The Heritage of Jesus or Mt 1:1 Again

I'm getting closer to understanding the first verse of Matthew. So I'm almost ready to translate it more confidently now...so I'm again chiming in on the debate of what 'genesis' means in Mt 1:1. (For my earlier thoughts on this topic see my earlier post)

The two largest commentaries on Matthew are at odds here. The disagreement concerns the meaning of the Greek noun 'genesis' as used in Mt 1:1. Basically both commentaries agree that the first verse functions as the title of the book:

The Book of the Genesis of Jesus Anointed/Messiah, Son of David, Son of Abraham

In the debate (Davies&Allison vs. Luz) the basic question is whether the generative aspect of the word γένεσις ('genesis') might also indicate something 'generative' about Jesus? (Or is it merely that which generated him?)

The Davies-and-Allison commentary argues that 'genesis of Jesus' was meant to indicate that which was generated in the life of Jesus, namely what God 'generates' in/through Jesus in the Matthean story. In other words, it indicates the new creation begun in the life of Jesus (to be completed at his second coming).

But the Luz commentary rejects this argument and asserts that 'genesis' here cannot be anything “wrought by Jesus” because there is no new creation implied in the noun:

the Greek word γένεσις has no transitive nuance. In no sense is Jesus "creator" according to Matt 1:1 [Luz, p70]

Now so far I've spent awhile working on verse 1 and I'm beginning to agree with Davies and Allison against Luz, namely that Jesus' γένεσις (in Mt 1:1) does include all the events connected to (or surrounding) his whole life.

My own approach differs from the argument given in Davies and Allison. Davies and Allison are more interested in the multiplicity of functions for verse 1 (i.e. both as a title and as a subheading for the beginning narratives of Jesus' life).

I'm more interested in how the meaning of 'genesis of Jesus' concerns his providential coming-into-being (according to Mt 1:2-17) and again identified in verse 18 (according to the same providential principles at work [see next post]) and then identified with a mission/destiny in verse 23 (an inherited destiny) yet this is a destiny/purpose with clear ongoing effects.

Is there any good reason not to see the special 'happenings' which gave rise to Jesus (his presence in life; his 'coming into being') as including the legacy he left (that which Jesus' life generated)? The opinion against a Generative Jesus in Mt 1:1 (i.e. Luz's opinion) falls short in at least three ways:

1. Yes the first verse is a sentence without a verb (a 'verbless clause') but that does not mean that nothing verb-like can be inferred from the verse (the verb-less clause is simply a result of its functioning as the book's title).
2. There reference to the 'genesis of Jesus' is not limited to him being simply 'part of creation' unless we overlook the strong sense of his mission/purpose in chapter 1. For sure, Jesus' beginnings are there 'part of creation' but his life (the topic of the whole book) can be seen to be 'in line with the scriptures', that is, he lives according to scripture and teaches according to scripture (and dies and is regenerated according to scripture) and so Jesus gives further meaning to Scripture by who he is and what he does (filling the scriptures with meaning). So 'genesis' in Mt 1:1 is likely about Jesus' whole life's mission being providential--there is little reason to limit this providence to exclude its effects.
3. The alleged range of meanings given for 'genesis' in Luz are deficient. Basically 'genesis' was usually about a cause or effect: an explanation of how circumstances related to or were connected to something or someone (causation/causing or effecting). Genesis in Mt 1:1 likely indicates the entire 'life' of Jesus (life with a mission/purpose to make an effect). So we cannot really exclude the 'legacy' of Jesus from the 'heritage' of Jesus.

So I'm currently translating 'genesis of Jesus' as 'heritage of Jesus' which puts the focus mainly on the events and circumstances that create/produce Jesus. But at the same time 'heritage' is also something enduring (so it also includes a sense of legacy).


Note that Jesus is not simply being identified as the 'chosen one' in Mt 1:1 but his vocation includes a mission that generates a new family/kinship. This is one of the reasons why the genealogy (and the very concept of a biblical genealogy) is designed to end (according to the Matthean narrative). Here the Messiah does not sire children. The Messiah comes to inaugurate (generate) a new way of relating, where a father's (patriarch's) authority is questioned and reevaluated ("call no one father"--the power and prerogative to reproduce (to be progenitor) is not what is significant--what is significant is that which is produced/generated by the Creator in/through Jesus. Jesus becomes a teacher-patriarch with no children--his new kin are composed of 'brothers and sisters and mothers' (Mt 12:48-49).
 
