβάνει ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Luke[1] omits the full noun phrase. The participle is left hanging out there all alone with nothing to help it. The lack of a full noun phrase is significant because it requires a backwards look in the immediate context to find out who is the agent. This produces textual cohesion. Luke provides a strong clue about the agent with the phrase μετα τους λογους τουτους after these sayings. The reader needs to ask, who was speaking just now and that will supply an agent for the participle. This feature of Luke's account makes the transfiguration story less portable by anchoring it to the preceding pericope.

[1] The name of Jesus occurs statistically [per 1000 words] less often in Luke than the other gospels. John's gospel is at the other end of spectrum with the highest level of occurrence.

Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible

2011-02-20T19:01:00.000-08:00

I am reading a book[1] by a Professor of OT at Gordon-Conwell which I picked up yesterday at the library. This post is not a review or a critique of that book. I have had an active interest in ANE Parallels to the Bible for a long time.

While reading about the Egyptian connection to OT theology I started thinking about how parallels are identified in ancient primary sources. How many OT Professor's read ancient Egyptian texts directly? Hebrew, Aramaic yes and perhaps a little dabbling in Ugaritic but Pyramid texts? That is an esoteric field within an esoteric field which makes it exponentially esoteric.

So this is what actually happens; some Egyptologist spends a lifetime deciphering some collection of texts and publishes them in a modern language. The OT professor reads the standard editions, perhaps more than one but all in a modern language. A hundred years ago you could assume that the any Egyptologyist from Europe would have been very thoroughly familiar with the contents of the bible. So what we have here is a translator who's mind is saturated with the bible trying to make sense out of some very difficult material. The cultural framework of the translator always interferes with the translation.

When I was looking over some of the alleged Egyptian Parallels to the Bible, some of it seemed too good to be true. If the translator is predisposed to look for biblical parallels then they will be found. Otherwise, if the translator has expressions from the bible as active idioms in his native language then they may be used without regard to biblical parallels.
The OT professor is not going to be able or willing to check the translation. If there are several translations done by scholars working within radically different frameworks then perhaps there is a little safety in numbers. But not much.

[1]Niehaus, Jeffrey J., Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology, Kregal 2008

ambiguity & irony in Sophocles' Electra — part 3

2011-02-15T14:14:00.000-08:00

Electra has thrown open the doors and the body of Clytemnestra, ostensibly the body of Orestes, is visible but wrapped in a shroud which conceals the identity. The meaning and reference of Aegisthus' speech Soph. El. 1466-1467 is once again ambiguous.

O' Zeus. I see clearly an omen which has fallen not without the jealousy of the gods ...

What Aegisthus sees is not a body wrapped in a shroud but a φάσμα, a portent, omen, vision, which is attributed to divine agency, the retribution of the gods. This involves a mixed metaphor, the jealousy/wrath of the gods has fallen resulting in death but the shrouded body is a vision or an omen. Aegisthus' statement also has a double a double reference. The first is applied to Orestes in light of Aegisthus' misunderstanding of the scenario and the second applies to Clytemnestra. The contrast between Orestes and Clytemnestra as referent produces irony.

Soph. El. 1466-1467
Ὦ Ζεῦ, δέδορκα φάσμ' ἄνευ φθόνου μὲν οὐ
πεπτωκός· εἰ δ' ἔπεστι νέμεσις, οὐ λέγω.

Aegisthus' second sentence is prophetic:

εἰ δ' ἔπεστι νέμεσις, οὐ λέγω

If nemesis is present, I will not speak.

νέμεσις nemesis: the impersonation of divine retribution, distribution of what is due; but in usage always retribution, esp. righteous anger aroused by injustice — LSJ.

ἔπεστι: to be attached ... esp. of rewards and penalties ... ἔπεστι νέμεσις S.El.1467; — LSJ.

ἔπεστι νέμεσις need not imply direct personal intervention of a deity. The level of divine agency is left somewhat vague. In other words, we might translate: "If this was an unlucky statement I will retract it."

Barthian error: Trueblood & Baillie

2011-02-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

Elton Trueblood[1] and John Baillie take issue with K. Barth:

The powerful influence of Karl Barth has made some believe that knowledge of God is limited to the Christian revelation as found in the Bible, but this is unbiblical. The Barthian error, of course, is not Barth's insistence on the centrality of Christ, but his virtual denial of the idea that in pre-Christian ages God "did not leave himself without witness" (Acts 14:17). Though the revelation in nature is manifestly incomplete, it is nevertheless real, and a man can have some knowledge even before he meets Jesus Christ. John Baillie took great pains to make this clear in the Gifford Lectures which he wrote but never delivered.

