Translating the Genealogy in Matthew (1:2-17)

Here is an 'elaborated' translation of Mt 1:2–17 (I have added round brackets to add in what might be merely implied):

Abraham produced Isaac,
Isaac produced Jacob,
Jacob produced Judah and his brothers (that is, the twelve tribes in the time of Egypt), 
Judah produced Perez and Zara whose mother was Tamar (originally a Canaanite?),
Perez produced Ezrom,
Ezrom produced Aram,
Aram produced Aminadab,
Aminadab produced Naason,
Naason produced Salmon,
Salmon produced Boaz whose mother was Rahab (originally a Canaanite),
Boaz produced Jobed whose mother was Ruth (originally a Moabite),
Jobed produced Jessie,
Jessie produced King David.
David produced Solomon whose mother was the wife of Uriah (the Hittite),
Solomon was the father of  Rehoboam,
Rehoboam produced Abijah,
Abijah produced Asaph,
Asaph produced Josaphat,
Josaphat produced Joram,
Joram produced Uzziah,
Uzziah produced Jotham,
Jothan produced Ahaz,
Ahaz produced Hezekiah,
Hezekiah produced Manasseh,
Manasseh produced Amos,
Amos produced Josiah,
Josiah produced Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

After the exile in Babylon: Jechoniah produced Salathiel,
Salathiel produced Zerubbabel,
Zerubbabel produced Abiud,
Abiud produced Eliakim.
Eliakim produced Azor,
Azor produced Zadok,
Zadok produced Achim,
Achim produced Eliud,
Eliud produced Eleazar,
Eleazar produced Matthan,
and Matthan produced Jacob,
Jacob produced Joseph the husband of Mary the mother to whom was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

So there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David, and from David to the Babylonian Exile fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian Exile to the Messiah fourteen generations.

I have a few comments to make on Mt 1:2-17.

Proceeding forwards in time from Abraham to David to Jesus forms a chiastic (reverse) pattern with verse 1 (Jesus, David, Abraham).

The expression used in Matthew does not follow that used for the ‘descendents of’ pattern but rather follows the pattern used in Gen 25:19 for ‘the ancestors of’ (Isaac) namely:

And these are the generations of Isaac the son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac 

καὶ αὗται αἱ γενέσεις Ισαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ Αβρααμ• Αβρααμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ισαακ.

(For this observation I must credit Basser's commentary on Matthew - I'm still relying on his earlier edition, The Mind Behind the Gospels: A Commentary to Matthew 1-14).

The simplest translation for ἐγέννησεν is perhaps '(he) generated' (which fits with verse 1's 'generations of Jesus') but still sounds a bit odd. Most English Bibles prefer to the more natural sounding '...was the father of...' which works so long as we remember that 'was father' is here a verb (to be progenitor of / progenerate) and perhaps also 'be ancestor of' as the inverse of the concept found in verse 1 (where 'son of' is really 'descendant of' or 'in the line of'). (This also allows writers to give a list of progenitors with several generations unaccounted for / skipped over).

I have highlighted an interpretation found in recent commentaries on Matthew about the four women (namely their Gentile heritage or Gentile association), but I now offer more commentary regarding Matthew's 'account of origins of Jesus Messiah' in particular regarding:

1. the threefold pattern of fourteen generations; and 
2. the probably reason for the four women the writer ('Matthew') has included.

(1) For the most satisfactory explanation of what the pattern of fourteen generations achieves we turn to Basser (and no it's not about the name David in Hebrew). Basically there are 28 generations between the 'full moon' of King David and the final appearance of the Messiah (with the lowest point of the three eras of Messianic history being the time of the Exile):

The threefold pattern of fourteen generations makes sense in relation to rabbinic traditions that speak of the cycle of the moon. … According to this scenario, both David and Jesus are at “full moon” positions in a complete fourteen/fifteen generation-repeating cycle. (pages 31-32 in Basser's full commentary or see pages 26-27 in his earlier commentary for rabbinic examples)

(2) Disappointingly none of the commentaries can satisfactorily explain the included women in the genealogy (that is, the mention of "by Tamar" "by Rahab" "by Ruth" and "by she of Uriah the Hittite")...there are an abundance of theories about this feature! The commentaries usually mention only a few of the main proposals. I won't be engaging with all the theories here...

Yes the women probably had Gentile heritage (except for Bathsheba who is only 'associated' by being the wife of Uriah the Hittite) and yes their presence does help introduce Jesus's mother (since Joseph is really only adopting Jesus into his Messianic line) ... but there are two important Matthean themes at work here of which I believe we should take notice: 

• (a) Refusal to Shame (Greater Righteousness); and  
• (b) Messianic Fulfillment.

