The Sermon in Matthew’s Genealogy (Mt 1:18–25)

Matthew’s genealogy contains fathers with the addition of four mothers (five if we include Mary) which I began discussing last post. The commentaries do not have a satisfactory explanation. 
 

The problem is that commentators tend to be looking for what’s wrong or ‘irregular’ about these women (or what’s positive about them; or what’s in common with them). But whilst, yes, there are Gentile associations the women are not clearly all Gentiles – and yes, there is some sexual ‘misconduct’ but Bathsheba herself is powerless to stop David ‘taking’ her. 

So previously I suggested that the theme for all five cases was the tradition’s complete refusal to shame the women due to their belonging to (and clinging to) the Messianic line, since the promised anointed one himself (Messiah Jesus) takes on (and takes away) shame according to Matthew. 

But this is only half correct, or I should say, this is only half the story. 

As the four preceding mothers in the genealogy are really references to four short Bible stories, it is necessary to examine each story. Scholars have often wondered what links all four women, at the expense of seeing the links between all four ‘ancestral dramas’, and how they pre-empt aspects in the fifth story about Joseph and his wife Mary.

I’ll translate Mt 1:18–25 and then discuss the story links:

Mt 1:18-25

The genesis of the Messiah happened like this (that is, how he became adopted 'son of David'):

Mary his mother being promised to Joseph but prior to coming to live with him was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

Joseph her husband being a righteous man and not wanting to shame her publicly planned to divorce her privately.

But when he had decided on this behold an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to him saying, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take home Mary as your wife because her child is conceived by the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you shall call his name Jesus because he will save his people from their sins.”

This all happened for the scripture to be fulfilled, spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

‘Behold the virgin will be pregnant and she will give birth to a son and they will call his name Emanuel which translates as "God is with us".’

When Joseph awoke from his sleep he did just as it was commanded to him by the angle of the Lord and he took home Mary as his wife, and he was not intimate with her before such time as she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus.

Some notes (mainly from Keener’s commentary):

- Joseph would be required to divorce Mary because Jewish law, Greek law, and Roman law “all demanded that a man divorce his wife if she were guilty of adultery.” To not divorce her “would violate law and custom.”

-Joseph must take on even more shame: adultery also put the betrothed husband to shame but Joseph’s decision to accept Mary’s pregnancy now means people would assume he is the father who got her pregnant (no outsider’s are privy to Joseph’s dream). And if he tried to explain his compassion this would be seen as weakness: “Mediterranean society viewed with contempt the weakness of a man who let his love for his wife outweigh his appropriate honor in repudiating her.”

-Joseph by abstaining from sex with Mary forfeits any right to ever make a claim against Mary’s pending virginity, that is, he is accepting her as she is without requiring proof.

According to Basser this abstinence was commanded by the angle of the Lord, which seems a very fair assessment of the story since Joseph is said to have done just as the angel commanded him.

Now let’s review all five stories...

1st Story: Judah and Tamar

2nd Story: Joshua’s Spies and Rahab

3rd Story: Boaz and Ruth

4th Story: David and the wife of Uriah (Bathsheba)

5th Story: Joseph and Mary

Some of the earlier stories were already linked (pre-Matthew): so for example, Rahab’s and Ruth’s stories are clearly conversion stories (stories 3 and 4) - both women express eagerness to convert to the God of Israel (Ruth swears an oath of allegiance to Naomi’s God; Rahab displays belief in the story of the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt by “the LORD God” who is “God on heaven and earth.”  

Tamar’s and Ruth’s stories (1 and 3) both require a man to continue (honor the name and inheritance of) a woman’s deceased husband’s line by marrying the widow. (Gen 38:8; Ruth 4:9–10). Note that the elders in Ruth 4:12 say “And may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.” Also in both stories it is not the parents who name the respective sons (the midwife name’s Tamar’s son; the women neighbours name Ruth’s son).