I had, of course, always believed that there is no ultimate salvation for mankind save in Jesus Christ, but when I began to read Dr. Barth's books, what struck me at once as unfamiliar was his insistence that mankind had no knowledge of God save in Jesus Christ. This is new teaching and it is precisely what I have never been able to accept.

John Baillie, The Sense of the Presence of God (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962), p. 255.

[1] A Place To Stand, David Elton Trueblood Harper & Row 1969 page 54.

ambiguity & irony in Sophocles' Electra — part 2

2011-02-12T11:58:00.000-08:00

Once again we see Electra using vague language which will be [mis]understood by Aegisthus who in his six line speech commands silence and to have the gates thrown open so that the public can see the dead body of Orestes and put away vain hope of being delivered by Orestes from tyranny of Clytaemnestra and her consort Aegisthus. Electra's response sounds uncharacteristically docile. Aegisthus reads her remarks as a capitulation to his demands. But the audience knows better. Electra has done her part, deceiving Aegisthus. She is now turning over the lead to those who have the upper hand, Orestes and Pylades. This double sense of Electra's lines illustrates how scenarios function to constrain the interpretation of an utterance. Up to this point Electra has helped reinforce Aegisthus' misunderstanding of the scenario by saying things that could be construed to support Aegisthus' view of the situation. At the same time her language also fits the true scenario understood by the audience and other dramatic participants.

Sophocles Electra 1456-1465
Aegisthus
You've given me reason to rejoice, not typical of you.
Electra
What ever turns you on.
Aegisthus
Shut up bitch and open the gates
so every Myckenaian and Argive will see
and not entertain vain hopes of deliverance
from this man [Orestes], seeing his body
they will take the bit and finding good sense
I will not need to use force against them.
Electra
My part in this is complete [opens the gates]
for in time I have learned the good sense
to cooperate with those who have the upper hand.

David Berlinski on the new atheism

2011-02-11T20:37:00.000-08:00

I went to the library today and was browsing 200s and picked up The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski. This is a real treat to read, so far. A secular Jew deconstructing the pseudo religion Scientism. I now know what is new about the new atheism. I suspect that a careful reading of C.S. Lewis That Hideous Strength might turn up several of the features that make the new atheism new. Anyway, I now see why these nasty pretentious super-secular narrow minded bigots need to be shut down by the intellectual brain trust of biblical theism. Berlinski's approach is a massive reductio ad absurdum, my favorite form of argument and that coming from a confessional secularist.

I am just in the process of discovering what the shouting is all about. Four decades of totally ignoring popular culture has left me disconnected from all this.

added later:

What I am liking most about David Berlinski's The Devil's Delusion is the humor; heaping scorn on these fellows. They do not deserve polite deferential treatment. C. S. Lewis in his novel That Hideous Strength followed a similar strategy against the Scientism of his day, exposing it as incredibly evil, but also ridiculous. We need more of this sort of writing.

apologetics & paganism

2011-02-11T13:24:00.000-08:00

Why is it that so much of christian apologetics is focused on atheism, secularism, naturalism, materialism and so forth. The people on the street don't pay much attention to debates between loudmouthed intellectual superstars, atheist, theist or whatever. Atheism is a rare bird where I live in ecotopia aka the left coast, what I call the end of western civilization. I know exactly two atheists and one I'm not really sure about, I think he may be pantheist. He hates organized religion but that doesn't make one an atheist. The other one is the genuine article, a lesbian public school biology teacher and a confessing, evangelistic atheist. She preaches atheism. On the other hand (neo-)paganism is everywhere. You cannot walk on the streets anywhere in Seattle without a neo-pagan in view. The public library is stuffed wall to wall with neo-pagan literature of all sorts. It is orders upon orders of magnitude more popular than atheist literature. You have to really look to find a novel by a confessing atheist. neo-Pagan novelists fall off the shelf in front of you as you walk down the isles.

So why do christian apologists spend so much energy on such a small culturally out of touch collection of misfits as the confessing atheists? They really don't matter that much.

abusive use of the second person pronoun

2011-02-11T07:34:00.000-08:00

In Sophocles Electra 1445-1447 Aegisthus addresses Electra using intentionally disrespectful language. The repetition of the second person singular pronoun Σέ ... σὲ ... σὲ ... σοι demonstrates his disdain for Electra.