We must understand the presumed maleness in the whole enterprise of writing an ancient genealogy - genealogies were political by nature, they concerned a public space (or 'male space') thus Matthew ascribes public status to Jesus through his (adopted) father's family line (the clan of Judah and the house of David). [see Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew].

But the genealogy is also a story of a people/nation, and these four women (Tamar; Rahab; Ruth; and the widow of Uriah) stand out as having famous roles in the historical drama of Israelite leadership/kingship.

So for example Matthew's fourth example: the mention of David's producing a son "by the wife of Uriah" recalls the story of David's shameful treatment of Bathsheba and Uriah. Here Bathsheba's name is not even mentioned (in Matthew's genealogy) so the shame is not placed on her. In other words Matthew (and his tradition) refuses to shame the woman.

Instead the focus is on David's misconduct (his abuse of power, his taking Bathsheba, his plotting the death of her husband Uriah who is faithfully out fighting [in the designated 'male' space 'outdoors'/'behaving publicly'] as a soldier in David's army [while David stays home when 'kings usually go to war' and wanders the rooftops and then takes Uriah's wife Bathsheba]. How David uses his power (treats others under him, including women) is kept out of the public eye (until the prophet Nathan says to David that the consequence will be that the very 'same evil' will be raised up by God against him in that someone else will sleep with David's own wives but this time it will be “before all Israel" and "before the eyes of this sun”  2 Sam 12:11-12). Namely the greater evil/shame this next time will involve the public eye!

At this point Matthew's genealogy wanes from its highest ('moon' of David) and readers may begin to ponder the kind of contrasts with the way the Messiah is/will be when he arrives (namely, that he arrives to counter such sin/evil and will not wield 'power over' but will treat respectfully others who have less power than himself, like women and children). This is the story anticipating a 'redemption' and 'transformation' that sits beautifully within Matthew's genealogy.

I suggest readers should test out this method of interpretation with the other mothers (e.g. at Naomi's suggestion Ruth beatifies herself and lays at the feet of Boaz one night to pursue his affections in marriage - but does he take advantage of her or shame her advances?; Is Rahab shamed for her profession or ethnicity when helping Joshua and his soldiers; Tamar is willing to die rather than shame her father-in-law after posing as a prostitute and when Judah realises what she has done and compares it to how he has treated her... what does he declare..? [see comment next post on Mt 1:18-19]). 

Neyrey admits that his encomium approach (namely the grounds for awarding honor and praise in Greco-Roman literature) "cannot settle the particular exegetical issue of whether the females are shameless or honorable."

France in his commentary acknowledges that "according to Jewish tradition, Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth were regarded as heroines" which leads to France arguing for them all being examples of Gentiles who converted to Israelites - which is semi-correct. Matthew's point would seem to be that it's precisely because the tradition has refused to shame the women which is the greater righteousness already underway - these women are accepted into a new community/people and the sinful actions surrounding the treatment of women are necessarily being addressed and transformed - in Matthew it anticipates a future redeemer (for both its people and its tradition) - this transformation is precisely what the Messiah and his new community is supposed to be about.

(b) Now this also fits Matthew's likely Messianic interpretation of Gen 3:15 regarding the expectancy that someone will overcome the curse of sin and disobedience of God's law (against eating the fruit and the discovering of shame) and this is shown to be reversed in the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 by the 'seed of the woman' (the mother of the Messiah) [see next post].

So Matthew's highlighting the Messiah's 'mothers' may ultimately stem from a Messianic reading of Genesis 3:15 anticipating the promise that the 'seed of the woman' would have victory over the powers of sin, evil and shame (after many generations of conflict). [Note similarly Jesse R. Scheumann, “Mothers of Offspring in 1 & 2 Kings: A Messianic Hope in David's Line?,” Tyndale Bulletin 65, no. 1 (2013): 37-56]

Thus both (a) and (b) account for the fifth and final woman in the Messiah's genealogy: Mary the mother of Jesus ... see next post...

(This was my 3rd post in a long series on translating the Gospel of Matthew into English, based on engaging with interpretations found in recent Greek commentaries.)

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.

Understanding Nida

This forms 'part 3' of my short series on Nida. (Parts 1 and 2 mention a few misunderstandings.)