Stories 1, 2, and 4 are all linked through the ‘trickster’ theme (prevalent throughout Genesis to explain how the blessed line or ‘seed’ passes to the younger son rather than to the eldest son). Thus Tamar tricks Judah; Rahab tricks the King (of Jericho) to save her enemies (who in turn save her family); Bathsheba uses Nathan’s words to trick the elderly David into giving her son Solomon the throne (instead of his eldest son, Adonijah) when David is mentally and physically feeble (compare when Rebekah helped Jacob trick an elderly Isaac).

Stories 1 and 3 are single story units, whereas stories 2 and 4 are two-part stories (with other events narrated in between) and both begin during a war.

Now there is something that links all five stories, but before I noticed it I first noticed a chiastic (inverted) structure for the set of five (though it is perhaps more ‘inverted’ than ‘chiastic’):

Story 1: Judah and Tamar	Story 5: Joseph and Mary
Judah discovers (when it becomes public knowledge) that Tamar is pregnant (father unknown)	Joseph discovers (when it becomes public knowledge) that Mary is pregnant (father unknown)
Tamar at risk of public shaming and at risk for her life (for her ‘sin’ of illicit sex)	Mary at risk for public shaming and possibly for her life (for her ‘sin’ of adultery)
Judah at first acts self-righteously / hypocritically	Joseph at first acts rightly/righteously (according to the law)
by promising Tamar a third marriage (sending her back to her father’s house indefinitely as a widow)	by deciding to send her away (to remain living in her father’s house as a divorced woman)
by calling her to public trial to condemn her act (of prostitution) yet without really intending to listen to her story	by not calling her to public trial to condemn her act (of adultery) yet without really intending to listen to her story
Judah then is confronted with the truth (by Tamar) and confesses that “she [Tamar] is in the right, more than I, since I refused to give her to my son” (Gen 38:26)	Joseph is then confronted with the truth (by God in a dream) and his actions prove that he truly is “a righteous man” (Mt 1:19) …
Judah begins to act more rightly/righteously:	Joseph immediately obeys a direct command (from God in a dream)
Judah has no more sex with her (but presumably provides a home for her and his sons?)	Joseph takes Mary home as his wife but has no sex with her (before the birth);
Tamar gives birth to twins, becoming a mother of the Messianic line	Mary gives birth to a son, the Messiah

Several interesting contrasts and parallels emerge, allowing for the fact that some may be purely coincidental. But note especially the concluding verses:

 “and he was not again intimate with her. Now when she gave birth…” (Gen 38:36b–37a)

“and he was not intimate with her before she gave birth to a son…” (Mt 1:25)

Similarly there are parallels between stories 2 and 4:

Story 2: Joshua’s Spies and Rahab	Story 4: David and the wife of Uriah / Bathsheba
A woman is living in a house without a husband (Rahab supports herself by prostitution);	A woman is living in a house without a husband (Uriah’s wife is left home while her husband is at war);
she risks her life by attempting to hide the presence of enemy spies (from being public knowledge)	she tries to hide her pregnancy (from being public knowledge) / later she risks her life by siding against David’s eldest son
she tricks/outwits the king (by her own words)	she tricks/outwits the king (by using Nathan’s words)
she successfully negotiates a deal to save her family	she successfully negotiates a deal to get her son on the throne
becomes a mother of the Messianic line	becomes a mother of the Messianic line

Whilst these links are all interesting, the ‘moral’ of these stories (or the ‘point’) according to Matthew must be simpler…

Readers will find the best interpretative key/theme for all five stories within each of the ‘pivotal’ story-moments, and each pivotal moment hinges on the male characters’ consideration of right action:

Story 1: Judah’s treatment of Tamar suddenly changes when he realises he is the father of her child. He finds his compassion through contrition. He suddenly can see that his treatment of Tamar had been wrong which enables him to bestow her with righteousness: “it is she who is right, over me” (Gen 38:26).

Story 2: The spies believe they are called to destroy Rahab’s city and everyone in it. But when they receive unexpected compassion from Rahab, and when they find themselves listening to someone who speaks like a true child of Israel, their perspective changes. They then act differently by taking into account what Rahab has shown (taught?) them: compassion. By kindly saving her they are acting toward Rahab and her family as though she and her family were righteous.

