Tag-Archive for » translation «

Cultural Shift

Sunday, December 30th, 2012 | Author:

Once you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, you will never be moved again.  Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 3 (1992 edition)

Relationship – No, you won’t find this “verse” in the Bible.  It is a citation from the 1992 copyright edition of Oswald Chambers’ famous devotional.  But it isn’t what Chambers actually wrote!  When Chambers first penned these words, he wrote, “Once you get into personal contact with Jesus Christ, . . .”  The 1935 original has been “updated” for our contemporary culture.  In just 60 years, Chambers’ idea of “get into personal contact” was changed to “have a personal relationship.”  The text was altered to fit evangelical presuppositions.  But no one bothered to mention it.

Why do we care about some editor altering the original text of Chambers’ devotional?  After all, it was altered so that it would be easier to read.  A good motive, right?  The problem isn’t the motive.  The problem is accuracy.  There are subtle differences between “get into personal contact” and “have a personal relationship.”  For one thing, the first is an action; the second a possession.  The first implies continued effort; the second implies steady state.  One fits the evangelical theology of the permanence of salvation.  The other carries some uncomfortable implications.  But even this isn’t the real problem.  The real problem is the clear contemporary example of the willingness of publishers and editors to change the text in order to meet the assumed needs of the reader.  The reason why we investigate this obvious example is this:  if it took only 60 years for the evangelical community to alter the text of one of its great heroes of the faith, what do you suppose happened to the biblical text over 2000 years?  What are the consequences of changing the text to meet the assumed intellectual levels of the readers as opposed to insisting that the readers meet the intellectual milieu of the author?  The alteration of Chambers’ material is but a single clear example of the tendency among Christians to be comfortable with communicating the meaning rather than insisting on accurately transmitting the message.  And as we must know by now, meaning is subject to the culture.

Do you read Shakespeare in the original?  Probably not.  Chaucer?  Unlikely.  Even the King James Bible no longer reads the same as the 1611 version.  Language changes.  Meanings change.  “Gay” doesn’t mean “exuberant” anymore.  This begs the question:  Do you read Paul as he wrote it?  Or James?  Or Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses?  If Oswald Chambers’ material can be altered to fit the new meanings, what do you suppose translators of Scripture do?  Why do we need 52 versions of the English Bible?  Are there really 52 different messages?

We are on a quest.  That quest is to understand what Scripture says according to the language, culture and paradigms of the authors.  That’s why we dig behind the translations.  We want to know what God said, not what the translation committee thought we should absorb.  That’s why reading Scripture isn’t quite so easy anymore.

Topical Index:  Chambers, translation, relationship

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , ,  | 22 Comments

Belaboring the Obvious

Sunday, June 26th, 2011 | Author:

But shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless. Titus 3:9  NASB

Disputes – Sermon after sermon, article after article, book after book – all about the place of the Law in the life of a Christian.  I wonder if Paul wouldn’t throw up his hands in frustration.  Why all this controversy?  Isn’t the answer obvious?

Apparently, it’s not.

We know that Paul was a Torah-observant follower of the Way.  His own self-declaration confirms this years after his encounter with the risen Lord.  We know that James, Peter, John and the other apostles made the same claim.  We know that Yeshua lived a life of sinless Torah obedience.  Is there any question about this?

Both contemporary orthodox Jews and modern Christians (Catholic and Protestant) seem to think that Paul rejected the Law, that Jesus replaced the Law and that we Christians now live under the opposite of the Law – something called “grace.”  This doctrine is so powerful that it stands as the real issue of separation between Jews and Christians.  In fact, the more we read from the pens of Jewish authors about the mistakes of Christianity, the more we realize that these authors are reacting to Christian commentators on Paul, not to the actual words of Paul.  Neither side seems to have paid attention to the actual words Paul wrote.  Instead, they react to the theologians who speak on behalf of the New Testament authors.  As an example, we can consider this verse.  Out of context, it could be read as “disputes about the replacement of the Law by grace are unprofitable because everyone knows that grace overcomes the Law.”  But the next verse dismisses this interpretation.  Paul instructs his readers to reject the factious man after two warnings because such a man is “perverted and sinning.”  Paul assumes that we will know him by his behavior.  How is that possible without the Law?  If it’s all grace, then why would behavior matter?  If it’s all about “Jesus in my heart,” then why would Paul exhort us to observe what the man does and make a judgment based on that?  If the Law really is set aside, then how will we know such a man is sinning?  It just doesn’t make any sense.  And, in practice, we actually do just what Paul suggests.  We actually look at the behavior of others to determine if they are meeting the “standard.”  That, of course, implies that there actually is a standard?  To claim that the Law no longer applies is to endorse lawlessness, precisely the characteristic of those whom the Bible considers the enemies of God.  One way or another, we all subscribe to some form of the Law.  Our theology might deny it, but our lives don’t.  The only question is this:  is our standard God’s standard?  If it isn’t, then we have an issue to settle with Him, not with the Church or the theologians.