The first thing worth understanding about Nida is that he advocated an approach towards translation as though 'translating up' rather than the usual approach of 'translating down'. Translating 'up' and translating 'down' are Bellos's terms for talking about the asymmetrical relationships between source and target languages:

Translation UP is towards a language of greater prestige than the source ... [or] towards a language with a larger readership ... [or] it may also simply be the language of the conquerors, or of a people with greater economic power ...

Translation DOWN is towards a vernacular with a smaller audience than the source, or towards one with less cultural, economic or religious prestige, or one not used as a vehicular tongue. [David Bellos, Is That a Fish in Your Ear? (Penguin, 2011), 172]

(So "translation from English nowadays into any other tongue" is an example of 'translating down'.)

Traditionally, translating 'down' has been one way in which a smaller vernacular language is enriched by means of a larger dominant one. Normally translating towards the more prestigious language ('UP') erases traces of the texts foreign origin "whereas translation DOWN tend to leave a visible residue of the source, because in those circumstances foreigness itself carries prestige." [Bellos, Is That a Fish, 173]

Nida, however, favored the approach which was "characteristic of translating up". Effectively Nida's approach treated the target language with the respect traditionally assumed for more prestigious languages.

There is something gracious in this assumption...Scripture (and God) speaks in the vernacular - shrinking the distance between text and message. Nida did not want to risk 'enriching' the vernacular languages (with biblical language) in order to prevent misunderstanding of Scriptural meaning.

But ultimately I find this approach quite patronizing. I cannot help feeling that despite Nida's intentions, the target language (and culture) not only misses out in this approach but it is also belittled by assuming that readers cannot be trusted to judge for themselves what to make of an ancient group of texts that speaks about things from a foreign culture in a foreign idiom. By 'unmaking' the foreign one inevitably oversimplifies and underestimates the benefit of grappling with complexities and realities unfamiliar yet ultimately necessary for sustaining healthy critique of societal issues past and present.

(That's only two points on understanding Nida, not three as originally promised.)

Misunderstanding Nida (part 2)

Misunderstanding the influence of Eugene Nida (1914-2011) is easy to do. I've never really been a fan of Nida's approach to Bible Translation but I am interested in avoiding and addressing misunderstandings.

Last post I admitted to my early inadequate understanding of Nida’s theory of Bible Translation. I would like to underline the same again here with three examples:

Example 1: One of my favourite lecturers mentioned one day that the current dominant method of Bible Translation is (was, in 2002) Nida’s Theory of Dynamic Equivalence. I went home confused because I knew that the majority of recent English Bibles did not favour such a theory. I also knew that Nida had since abandoned the term ‘Dynamic Equivalence’ in favour of ‘Functional Equivalence’ (see example 2 below). I then realised that my lecturer was not referring to Bibles made in English but Bibles made in languages other than English. The point is important: Nida’s theory of Bible Translation was primarily developed for, and within, the context of African languages. 

Example 2: The point is well captured by the following quote from Glenn J. Kerr, "Dynamic Equivalence and Its Daughters: Placing Bible Translation Theories in Their Historical Context," Journal of Translation 7, no. 1 (2011): 6:

By this point [1986] the term “dynamic equivalence” had taken on a life  of its own to such an extent that the originator of the term abandoned it. Most of the time when someone—even a scholar or translator—speaks of dynamic equivalence, they do not  mean what Nida meant. In fact, the principles  and  practices that are found  in Toward a Science of Translating and The  Theory and  Practice of Translation are unlikely to be understood by someone without significant experience in the multiple-language setting of Bible translation or a linguist experienced in translation theory. What seems to have happened is that readers of Nida ignored the specific methodology,  applying  dynamic equivalence  broadly. Any  style of translation that is not overtly literal, that has any degree of equivalence, whether paraphrase, summation, cultural adaptation, or even  free  variation, has been called dynamic  equivalence. The term had become so imprecise as to be unusable. Therefore Nida, repudiating those imprecise applications, rejected “dynamic equivalence” in favor of “functional equivalence.”

Example point 3. The primary example of a Bible in English that employed Nida's Theory, was The Good News Bible (originally Today's English Version) which in the United States had to change its name again to The Good News Translation. The name change reflected the fact that English Bibles that were not using formal equivalence (word-for-word approach) were being perceived as 'paraphrases' rather than as translations. This perception still remains somewhat (particularly in the US) namely that idiomatic attempts at translation are not legitimate forms of 'translation proper'.

Three examples are enough (for a whole series of misunderstandings perpetuated by Roland Boer and opposed by Ernst Wendland and Stephen Pattemore see their article mentioned in my previous post). 