In my next post I will explain how it is that Jesus is not simply 'generated by' his ancestors according to the genealogy. The 'genesis of Jesus' in Mt 1:1 is more than just his conception and birth.

For now, let me summarise: the Matthean story concerning the life of Jesus includes not only his biblical precedents and ancestry (heritage) but also everything he achieved and taught (his legacy) thus I'm still translating genesis as 'life' but I'm leaning towards translating it as heritage. Thus Mt 1:1:

The Story of the Life of Jesus Christ, Heir of David, Heir of Abraham

The Story of the Heritage of Jesus Christos, Son of David, Son of Abraham

 -- --
Postscript: for anyone wondering what else might support the above interpretation (besides the entry γένεσις in BDAG) I notice that Warren Carter has detected the notion of 'sovereign purpose' in the  phrase 'book of genesis' [see page 262 of Carter's “Matthew and the Gentiles: Individual Conversion and/or Systematic Transformation?’ JSNT 26 (2004): 259-282]
Also, note how the word genesis is employed in Judith--when the heroine Judith (in Jud 12:18) perceives that she is about to enact a significant event on behalf of the Israelites -- she speaks of this act as the pinnacle of her life using the word ‘genesis’ suggesting a larger purpose to her life (i.e. destiny for her entire life). A life not only proceeds from but contributes to (is connected to both what 'precedes' and to what 'follows from').

biblos and genesis

I'm still working away on the first chapter of Matthew...two brief updates:

"Produced" in Mt 1:2–16

I've recently changed my translation of egennesen (ἐγέννησεν) from "he was the father of" to "he produced" throughout the whole genealogy (verses 2–16). This better fits with the focus in Matthew 1 on how messianic heirs are produced. And specifically how Jesus was (not) produced. 

One of the things that is undercut/demoted in the Gospel of Matthew is the prerogative and authority of the earthly father so it makes sense why 'father' does not appear in Matthew chapter 1. In fact the first appearance of the Greek word for 'father' is in relation to the abominable Herod in Mt 2:22. 

Mt 1:1 Book of Genesis/Story of Origin

I've made more progress on the meaning of the first two words in Mt 1:1 namely biblos geneseos (βίβλος γενέσεως).

Both biblos and genesis are words with sacred or supernatural undertones and both words could also indicate a 'story', 'narrative', or 'history'.

Genesis was already the title for the sacred book of Genesis in Greek. And biblos was commonly used to signify a holy book/scripture/writing. (Similarly the word for 'writing' [γραφή] used in the Greek New Testament meant 'sacred writing'.)

But things get very interesting when we look at all the meanings of genesis... the Greek word genesis could refer to numerous kinds of 'being' relating to:

source-of-being (origin); 
manner-of-birth (special associated birth events); 
lot-of-existence (fortune/destiny); 
production (creating/procreating); 
becoming; 
race/family/kin; or 
a social 'generation'/age.

In other words the genesis of a person could be about a person's origin/origins (ancestors, the 'cause' of someone's being) or about someone's creating/producing (descendants, the result of someone's procreating). However, it could also be about special events related to birth or someone's whole consequential life, or someone's life purpose (destiny).

Most readings of Matthew have presumed that genesis in Mt 1:1 is not about someone's resulting life (existence) but simply about someone's history (ancestors) because of what follows it is a genealogy (verses 2-16).

But it may be a surprise to know that the Bauer-Danker lexicon/dictionary actually gives the meaning 'life' for Mt 1:1.

I too began to think that 'life of Jesus' was a radical new way of interpreting Mt 1:1 until I checked the Bauer-Danker lexicon! But why then does hardly anyone interpret genesis in Mt 1:1 as 'life' (of Jesus)?

Well the same lexicon (BDAG) also gives another meaning for genesis in Mt 1:1 (ancestral line/lineage) and this second meaning has unfortunately dominated English translations.