Sophocles Electra 1442-1449
{ΑΙΓΙΣΘΟΣ}
Τίς οἶδεν ὑμῶν ποῦ ποθ' οἱ Φωκῆς ξένοι
οὕς φασ' Ὀρέστην ἡμὶν ἀγγεῖλαι βίον
λελοιπόθ' ἱππικοῖσιν ἐν ναυαγίοις;
Σέ τοι, σὲ κρίνω, ναὶ σὲ τὴν ἐν τῷ πάρος
χρόνῳ θρασεῖαν· ὡς μάλιστά σοι μέλειν
οἶμαι, μάλιστα δ' ἂν κατειδυῖαν φράσαι.
{ΗΛ.} Ἔξοιδα· πῶς γὰρ οὐχί; συμφορᾶς γὰρ ἂν
ἔξωθεν εἴην τῶν ἐμῶν γε φιλτάτων.

Sophocles Electra 1442-1449 R. C. Jebb 1894
[1442]
Which of you can tell me where those Phocian strangers are,
who are said to have brought report for us that Orestes
passed away amidst the shipwrecked chariots?
[1445]
You, you I ask, yes, you, who were in former
days so bold. It seems to me that this concerns you most,
so you must know best, and can best tell me.

Electra
I do know. How could I not? Otherwise I would be
an alien to the fortune of my nearest kinsmen

ambiguity & irony in Sophocles' Electra

2011-02-10T14:05:00.000-08:00

This is the part of the final exchange between Electra and Aegisthus. It illustrates how the hearer's assumptions control his understanding of an utterance. Sophocles brings Aegisthus back to the royal house ignorant of what is going on inside. Aegisthus has been told that two unidentified foreigners arrived with news of Orestes' death in a chariot accident. He is elated at the news and arrives at the house bursting with optimism about his future. The avenger of Agamemnon's murder is dead, so he assumes. Electra, who intends to deceive, plays on the ambiguity of certain expressions which Aegisthus in his current frame of mind is bound to misunderstand.

Sophocles Electra 1442-1449
{ΑΙΓΙΣΘΟΣ}
Τίς οἶδεν ὑμῶν ποῦ ποθ' οἱ Φωκῆς ξένοι
οὕς φασ' Ὀρέστην ἡμὶν ἀγγεῖλαι βίον
λελοιπόθ' ἱππικοῖσιν ἐν ναυαγίοις;

Sophocles Electra 1442-1444 R. C. Jebb 1894
[1442]
Which of you can tell me where those Phocian strangers are,
who are said to have brought report for us that Orestes
passed away amidst the shipwrecked chariots?

The lines above are cited to show Aegisthus' understanding of the current scenario. He assumes that the two foreigners have brought news of Orestes death in a chariot wreck. Electra will take advantage of this misunderstanding. Her comments will leave out certain specific information which will allow Aegisthus to supply that information from his [miss]understanding of the scenario. Leaving out that which is obvious, whatever can be assumed, is a normal practice in human dialogue. In the following lines Electra's statements are ambiguous. She omits certain details to keep Aegisthus in the dark about his immanent fate but her wording is also aimed at the audience which knows the whole story.

S.El. 1450-1457
{ΑΙ.} Ποῦ δῆτ' ἂν εἶεν οἱ ξένοι; δίδασκέ με.
{ΗΛ.} Ἔνδον· φίλης γὰρ προξένου κατήνυσαν.
{ΑΙ.} Ἦ καὶ θανόντ' ἤγγειλαν ὡς ἐτητύμως;
{ΗΛ.} Οὔκ, ἀλλὰ κἀπέδειξαν, οὐ λόγῳ μόνον.
{ΑΙ.} Πάρεστ' ἄρ' ἡμῖν ὥστε κἀμφανῆ μαθεῖν;
{ΗΛ.} Πάρεστι δῆτα καὶ μάλ' ἄζηλος θέα.
{ΑΙ.} Ἦ πολλὰ χαίρειν μ' εἶπας οὐκ εἰωθότως.
{ΗΛ.} Χαίροις ἄν, εἴ σοι χαρτὰ τυγχάνει τάδε.

Aegisthus [1450]
Where, then, are the strangers? Tell me.
Electra [1451]
Inside. They have κατήνυσαν our beloved hostess/patron.
Aegisthus [1452]
Did they actually report that he truly died?
Electra [1453]
No. Not in words only. They brought evidence.
Aegisthus [1454]
Is it possible to show me the evidence?
Electra [1455]
It is certainly possible, but it's not a pretty sight.
Aegisthus [1456]
You've given me reason to rejoice, not typical of you.
Electra [1457]
What ever turns you on.

Line 1451 is somewhat tricky. The referent φίλης ... προξένου "beloved hostess/patroness[1]" is Clytaemnestra. She is a hostess to the two foreigners and a patroness [very sarcastic] to Electra and possibly even Aegisthus. There is no possessive pronoun so the question who's patroness/hostess is left open. The best solution might be to have the hostess/patroness belong to Electra and Aegisthus but the direction of her hospitality at this moment directed at the the two foreigners. All this intended for Aegisthus' picture of the scenario.