Next post I would like to give three positive 'understandings' concerning Nida's theory and approach.

Translation Studies and Nida

Last year my reading in Translation Studies was minimal. I did manage to read through Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition).

Among the many topics of interest covered there, I remember being struck by how different the chapter was by Eugene Nida in comparison to my previous understanding of his translation theory.

Like many, I had presumed a distorted view of Nida's approach of 'dynamic' (then later 'functional') 'equivalence'. But reading a 1964 extract (from Toward a Science of Translating) in a chronologically-based reader gave me a new appreciation for Nida's approach to the discussion (and goal of others) at that time for formulating theories of equivalence. And I noticed the absence of overly simplistic polarities that I had earlier presumed to be there. So for example:

Between the two poles of translating (i.e. between strict formal equivalence and complete dynamic equivalence) there are a number of intervening grades, representing various acceptable standards of literary translating.

Also (among other examples) his acknowledgment that a translator must 

contend with the special difficulties resulting from such an effective exploitation of the total resources of the source language

demonstrates that Nida's approach was not overly simplistic as is often presumed.

I was recently pleased to discover a paper by Ernst Wendland and Stephen Pattemore, “The Dynamic Equivalence Caper”—A Response (OTE 26 2013): 471-490, as 

"This article overviews and responds to Roland Boer’s recent wide ranging critique of Eugene A Nida’s theory and practice of “dynamic equivalence” in Bible translating. Boer’s narrowly focused, rather insufficiently-researched evaluation of Nida’s work suffers from both a lack of historical perspective and a current awareness of what many, more recent translation scholars and practitioners have been writing for the past several decades. Our rejoinder discusses some of the major misperceptions and misleading assertions that appear sequentially in the various sections of Boer’s article with the aim of setting the record straight, or at least of framing the assessment of modern Bible translation endeavors and goals in a more positive and accurate light."

The article is readily available online, including Wendland's academia page, which shows evidence that Bible Translation Studies is more alive than I first bemoaned. That the discipline has already been so named (BTS) is good news. The article has lead me today, indirectly, to discover the Nida School of Translation Studies (NSTS) which

was launched as an initiative of the Nida Institute in 2007, following several years of active involvement with the well-known CETRA program. Designed with the goal of putting into practice a transdisciplinary approach to translation theory and practice, as well as that of incorporating sacred text translation more fully into the world of modern translation studies, the Nida School meets for two weeks annually at its campus in Misano Adriatico (Rimini), Italy.

I am thrilled to discover this. Also there is a journal associated with it: Translation: A Transdisciplinary Journal, which has published four issues so far.
 
Over the Christmas-New Year period I finished reading David Bellos, Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: The Amazing Adventure of Translation (London: Penguin Books: 2011).

Bellos includes a chapter featuring a bit on Nida, which I found illuminating and will mention in my next post.

How Old is your Bible Language?

No I'm not talking about the age of the biblical languages used in biblical texts. I'm wondering about the 'age' of the kind of language translators use in translations.

In other words I'm interested in discussing: How recent or how ancient does a Bible translation sound? 

One of the reasons I ask is to follow up again (already followed up briefly here) on a postscript from my second blog post where I said:

The question of the first Bible translations in modern speech will of course depend on one's definition of "modern" and "modern language." Suffice to say here (other posts will pick it up) the King James Version (1611) simply consolidated (revised) the earlier 16th century Bibles and avoided modern speech in preference for archaic speech--it was not (contrary to misconceptions) either a completely "new" translation, nor was it a "modern language" version

That is, the King James Version chose to use archaic mid-sixteenth century language (mid 1500s English) rather than contemporary English. One reason was that the translators were attempting to produce a single version out of the many sixteenth century English versions:

Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. 

But in creating a 'single version' by using old-fashioned English, the translators are doing something quite different to what Tyndale did. It's not that they differed much from Tyndale's version at all. But Tyndale's English was more contemporary at the time he translated. So the result of the KJV's use of Tyndalian English would seem to suggest that a Bible translation should sound archaic, right from the very time it comes off  the press.

So how old should a Bible translation sound? 

I have also pondered (from a Christian perspective) whether a translation of the Hebrew scriptures should be made to seem/sound 'older' than the way the Greek New Testament is translated...given that a Christian approach to the Older Testament develops from first century (Christian) readings of OT texts. I cannot fully bring myself to accept that approach. It would be a kind of anachronistic approach (the OT Scriptures were not Christian scriptures prior to the first century). Yet the different Testaments need some kind of coordinated attempt to explain the different approaches to their reading audiences. 