Note that the meaning 'life story (of Jesus)' is also due to it's combination with biblos. So the 'story' part mainly belongs to biblos. The 'life' part mainly belongs to genesis (I say mainly because there is some overlap in the functions of both words). 

We should compare the beginning of Tobit for it's use of biblos (βίβλος):

Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιτ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ...
This book tells the story of Tobit, son of Tobiel, son of Hananiel...

(Note how 'story' is implied by the word biblos, βίβλος).

And if we compare the first verse of Mark: 

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ
Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

we can see that both Matthew and Mark concern origins: the origin of the Gospel (Mark), and the origin of Jesus (Matthew). In this regard Matthew actually has something in common with John (origin of the Logos).

Now the word genesis appears again in Matthew in verse 18 where it answers the question: What caused his life? That is, Jesus' divine origin (conception) is revealed to Joseph who is instructed to accept the child and marry Mary.

But genesis in Mt 1:1 seems less appropriate because it does not initially answer the question What caused his life? And it does not initially answer the question What did he create/produce (descendants, new life, inauguration of the kingdom? - perhaps some of these suggestions would have to take genesis as referring only to the larger gospel narrative?). 

Probably genesis should not be translated as ancestors/genealogy or descendants (although in the larger story Jesus' true kin are produced by virtue of the person of Jesus who comes to set in motion the kingdom - but this reading would have to ignore the genealogy...perhaps that is why such a reading has never been considered..?).


What immediately follows Mt 1:1 is an account of what caused Joseph's life (ancestors). What 'produced' Joseph is explicitly not what 'produced' Jesus.

(But perhaps, in the mind of many translators, Joseph's receiving Jesus into his Davidic line legitimates genesis as 'genealogy' in Mt 1:1?)

Craig Keener notes that genesis in verse 1 expects to narrate what Jesus produced (the descendants of Jesus) since this is how it is usually used in Genesis. Keener solves the 'problem' by saying that Matthew is saying that Jesus' ancestors depend on Jesus for their existence (Jesus produced Israel?). This is an interesting line of thinking which Keener does not fully explore.

What commentators like Keener are correct in alerting us to is that the usual categories of 'genesis' might need reconsidering (part of the problem is that the New Testament lexicons only give a small sample of the meanings of genesis - Liddell-Scott has the fuller list). 

I suggest that there is (at least) one unexplored option worth considering.

When genesis appears in verse 18 it means 'conception' but not of an ordinary kind. As the BDAG lexicon says here it is "the coming into being at a specific moment" but with special reference "to circumstances under which the birth took place" (namely divine origin/divine shaping of events). So when genesis means 'birth' (as in verse 18) it really means something more than simply 'birth' it means the things and events that Jesus is 'born into' or 'born from' namely divinely so (and anyway there is a more ordinary Greek word for 'birth' namely the similar sounding γέννησις).

So I suggest that the story of the 'life' of Jesus actually includes what foretold Jesus' life. Foretelling/predicting and destiny also belong the meanings of genesis. This aspect has never been explored to my knowledge in Matthew. This seems odd given that in Matthew divine providence and fulfillment is specifically made explicit.

To try to reduce the production/generation down to cause-of-life or consequential-state-of-life has not gotten interpreters and translators very far.


Perhaps the question answered in Matthew 1 is not what is the cause (or state) of Jesus' life but what is the foretelling and destiny of Jesus' life? Biblical Israel was divinely conceived (when Abraham was called out) and it is biblical Israel that provides the foundation of its expected Messiah, according to Matthew.

I'm still figuring this out and still unsure of a good translation. Until then 'story of origin' may have to suffice (but it's a providential origin).

Translating Matthew (Mt 1:1b,c)

Translating Matthew (Mt 1:1b,c)

I'm eager to continue discussing the translation of the Gospel of Matthew into English.

Today I'll finish verse 1!

Last week I briefly discussed the first two phrases, giving a simple translation:

book of genesis
of Jesus (the) Messiah  

I avoided the usual translation of 'genesis' as 'genealogy' because 'genealogy' misses the narrative dimensions implied by a 'book of genesis (of Jesus)'. The so-called genealogy (verses 2-17) is actually more than genealogical as it also tells a story (see next post).