Perhaps we should start by re-examining the translation.  The Greek phrase is machas nomikas. Theological dictionaries actually define this as “controversies respecting the Mosaic laws,” but notice that the word nomikas is an adjective, not a noun.  Therefore, the translation cannot be “about the Law.”  There is no preposition or noun here.  The translation should be “legal fights.”  Paul is telling us to avoid court battles, something we can all appreciate.

How did this bit of practical advice turn into a statement about the Law?  The only explanation is that the translators read into the words of Paul what they wanted to say, not what he actually said.  Paul’s point is obvious.  No one wants a court battle.  The translators’ position is subterfuge.

Who told you the Law was set aside?  Maybe the real question is “Whose Bible are you reading: the Bible of the translator or the Bible of the author?”

Topical Index:  dispute, the Law, machas, nomikas, Titus 3:9, translation

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 10 Comments

Changing Isaiah

Wednesday, March 02nd, 2011 | Author:

“And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; and you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;’” Matthew 13:14  NASB

Will not understand/ will not perceive – “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17).  Do you believe what Paul wrote to the congregation in Rome?  If you do, then you acknowledge that your faith depends on hearing God’s Word.  That raises an important question, doesn’t it?  When you read your English Bible, are you really hearing God’s Word?  Let’s look at this quotation in Matthew and see what we find.

There are a lot of unusual things about this citation.   Matthew doesn’t introduce it with his customary editorial remark.  Here it is incorporated directly into Yeshua’s speech.  In addition, it is a verbatim recitation of the LXX version of the text, not the Hebrew version.  This is particularly odd.  If this is really what Yeshua said, then Yeshua quoted the passage from the LXX.  Does that mean Yeshua was so familiar with the LXX that He used it with the same authority as the Hebrew text?  Most of Matthew’s citations show textual variation to accommodate Matthew’s objective, but here we have a citation directly from the Greek Old Testament without any changes.  Finally, the Greek verb that introduces this quotation is not the usual pleroo (to fulfill) but rather a hapax legomenon (for the gospels), anapleroo, meaning to completely fulfill (literally, to fill again).  Something strange is happening here.

Since the authors of the Ketuvim Netzarim often use citations from the LXX, you might think that this makes Matthew’s quotation perfectly acceptable.  But once we look at the changes in the LXX, we have another problem.  You see, the LXX changes the tense of the verbs in Isaiah from the present to the future.  In Isaiah, God commands the people to keep on listening but not understanding; to keep on seeing but not perceiving.  But by the time we get to the LXX, this is no longer a command.  Now it is a prediction (“keep on listening but will not understand”).  The tense is shifted from the present to the future.  The result:  everything about the meaning of the sentence changes.  This raises two questions:  why was the passage changed and why did Matthew use the altered version?

The first question is answered by noticing that the change in tense removes the idea that God prevents understanding.  In Isaiah, the statement is a command from God.  God directs the people to listen but He prevents them from understanding.  God is responsible for their refusal to obey!  This idea is repugnant to the worldview of Hellenism.  When this idea confronts Greek metaphysics, it is corrected.  The LXX alters the passage to fit a Greek perspective by removing God’s culpability.  Now the passage appears to be about human self-hardening.

Why would Matthew use this version, obscuring the thought of Isaiah?  Even more importantly, since Matthew is supposedly recounting the very words of Yeshua, did Yeshua alter Isaiah to fit the Hellenized version?  I think that answer must be, “No!”  In my opinion, Yeshua would certainly have quoted Isaiah in Hebrew without alteration.  I see no reason to believe that Yeshua quoted the LXX version of the text.  And since I also believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, the only explanation for this alteration is that the translator of Matthew’s Hebrew gospel used the LXX version, altering the meaning of the verse without realizing so because he used the Greek LXX translation.  I believe Matthew originally quoted Yeshua who quoted Isaiah in Hebrew.  The real meaning was retained until Matthew’s gospel fell into the hands of the Greek translator who did not use the Hebrew citation.  In other words, we are left with someone’s mistranslation.  And we think we have God’s word on the subject.

“Faith comes by hearing.”  We hear, but do we really hear God’s word when what we hear is the translation of men?  It is a difficult question to answer.  We often hear imperfectly, but God speaks to us through these imperfect words anyway.  What we must do is distinguish between the experience of faith and the foundation of exegesis.  Paul would never have meant that faith comes by hearing any kind of translated divine words. Paul clearly meant that faith comes by hearing God’s words from the Tanakh.  When we read our translations, and realize that we may actually be reading a translation of a translation, we must fall to our knees and plead for understanding lest we be led astray by some human alteration.  Studying the Bible is not as simple as reading the words on the page, is it?  God speaks nevertheless, but we have no excuse for not pursuing the real words.