For example, although the NRSV translated the Greek ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου as the formal and stilted 'The Son of Man' the translators went with a less literal mode for OT verses that mention בַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ ('Son of Man' in Aramaic) and בֶּן־אָדָ֔ם ('Son of Man' in Hebrew) and instead translated these as 'Mortal'. It could be that the NRSV translators had particular reasons for this, or that the translation approaches differed between the OT and NT.

A related question is the given perceptions of the source language in relation to how the target translation might/should sound... should something translated from biblical Hebrew sound like it was translated from a more archaic language (more exotic?) than texts translated from Koine Greek? If so, how obvious would the results of such translation need to be?

I would be interested in what other people have to say about these questions.

A new proposal for translating καταλύω and πληρόω in Mt 5:17

Today, rather than discussing theory, I’ll take my own advice and suggest a new translation for Mt 5:17, namely,

Do not think that I came to tear down the law and the prophets; I did not come to tear down but to build up.

UPDATE: I'm also considering 'build on’ in place of ‘build up’, or simply ‘to build’ (I did not come to demolish but to build). 
UPDATE: also considering: I have not come to make [them] void but to make [them] relevant.
As far as I know this these suggested translations is are new.

Now biblical imagery of ‘tearing down’ and ‘building up’ is quite common and the biblical applications are various … but our verb καταλύω (‘tear down’ ‘destroy’) is not usually used for tearing things down in biblical Greek translations (of the OT); the most common Greek verb found in this regard is καθαιρέω along with its opposite οἰκοδομέω. For example (translations are from the New English Translation of the Septuagint):

Ecc 3:3 (‘a time to tear down, and a time to build up’)

καιρὸς τοῦ καθελεῖν καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι

Likewise πληρόω is not usually translated ‘build' or build up’ or ‘build on’. But bear with me...

Thus for example in Jer 1:10 καταλύω (‘tear down’) does not appear, instead it is ἀπόλλυμι (‘destroy’) that appears opposite ἀνοικοδομεῖν (‘rebuild’) and καταφυτεύειν (‘plant’):

“Behold, today I have appointed you over

nations and over kingdoms,

to uproot and to pull down and to

destroy

and to rebuild and to plant.” (NETS)

ἰδοὺ κατέστακά σε σήμερον ἐπὶ

ἔθνη καὶ βασιλείας

ἐκριζοῦν καὶ κατασκάπτειν καὶ

ἀπολλύειν

καὶ ἀνοικοδομεῖν καὶ καταφυτεύειν

Paul does contrast καταλύω (‘tear down’) with οἰκοδομέω (‘build up’) in Gal 2:18

If what I once tore down I build up again I show that I am a wrongdoer.

εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω

Granted, Mt 5:17-18 is one of the most discussed passages in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus speaks about his position concerning ‘the law’ (verses 17–20 together seem to provide a fuller ‘thesis’ for framing the so-called ‘antitheses’ of Mt 5:21–48). The evangelist (writer) here pictures Jesus teaching on a mountain to a large crowd (5:1; 7:28). In verse 18 Jesus mentions features of the (Hebrew) scriptures (‘jots and tittles’) and compares them (tiny elements of notation of Scripture) to the largest known elements of existence (heaven and earth) in order to highlight the importance of even the smallest commandments (cf. verses 19–20).

Indeed, the comparing and contrasting of seemingly ‘small’ and ‘great/grand’ is another important Matthean thematic device stretching back to the genealogy and permeating the whole Gospel.

Traditionally the translation and interpretation of Mt 5:17 tends to gravitate around the legitimacy of the Mosaic law and/or the entire Jewish scriptures for Jesus and the early disciples. And fair enough. It does make a difference for historical reconstruction of first century Christianity whether or not ‘the [Old Testament] law’ was being accepted or rejected by the new Christian sect. And it is a credit to the writer quoting Jesus’ position (concerning the law) that it is still possible to read Jesus as both for and against the ongoing validity of the law for his followers! The ambiguity is largely due to the way Jesus is quoted using the word ‘fill / fulfill’ (πληρόω):

Traditionally Mt 5:17 is translated as:

“Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι

My favorite succinct comment regarding verse 17 would have to be from Herbert Basser where he says that “he [Jesus] is not some kind of unfettered apocalyptic preacher who sees that the law is about to be annulled because the final days have come.”

And I do think that on a lexical (word-based) level of translation and interpretation that ‘annul’ is a very good way to render the verb καταλύω in English, and that ‘fulfill’ is quite reasonable for rendering πληρόω.