The 'Messiah' is more literally (the) Anointed. The 'the' is not present, so Anointed/Messiah is primarily functioning as a name for Jesus at this point (hence 'Jesus Christ'). This doesn't mean that 'Messiah' cannot also be a title here - especially as the name (Jesus Messiah) is followed immediately by two titles:

son of David 
υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ

son of Abraham
υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ

So in the final two phrases of verse 1, we have a Messianic title 'Son of David', namely a redeemer thought to be foretold by biblical prophesies (as the one who would restore David's throne). But also it could mean 'one like David' namely another 'Solomon' (having Solomon characteristics/traits). 

The other title 'son of Abraham' simply expresses a state of 'Jewishness' but also recalls the earlier promises given to Abraham who represents a point in the story of Genesis not simply beginning a new era but in fact highlights how everything begins (again) with Abraham (hence I can somewhat understand Davies & Allison seeing a 'New Creation' implication here, see previous post). 

Abraham is the one chosen to be the ‘father’ of a nation and ultimately ‘father of many nations’ (Gen 17:4)—the one from whom blessing will flow to ‘all the families of the earth’. Readers might also be encouraged to think of Abraham as the original ‘proselyte’ (a Gentile convert, Gen 12:1–2). Abraham is basically the first Jew (Judean).

An elaborated translation of Mt 1:1  

(This is) An account of the origin of Jesus (the) Messiah son of (and heir to the throne of) David and son of (and heir to the promise to) Abraham.

Translating Matthew (Mt 1:1a)

I've decided to dive into the Gospel according to Matthew!

It would be good to engage with some of the recent commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew. It seems strange to me that new Bible translations neglect to draw on the detailed exegesis (explanation and interpretation) found in Gospel commentaries.

What does Mat 1:1 mean? It is obviously meant to introduce Jesus and/or a book about Jesus. I would like to discuss how we might translate the first two phrases (Mt 1:1a). 
Recent commentaries tend to accept the interpretation of the first phrase as evoking the book of Genesis:

Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ  
Book of genesis of Jesus Christ

The first phrase ‘book of genesis’ (or ‘account of creation/origin’) is also how the Greek in the Greek version of the book of Genesis translates the Hebrew phrase sefer toledot ('account of generations'), namely:

Gen 2:4 ‘This is the book of the genesis of heaven and earth’. 
          Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς

Gen 5:1 ‘This is the book of the genesis of human beings’,
          Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων 

Hence in his commentary R. T. France says: "Its use here deliberately echoes the opening chapters of Genesis."
 
Most readers of English Bibles would be unaware of this because almost every English Bible neglects to mention this feature of Mt 1:1. (Beginning a book by evoking Genesis is what the Gospel according to John also does). It is not really surprising that the writer of Matthew would begin by using a phrase that harks back to a key phrase in 'Genesis' ('Genesis' so-called only in Greek but not Hebrew--in Hebrew the 'book' of 'Genesis' was called by its initial word/words: 'In the Beginning' Berishith).  

Not all commentaries agree on whether or not the first verse functions as a title for only the genealogy which follows it or functions as a title for chapters 1-2 or perhaps even for the whole of Matthew. I am almost convinced by the interpretation that sees Mt 1:1 as functioning as a title for the whole book (as argued in the commentary of Davies and Allison, a notion apparently dating back at least to Jerome)--they originally suggested translating Mt 1:1 as: 

Book of the New Genesis wrought by Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham

It is difficult to find any others who accept this proposal of Davies and Allison (and they have backed off somewhat from asserting such a title in their shorter commentary [2004: "Yet even if 1.1 is not a title...")]. Granted yes in Matthew Jesus does inaugurate a new beginning / creation but Matthew seems also much more explicitly interested with a fulfillment theme (particularly in chaps 1-2). When I try to translate verse 1 as a book title with a verb in it (according to Davies and Allison) it just feels too awkward...so I presently I'll be translating 1a (the first two phrases) simply as:

Book of genesis of Jesus Messiah 

I'll finish discussing verse 1 (1b-c) next post.

Truth and Myth in the Literal-Paraphrase Diagram

Presently, as the topic is too big for one post, I am beginning to blog a short series of posts dealing with the truth about the categorization of Bible versions as more or less “literal.”