The second difficulty at 1451 is the meaning of the verb κατήνυσαν [2] which includes: transitive accomplish, perpetrate and intransitive arrive at a place. Sophocles appears to intend both meanings, one for Aegisthus arrive ... which fits into his understanding of the scenario and another perpetrate for Electra and the audience who know that the two foreigners have just murdered Clytaemnestra.

At first glance Electra's response in line 1453 appears to be a reference to the urn of ashes, ostensibly Orestes remains. But that reading doesn't makes sense with Electra's following comments. There isn't anything gruesome about an urn of ashes. Electra is ad-libbing, fabricating a story about Orestes physical remains, she leaves the nature of the evidence vague but implies that it is more substantial than an urn ashes. Aegisthus supplies the missing information based on his [miss]understanding of the scenario.

[1] LSJ: ... patron, protector, A.Supp.420 (lyr.), al., Ar.Th.602; φίλης γὰρ π. κατήνυσαν at the house of a kind patroness, i.e. Clytaemnestra, S.El.1451;

[2] LSJ κατ-ᾰνύω, Att. καθ- (q.v.) (κατ-ύτω [ῠ] X.Cyr.8.6.17):—Pass. (v. infr. 11):— bring to an end; esp.

accomplish, cover a certain distance, τὸν προκείμενον δρόμον Hdt.8.98; νηῦς -ανύει ἐν μακρημερίῃ ὀργυιὰς ἑπτακισμυρίας Id.4.86; δυοῖν ἡμέραιν ὁδὸν ἐν μιᾷ X.HG5.4.49, etc.; then,

intr., arrive at a place, νηῒ κατανύσας ἐς Αῆμνον Hdt.6.140, cf. X.HG5.4.20: c. gen., φίλης γὰρ προξένου (sc. ἐς οἶκον） κατήνυσαν they have come to a kind hostess's, S.El.1451: metaph., πρὶν σᾶν . . κατανύσαι φρενῶν before thou arrivest at thy purpose, E. Hipp.365 (s. v.l., lyr.).

accomplish, perpetrate, τάδε Id.El.1163 (lyr.); αἷμα γενέθλιον κ. Id.Or.89:—Med., πολλὰ τῇ πατρίδι κ. IPE 12.40.10 (Olbia, ii/iii A.D.):—Pass., to be fulfilled, τὸ τέρας αὐτῷ εἰς τὴν ὑπατικὴν ἀρχὴν κατηνύσθη Dam.Isid.64.

the transfiguration - cultural assumptions (part 4)

2011-02-09T12:03:00.000-08:00

Our reader is Jane Studdok from C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength. It is now later in the novel and her persistent dreams have been eroding her worldview. Her naturalism has run up against certain new “facts” which have been troubling her. The world has turned out to be a dangerous place. Jane has just narrowly escaped imprisonment by Fairy Hardcastle, the head of the new Gestapo/KGB. She is now at St Anne's, it is late morning and she is killing time in the library waiting to talk with Ransom, The Pendragon. Her mind drifts back to the transfiguration in Matt 17. She finds in the library a commentary by Alfred Plummer. She sits down by a window and finds the place where the transfiguration is discussed. The first paragraph opens with a defense of the historicity of the transfiguration narrative. A short while back she would have rejected that notion out of hand. Her recent experiences[2] make her more cautious now.

One of the details of the transfiguration narrative which troubles Jane is the cloud that envelops the scene. Matthew mentions that the cloud is full of light φωτεινὴ [3]. Plummer notes that Mark and Luke lack this particular detail. Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. The cloud full of light is immediately identifiable in the ancient Jewish culture as a reference to the Shekinah glory, the visible representation of the presence of YHWH at Sinai, in the desert, in the tabernacle and in the temple. Most gentiles would not have made this connection. However, pagan storm theopanies with lightning and thunder were also associated with mountains. Reading Matthew's account, the gentiles might have substituted a cultural equivalent, perhaps Zeus.

[1] Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew.

[2] Jane Studdok's confrontation with spiritual evil and the real dangers involved shocks her out of her secular materialism. This reminds me of a colleague many years ago who had fallen in with the occult while bumming around Europe and middle east in the late 1960s. The reality of spiritual evil was a wake up call for someone who had drifted into a vague form secular materialism. The confrontation with the spiritual realm is not a sure cure for secular materialism. The move from materialism into neo-paganism is the dominant pattern of the last half century. For an early account, Read The Other Side: An Account Of My Experiences With Psychic Phenomena by James A Pike & Diane Kennedy.

[3] Matt 17:5 ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς, καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.