However, the notion of tearing down and building upon is an overlooked facet of Mt 5:17 deserving further consideration. Especially since from the perspective of the writer (and the readers) of the Gospel of Matthew Jesus’ stance to the ‘law and the prophets’ is inescapably political in that it is kingdom oriented.

Only occasionally is the verb καταλύω used in reference to ‘overthrowing’ an enemy fortification or power, as for example, in Greek Ps 8:3 where the object of the verb καταλύω is the ‘enemy and vengeful foe’:

            Out of mouths of infants and nurslings

you furnished praise

for yourself,

for the sake of your enemies,

to put down enemy and avenger (NETS),

            ἐκ στόματος νηπίων καὶ θηλαζόντων

κατηρτίσω αἶνον

ἕνεκα τῶν ἐχθρῶν σου

τοῦ καταλῦσαι ἐχθρὸν καὶ ἐκδικητήν.

But in Mt 5:17 the kind of dissolution of the verb καταλύω is being made in contrast to πληρόω (‘fill up’) which isn't usually translated ‘build’ or ‘build on’ or ‘build up’.

Yet it is hardly a stretch to take πληρόω here as ‘fill (up) with meaning’ or ‘expand upon’ (being contrasted with ‘make void / annul’). So the novelty is not necessarily in seeing Jesus as ‘expanding on’ or ‘building on’ the Scriptures so much as it looking like a peculiarly novel way of translating (compared to the traditional ‘fulfill’).

Now I’m also wondering whether the semantic ‘frame’ of καταλύω is often war-related and political…

Interestingly the other uses in Matthew are all anti-Temple uses.

The verb καταλύω (occurring 17 times in the whole New Testament) does not always include a verbal object. Of the five occurrences in Matthew two come from verse 17 where the verbal object is ’the law or the prophets’ in the first (the second occurrence might imply the same object but has no object). The remaining three occurrences in Matthew indicate that the Temple is in each case the object of the verb:

Mt 24:2 ‘stones’ [of the Temple] 

            ‘not a stone will be left on a stone that will not be thrown down’

οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται

Mt 26:61 ‘the Temple of God’:

‘this man said "I can tear down the Temple of God then build it again in three days’

Οὗτος ἔφη· Δύναμαι καταλῦσαι τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν οἰκοδομῆσαι.

Mt 27:40 ‘the Temple’:

‘and saying "the person who would tear down the Temple and build it up again within three days, rescue yourself!"

καὶ λέγοντες· Ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις οἰκοδομῶν, σῶσον σεαυτόν·

Notice also in the five Matthean uses what the verb’s opposite is

1. πληρόω - ‘fill / fill up / make complete’ (verbal object=Scripture)
2. πληρόω - ‘fill / fill up / make complete’ (verbal object= implied)
3. ἀφίημι + ὧδε (ἀφεθῇ ὧδε) – ‘leave here / leave intact’ (verbal object=stones of the Temple)
4. οἰκοδομέω - ‘build / rebuild / build up’ (verbal object=the Temple)
5. οἰκοδομέω - ‘build / rebuild / build up’ (verbal object=the Temple)

So whilst ‘tearing down’ (the Temple) is a natural comparison to make lexically (including the antonym ‘rebuild’ / ‘build up’) as a verbal object within Matthew, for some reason it has not influenced the translation and interpretation of Mt 5:17.

The main reason is because of a widespread attachment to the English word ‘fulfill’ and indeed ‘fulfillment’ is such a dominant Matthean theme from the beginning of Matthew (even the birth of Jesus fulfills a fourteen-based genealogy pattern and the notion of fulfillment is made explicit in Mt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 13:35, 48; 21:4; 23:32; 26:54, 56; 27:9). The majority of these verses concern events that correspond to the scriptures that are now being ‘fulfilled’, that is, they are filled with new significance in the life of Jesus by being demonstrably in line with God’s way of doing things—past, present, and future begin to converge in Jesus’ vocation to bring the reign of heaven closer.

What I still find intriguing is that the theme of ‘tear down’ and ‘build up / make complete / build on’ remains unexplored in English Bible translations.

Naturally good teachers teach by ‘building up’ (note καταλύω in 2 Cor 13:10) and by ‘building on’ a solidly made foundation (compare the conclusion to Jesus speech in Mt 7:24–27).