Within popular Bible translation theory and method it is perhaps the most widely perpetuated myth, namely the artificial categorization of translation philosophy according to a degree of “literalness,” by creating a polarized “literal-to-paraphrase” diagram (with “interlinear” at one extreme and free “paraphrase” at the other extreme).

The following two diagrams (both originally from Zondervan I think) whereby “literal” is contrasted it with free “paraphrase”:

Like many myths, such diagrams are not without merit and do contain elements of truth.

The first post in this series begins by discussing where the diagram seems to succeed in saying something true. 

Part 1: What is "Literal"?

There is some truth to the notion that some versions are generally more or less “literal” than others. And at the left extreme (Interlinear and NASB) we can honestly say that the NASB does fall relatively close (closer than the others in the diagram) to an “interlinear” approach to translation (interlinear being a method that preserves the original words and simply supplies English words directly below every Greek or Hebrew word).

But what exactly counts as “literal” is problematic. The notion of something being “literal” is a subjective judgement. The complexity of language means that there are potentially infinite ways different people might choose to represent speech from one language more or less “literally” in another language. 

Are, for example, any of the following successfully “literal” translations of the first verse in Matthew (without footnotes)...?

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham: (NASB 1977)

The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: (NASB 1995)

Most “literally” Mt 1:1 is composed of the Greek words:

Βίβλος  γενέσεως  Ἰησοῦ  χριστοῦ  υἱοῦ  Δαυὶδ  υἱοῦ  Ἀβραάμ

which might be “literally” represented by replacing each word with an English word, that is, by using an “interlinear” method of representation:

Book  of-record  of-Jesus  Anointed  son-of  David  son-of  Abraham

 Already we can see that the notion of “literal” quickly degenerates into a provisional, “makeshift” representation even though I have already begun here to make decisions about which English words to capitalize, and to add other punctuation (which is needed in English but not in ancient Greek) to make it look more like a translation and less like an interlinear. I have also attached “of” using hyphens (for genitive cases) in order to indicate that the number of words chosen does not match the number of Greek words. So I have still not sufficiently managed to “translate” into English the sense of the entire Greek verse (grammatically and/or semantically). Granted, our verse has no verb and is not really a complete clause (sentence). Still, we are hovering at the boundary between translation and interlinear.

“Book” is, however, somewhat anachronistic here in that “books” (in the modern “book” format) did not really exist yet … scrolls and wax tablets existed … so “book” here would have to mean something like “scroll” or “document” or “record,” which is why many Bible versions avoid the term “book” in Mt 1:1. “Book” seemed like a suitable “literal” equivalent for “biblos” probably because of the etymological histories and usages of both words where similar enough (“biblos” [papyrus-bark] and “book” [beech-bark] extended by both to be used for creating a record by means of writing: apparently the English word “book” originally meant “writing tablet” and is probably etymologically connected with “beech” as in the name of the beech-tree, OED 2nd ed., 1989). 

But is the etymology of “book” really relevant here? Not really, we don’t expect readers to read words etymologically! In fact if we want a “literal” translation to work we are hoping that readers can automatically recognise that the chosen English words take on meanings based on the source culture, not the target culture. An example like “book” might not be too unsatisfactory so long as the reader can resist imposing more modern ideas of “book.”

But why stop at “book”? Why not go more literal and translate “biblos” as “papyrus”? Unfortunately it seems one can always find ways to go more “literal” when it comes to representing individual words … but at what cost to the sense of sentences? A “literal  translation” still has to deal with “sense” of the words and (preferably) of the sense of words used in combination. Thus “biblos Yesou,” as a phrase, determines that “papyrus of-Jesus” is insufficient as a translation (sense-wise), and so we see that “more literal” begins to become nonsensical and inaccurate (since the medium of writing material is probably the wrong sense to take). Hence more “literal” eventually leads to a nonsensical interlinear. We cannot adequately relay meaning by simply providing fragmented pieces (interlinear glosses).

And what about transliteration? Almost all Bible versions will choose to transliterate certain words (such as with χριστοῦ as “Christ” in Mt 1:1). Transliteration primarily intends to carry over the phonetic sounds of the source (here Greek) and is presumably for when the target language (English) lacks a good translation “equivalent” (another common example is using the word baptize for βαπτίζω, rather than using a translation such as “wash” or “clean” or “cleanse”).