Story 3: When Boaz first meets a young foreign widow he acts with compassion. Ruth immediately “finds favour in his [Boaz’s] eyes” (Ruth 2:3–13). And when Ruth basically throws herself at him one night while he is sleeping…again he chooses to perceive her actions favourably as something due to her extreme loyalty (rather than judge her). In other words he acts rightly by acting with compassion which humbly bestows righteousness on her (‘the other’). Boaz immediately makes plans to act beneficially for Ruth (she still spends the night but they remain chaste and Boaz protects her from public shame by sending her home just before dawn). Boaz only marries her after going to the rightful ‘kinsman redeemer’ (who refuses to marry Ruth).

Story 4: The wife of Uriah is portrayed as the blameless victim (thus already righteous). David is confronted with his own wrongful actions (for forcibly taking Uriah’s wife and killing Uriah) and he confesses his sin, which is explicitly named as having acting without compassion (2 Sam 12:6, 13). But it is too late for him to rectify it, and his kingdom suffers the same kind of corruption sown by David. In the second part of the story when David is old and frail the passive wife he ‘stole’ now takes this opportunity to get the throne for her son.

Story 5: Joseph only truly acts rightly when he accepts the state of Mary as being ‘divinely so’, and by letting go of his preconceived notions of righteousness and by accepting and including Mary’s ‘shame’ within himself.

So all five stories are about men being challenged concerning what it means for them to act rightly; each story teaches them something about acting with compassion. Also seeing ‘the other’ (the female) as righteous required humility from the men. 

According to Matthew the ‘sermon in the genealogy’ teaches about the necessary ‘conversion’ (or transformation) underway concerning what it means for men to act with righteousness and/or perceive ‘the other’ as righteous. The sermon teaches both on an individual level (for the male characters and to the male readers) as well as on the level of the ‘people group’ that is, concerning the true people of God. As is common elsewhere ‘Israel’ (or the true ‘people of God’) is portrayed as ‘young woman’.

So Tamar (like Israel) is bestowed righteousness through eyes of compassion. Like God’s people, Rahab is treated as righteous and she receives compassion because she acts with compassion. Ruth is transformed into a new bride, pure and holy because of a compassionate ‘redeemer’. Bathsheba is regarded as blameless and her powerlessness to refuse David eventually brings a power reversal. Mary’s ‘shame’ becomes her honor.

Right action, like righteousness itself, comes as a divine gift, arising from compassion.

--

Notes on the Messiah’s Wholly Miraculous Conception

I see four main reasons for the assertion that the Messiah’s conception was wholly miraculous. 

Firstly, Matthew’s genealogy supposes that the final birth (Jesus) is like the first birth (Isaac), that is, both are fulfilled promises and miraculous.

Secondly, Mary’s miraculous conception was already hinted to the writer by Gen 38:36b–37 (see above) but even more so by Gen 3:15 (about ‘the seed of the woman’ who will overcome the serpent; this verse is already treated as Messianic in the LXX/Greek version). Matthew’s Jesus does refer to the early chapters of Genesis (Gen 1:27 and/or Gen 5:2) when debating on whether men should divorce women (Mt 19:2–11), so it seems to me to be a viable choice for Matthew to have also considered Gen 3:15 as text that might imply a miraculous conception. Matthew prefers to quote Isa 7:14 (rather than Gen3:15) because Isa 7:14 also provided an important name for Jesus, Emmanuel (“God With Us”) which is theologically laden with significance for the whole of Matthew.

A third reason is summarised by Herman C. Waetjen, “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Jun., 1976): 205-230:

   

A fourth reason is that Matthew seems to have known the Gospel of Mark (which displays ignorance of who Jesus’ father was) and Matthew cannot leave such questions (rumors) unanswered. 

These seem, to me, to be the main reasons for Matthew’s assertion that the Messiah was holy conceived, and wholly adopted.

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.