So the notion of ‘building up God’s kingdom’ by ‘building on’ the law and the prophets is arguably quite relevant to Mt 5:17, especially for a people needing to understand Jesus’ relation to the Jewish Scriptures and his interpretation of it for them. Jesus comes to bring life by his teachings that are based on the essential life-giving spiritual guidance of the Scriptures. The readers of Matthew needed, and still need, to know how God in Jesus teaches people what righteousness really is. Matthew throughout testifies with the law and the prophets about a ‘greater righteousness’. (Note also Mt 23:23 concerning justice, mercy and faith).

And the teachings of Jesus, according to Matthew, do 'build' and ‘build on’ the foundational elements of Scripture (the law and the prophets) and Jesus proceeds particularly to do so in verse 21 onwards. Upon such Jesus’ followers then find dependable interpretations of God’s life-giving will for people to ‘enter the kingdom’.

What Counts as Foreign (Identifying Verbal Valency)

In my previous post I asserted that no matter what the translation philosophy underlying an English Bible translation is (whether it seeks a ‘domesticating’ approach or a ‘foreignizing’ approach) the translator must identify what counts as a foreign element in the first place.

Let me explain. When I mark the exercise sheets given out to the students enrolled in NT Greek I occasionally need to remind them to use acceptable English so that they demonstrate that they understand not only what each individual Greek word is but understand how the words together make grammatical sense. It is not enough to identify individual words. They need also to identify grammatical constructions. A very simple example is that Koine participles (‘-ing’ verbs e.g. ‘baptizing’ and ‘believing’) change from simple participles when preceded by a definite article (‘the’) so as to imply personal pronouns (‘the person who baptizes’; ‘the person who believes’).

This is why we ask that they use good, acceptable English (“Translate into Good Idiomatic English”) because pronouns and definite articles in Koine affect the grammar, and students need to show that they are learning the grammar, not just the words.

But the opposite is also true: literal translations can be misleading...

Interestingly, the more that a grammatical construction in Hebrew or Greek appears to be relatively easy to transfer into English the more I think we should be suspicious that we have correctly identified the foreign elements in the first place. Ιt is easier to slow down and debate how best to translate a difficult grammatical construction. Less so when the construction appears straight forward.

A biblical example: דבר על לב (‘speak concerning the heart’)

What does the biblical expression ‘speak concerning the heart’ mean? It is a question posed by Carolyn Leeb, “Translating the Hebrew Body into English Metaphor,” in The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 109–125. Leeb finds only nine passages where the exact expression is used, which does not include similar expressions. The 9 occurrences are: Gen 34:3; Gen 50:21; Judg 19:13; 2 Sam 19:8; Hos 2:16; Isa 40:2; Ruth 2:13; 2 Chron 30:22; 2 Chron 32:6.

Leeb is particularly concerned with the first occurrence, Gen 34:3 concerning how Shechem speaks to the girl he has just raped (Dinah).

They way I read Leeb’s overall conclusions is that she is interested in how the speaker in each instance may be using his powerful position to persuade the addressee to do what the speaker thinks is best. She argues that every example involves a powerful male speaker and a powerless hearer (p.114). So in the case of Gen 34:3 Shechem tries to convince her or ‘reason with her’ speaking from a more powerful position (not necessarily: ‘speak tenderly to her’, the Greek OT has ἐλάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν 'he spoke according to the mind [of the unmarried girl]'). Shechem wanted to keep Dinah (the preceding phrase clause is 'he loved the girl').

In reviewing Leeb’s chapter Fika van Rensburg (RBL 12/2009) summarised it as:

A social-scientific examination of the ancient Israelite understanding of the body reveals that in their world the heart was understood to be the seat of reasoning, not feeling. Accordingly, the phrase “speak to the heart” should be rendered with “argued with” or “reasoned with.”

Actually this is only half correct, Leeb actually argued: “In my model, the heart is part of the interior of a human being, a locus of both reason and feeling.” (p.121)

Still, it looks like the various English Bibles have mistranslated these passages. And it’s not just those translations that have tried to 'domesticate' the expression into something like ‘he spoke loving/comforting words’ or ‘he spoke tenderly’. Even the translations that have tried to keep the construction foreign and ‘literal’ (‘he spoke to the heart’) also fail to identify what is foreign about the Hebrew expression since English already has this expression but it means something different—the English expression ‘speak to the heart’ identifies a speaker who speaks from a soft/tender place of consideration for what is soft/tender in the addressee with no necessary connection with power asymmetry (a speaker more powerful than the addressee who is of much lower rank and highly vulnerable to exploitation).