Topical Index:  LXX, Isaiah 6:9-10, Matthew 13:14, translation

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 16 Comments

Gloss or Matte Finish?

Thursday, February 03rd, 2011 | Author:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, . . . Hebrews 1:1

Prophets/ Portions/ Ways – In the introduction to A Reader’s Hebrew Bible, Bryan Smith makes the point that there is a considerable difference between a gloss and a translation.  A gloss is a word in one language that substantially captures the word in another language.  For example, a gloss of bon voyage would be “good journey” but obviously the phrase means much more than this.  In translation, we would attempt to capture the full range of the meaning within the cultural context.  Then bon voyage becomes an expression that captures farewell, good luck, best wishes, etc.  When we translate Scripture, we try to capture the meaning of the original thought in a way that communicates that same thought in a new language.  When we provide a gloss for a word in Scripture, we are only attempting to give a summary word that represents the definition of the original.

What this means is that translations are both science and art since a translation must interpret the original meaning and convert it into the same meaning in the new language.  This often requires considerable alteration of the structure of the original language since some part of the meaning of language is also carried in the syntax (the arrangement of the words).  Often these secondary levels of meaning are lost in translation because the syntax is rearranged.  That’s exactly what’s happening in this verse in Hebrews.  The poetry hidden in the arrangement of the words in Greek disappears completely when the words are translated into English.

Here is the Greek text:  (Don’t worry about reading it correctly, just notice the repetition of the ‘p’ sound)  polumeros kai polutropos palai ‘o theos laleisas tois patrasin en tois propheitais.  In this opening verse, the author uses the ‘p’ sound five times.  This deliberate alliteration sets the stage for a poetic rendering of his meaning.  But when we translate this into English or some other language, all this alliteration is lost.  The original syntax, “in many parts and in many ways of old God spoke to the fathers in the prophets” (I have underlined the glosses that contain the ‘p’ sound) disappears with the rearrangement of the words into a proper English sentence.  While a translation might convey the meaning, it can’t convey the beauty of the original syntax.  More importantly, if the original syntax also conveys secondary meaning, the aesthetic delight is also lost.

If you aren’t completely confused by now (sorry), then you will realize that most of us read Scripture at only one level – the level of the meaning in translation.  What this little lesson demonstrates is that there are usually more levels, observable only in the original language.  This is especially true in Hebrew.  That’s why rabbinic commentary is a constant source of enlightenment.  Our job as careful readers of Scripture is to recapture this aesthetic level so that we can clearly articulate all that God stored up in His words.  That takes serious work and a healthy skepticism about translations.  As a general rule, there is always more in the text than a translation can provide.

What do we do about this, especially if we aren’t Greek and Hebrew scholars?  Well, the first thing is to be aware that there is probably more.  The second thing is to compare many translations to see if you can peek under the English text.  The third thing is to repair your deficiencies by studying reliable commentaries that deal with the original text.  And finally, dare to push the envelope.  Question everything until you are satisfied that you really do know what God was communicating.  Don’t rely on the preacher or the teacher (including me) to interpret God’s word for you.  SEEK HIM yourself.

There is an enormous storehouse of priceless discoveries awaiting those who seek.

Topical Index:  syntax, gloss, translation, Hebrews 1:1

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 17 Comments

Untranslatable

Saturday, January 03rd, 2009 | Author:

January 3  In the beginning, God created [et] the heavens and [et] the earth  Genesis 1:1 (Hebrew added)

Untranslatable

Et – It’s there but you don’t see it.  In Hebrew, this verse is Bere’shiyt bara’ Elohim et hashamayim ve et haarets.  I have underlined the words translated “the heavens and the earth.”  The first three words are “in the beginning created God.”  But after elohim is a Hebrew particle, et.  It also shows up before “the earth.”  It is not translated.  In fact, it is never translated in spite of more than 1000 occurrences in Scripture.  Why?  Well, the grammatical explanation is that et is just a marker, a kind of verbal signal, that the next word or words are the direct object of the sentence.  And we don’t translate grammatical symbols.  So, in English it disappears.

That is perfectly good English grammatical translation except for one amazing thing.  Every Hebrew reader knows that et shows up in this verse and in hundreds of other verses.  It’s all over the place.  So, when Yeshua speaks in the book of Revelation, He refers to this odd phenomenon.  In Hebrew, “I am the Alpha and Omega” becomes “I am the Aleph and the Taw.”  And et is the two letters Aleph-Taw.