Does transliteration count as more “literal” or less “literal”? If transliteration were to be considered (always?) more literal then it is interesting that no Bible versions have chosen the word “genesis” to “translate” (transliterate) γένεσις in Mt 1:1 - doing so would give us

(The) book of genesis of-Jesus Anointed Son of David Son of Abraham

and readers might then notice not only that the first verse is functioning as a title for the whole Gospel of Matthew as well as a description of the first two “historical” chapters (a “genealogy” and birth “origins story”) but would also note the probable allusion being made to the same formulaic expression βίβλος γενέσεως (book of-genesis) used several times in the early chapters of the book of Genesis in the Greek OT, which translated the Hebrew phrase sefer toledot (stories of family generations/genealogies). So transliteration might sometimes be considered as more successfully literal (as “genesis” is here), but not necessarily always.

Finally, I must mention compound words. Let's look at the first verse in Mark (with an interlinear):

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]
beginning of-the gospel of-Jesus Anointed [Son of-God]

The word I’m interested in here is εὐαγγελίου (which might be transliterated as “evangel” but no Bible versions I know transliterate this compound word as evangel). By compound word I mean that it has two (or more) parts which can (in theory) each be translated separately. Many Bibles consequently translate τοῦ εὐαγγελίου as “of the Good News” (or “of the good news”). Should we always split up compound words like εὐαγγελίου? Probably not. Bible versions do not have any strict method for always translating separately the parts of Greek compound words with separate English words. In fact most compound Greek words should probably not be split up, just as most compound English words are considered as whole words. 

The question here for εὐαγγέλιον is: Is “Good News” more “literal” than “Proclamation”? Perhaps a more literal translation for the “eu” prefix is “well” or “wellness.” But perhaps more literal would, in fact, be to translate the “eu” prefix with its intended meaning within the Gospel of Mark, namely as “salvation” or “victory” or “peace” given that the word belongs within the “semantic domain” of heralds, kings and kingdoms. . . .

Conclusion 

In this first post (in my series dealing with truth and myth in the “literal-to-paraphrase diagram”) I have briefly discussed “literal” (at the left extreme) by looking at two simple verses (Mt 1:1 and Mk 1:1) neither of which contained difficult grammar or strange speech idioms. Even here we found we could always find ways of going more “literal,” but at the cost of losing meaning. Since translation is about relaying meaning, when more literal leads to a disregard for meaning, it can no longer be considered translation but merely an interlinear representation. On this much our diagrams may actually be in agreement with the above points.  

Unfortunately the “diagrams” above are not very clear about the significance of the boundary between interlinear and a “literal translation” like NASB. They might seem to suggest that “interlinear” is simply an extreme form of literal translation whereas in reality an interlinear is not really a translation if it only translates the broken pieces. Some Bible versions attempt to position themselves very closely to the boundary between “interlinear” and “translation” probably in the hope that they will provide more insight into individual words by playing chicken with an interlinear approach. But more “literal” does not necessarily lead to more “accuracy of meaning,” especially as “literal” ultimately depends on interpretation of words in combination. When it comes to the translation of grammar of clauses (sentences), the issue of what might count as more literal is not a simple cut and dry issue.  

Transliteration is sometimes more successfully “literal” (as is “genesis” in Mt 1:1) but transliteration is not usually considered to count as translation (even though used by most Bible versions!). Similarly, compound words do not usually require splitting into separate words but this is again not a clear cut issue. Likewise, interlinear “piecemeal glosses” are not really translations when they ignore grammatical combinations of phrases and clauses.

So in conclusion, since interlinears do not translate the meaningful combination of words, an “interlinear translation” is really an oxymoron (self contradictory). And to further complicate things we could talk about “machine translation” (translation performed by a computer) where an attempt at translation (to reproduce meaningful grammar) has been made but inadvertently falls short as unsuccessful, ultimately landing us back in the realm of the nonsensical, piecemeal interlinear. 

In the next post (part 2) I plan to discuss some issues regarding the “placement” (relative positioning) of certain Bible versions on the “mythical diagram.”