So translators have failed to identify that the construction concerns power of persuasive speech by a speaker more powerful than the addressee. Consequently they have overlooked the confrontational nature of the construction (the context of the personal asymmetry of power; the particle על ‘concerning’ ‘against’ following ‘speak’ and preceding לב (‘heart’); and the reasoning/intentional/intellectual quality of the body part ‘heart’).

This has huge ramifications for how we present our English translations as translations, since what counts as foreign needs to be constantly under review. At the extreme we should not presume that a simple biblical expression, for example one that appears to say ‘he went into the house’ necessarily means what it means in English! We would first need to see if there are particular grammatical constructions or patterns associated with a particular type of verbal object ('house') and particular type of subject ('person') who might be expected (socially) to ‘go into’ the house! All this might seem a little too extreme but I feel it makes the point well.

In fact, within biblical studies, there is a whole new field of grammatical investigation being currently developed called ‘verbal valency’ which studies the grammatical patterns associated with particular biblical verbs. I say ‘new field’ because so far it has attracted studies that have been relatively linguistic rather than include the social-scientific background that Leeb brought to bear. I am very excited to see what other studies might reveal about verbal valency.

I recognise that it is more difficult to achieve clear results with biblical verbs than it is with verbs in current languages, since many biblical constructions only occur a few times, which is often not enough to detect clear patterns.

I hope to discuss more examples in future.

What Should Translation Look Like? To Surmise a Summary

Today I jump head first into theory and then next post get straight to the practice. I won’t get bogged down in jargon. I’ll try here to simplify everything. I will begin with one of the most important questions: Should a translation look like a translation?

It is a key question within Translation Studies, namely how much a translation should or should not appear to be a translation. In other words should a translation read like it is a translation? This question penetrates to the core of what it means to translate, and how one answers the question tends to align with one of the two sides of the paradox of translation itself (its possibility/impossibility).

At one extreme, is the view that a translation should aim to appear as if it were not a translation at all – it should instead appear to be an origin composition. So if we are thinking in terms of an English Bible translation the question from this extreme basically says: if Paul had written to the saints in Rome in English how then might he have put his whole letter ‘To the Romans’ in English? (if the Romans were English?) The obvious problem with this approach is the fact that Paul did not speak English because English did not yet exist and consequently neither did many of the cultural aspects that make a language a cultural phenomenon. Is there really a way to know how someone unfamiliar with a particular culture might speak if they had been familiar with that culture? To some degree the question is unanswerable. But the ramifications are significant. Do we expect that someone can understand a foreign text (and a foreign culture) without learning the language? (And yet this would be expected, to varying degrees, of an English reader reading a biblical text in English).

Therefore we come to the other extreme viewpoint, that is, what a translator should ideally be doing is to try to avoid eliminating the foreign aspects of the text, in other words, try not to make it appear to be an original composition (in our case, not make it resemble a composition made in English). From this perspective, it is considered dishonest or deceptive to make a translation that doesn’t look like a translation.

However, how can translators always detect when they are accidentally ‘domesticating’ the foreign text and eliminating essential elements that should not be eliminated? But if all foreign elements are left intact (and the text remains in its foreign language) then translation has not even occurred!

So the question about how much a translation should appear to be a translation brings us to the heart of the paradox of translation: translation remains impossible but remains possible. In other words: (complete) translation is not possible but (some) translation is obviously possible (it has been occurring for millennia!).

I want now to point out two things. What I notice about the nature of both sides is that each position is basically self-fulfilling. That is, the view that translation is by nature impossible or the view that believes translation should not eliminate the foreign by nature makes sure that the foreign remains foreign. Conversely, the view that believes translation is possible (and seeks to replace the foreign with what’s not foreign) is naturally destined to replace everything that is foreign.

At this point I notice something of further interest, namely that each extreme position is united in its purpose of having to work hard to determining when something is or is not foreign. Let me explain.

The hard work within the ‘domesticating’ perspective is working to detect every single element from the foreign language that can or should be translated (and then deciding how successful it has been in putting this into practice within its ‘replacement’ text). Conversely, for the view that the foreign should not be eliminated, the hard work there is in working to detect any kind of domestication of the foreign altogether (then working out how successful it has been in putting this into practice within its resulting ‘foreignizing’ text).

Notice that the work of both positions actually depends on the same goal: successful identification of what counts as a foreign element in the first place. Further to this goal is the fact that they both then have to work out to what degree the desired result (practice) has been achieved in the new text (translation).

In the next post I will discuss a Bible example. The example suggests that neither the domesticating approach nor the foreignizing approach are yet proficient at determining what counts as foreign.