Now, it might just be accidental (are there really any accidents in Scripture?) but it seems to me that when Yeshua claims to be the beginning and the end, the Aleph-Taw, he claims something quite amazing about the first verse of Scripture.  In fact, the apostle John endorsed this claim in his prologue (which we also need to read in Hebrew).  What Yeshua says is that He was there as the active verb in the formation of the heavens and the earth.  If Yeshua is the Aleph-Taw, then His signature is stamped on the opening line about the creation of everything.  Through Him all things were created, says John.  Maybe John was reading his Hebrew Bible too.  Yeshua is the One responsible for transferring the action of creation into the form of heavens and earth.  He is the connector between bara’ and all that comes into being.  No wonder the men on the road to Emmaus felt their ears burning.  It’s just too bad that our translation robs us of this amazing little particle.  We don’t get to see the hand of the Messiah moving space in the beginning.

It’s truly unfortunate that contemporary Christianity converts God’s language into the parlance of the receiving culture.  It’s like listening to your native tongue in the mouth of a tourist.  Yes, most of the words are there, but often the idioms are lost, the nuances disappear and the whole communication is wooden.  If you’ve ever heard broken English spoken by a native Japanese or broken Spanish spoken by a native American, you know just how much gets lost.  If we wanted to really know what God said, our churches should be teaching His language, not converting the Hebrew culture into something that sounds like ours.  That won’t happen today, but today we can start to appreciate just how amazingly complex and rich and revelatory God’s chosen language really is.  Today we can offer up praise for His choice of Hebrew.  It wasn’t an accident.  It kind of makes you wonder what else we’re missing, doesn’t it?

Topical Index:  et, translation, Hebrew

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , ,  | Comments off

Dynamic Equivalence

Saturday, December 27th, 2008 | Author:

They return, but not upward, they are like a deceitful bow; Hosea 7:16

Upward – There are basically two schools of thought about translation.  One is called literal translation.  It is an attempt to render one language into another on a word-for-word basis.  With literal translations, I am able to work backwards from the translated word to the original word.  At least that’s the theory.  In reality, we often find that many different English words are used for the same Hebrew word, making the backwards investigation work very difficult.  In a true literal translation, each Hebrew word would have one English equivalent.  Of course, this is really impossible since many Hebrew words have multiple meanings.  No matter what we do, we must always consult the original in order to understand the real meaning.

The second kind of translation is called dynamic equivalence.  In this method, the original language is translated into what it would mean in the new language.  The words of the original are not as important as the meanings expressed in the original.  So, when dynamic equivalence is used, we often find that the translation is put in contemporary linguistic structures familiar to the reader.  The original words are lost somewhere behind the relevant translations.  Dynamic equivalence is great at capturing idioms since an idiom is a culturally relevant expression in the first place.  But often dynamic equivalence hides the presuppositions of the translators.  So, for example, when the NIV translates sarx (flesh) as “sinful nature,” the translation imports a particular theology that isn’t in the text itself.  It has to be read into the text.  The Message is perhaps the best contemporary example of a purely dynamic equivalent translation.  It is simply impossible to work backwards from The Message to discover the original words.

Of course, literal translations have their problems too.  This verse from the NASB is a perfect example.  The Hebrew word is al, a word that we have learned functions as a preposition with a very wide range of meanings (remember “no good besides You”).  Here the word-for-word translation tells us that the original word is al, but it doesn’t let us see the metaphorical meaning.  After all, what in the world can Hosea mean by saying that they don’t return upward? That’s just crazy.  Hosea must be using an idiomatic expression that gets lost in this literal translation.  Of course, as soon as we really dig into the original text, we discover that al is also used as an appellation for God, namely, The Most High.  That makes perfect sense since the word al is about what is above, over, upon and beyond.  Hosea is telling us that these wicked people who refuse God’s offer of redemption turn their direction, but not back to the Most High.

Why this little lesson about some obscure Hebrew preposition that can also be used as an idiom?  Because so often I am asked, “What English Bible is the best?”  The answer is “It depends.”  You have to know what kind of translation method is used, and then you have to adjust for the possible consequences.  No English Bible captures all that the original text means.  Start there, then work your way to a place where you can be comfortable with searching deeper.  Don’t let anyone tell you that a verse in English or any other translated language is what the Scripture really means.  Get some excavation tools and start digging for yourself.

Topical Index:  Translation

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: ,  | Comments off

Theological Propaganda

Sunday, December 21st, 2008 | Author:

Therefore, let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or Sabbath days, things which are a [mere] shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Colossians 2:16-17 (NASB)

Mere – When you read the word “mere” in this verse, does it communicate the idea that those things which Paul has just described as of lesser importance?  We see that Paul lists those activities that would be part of Torah observance, but when the translators introduce the word “mere” into this verse, they change the emphasis, don’t they?  Since there is no Greek equivalent for the word “mere”, the translators put the word in brackets.  They better!  What they have done is alter the text so that it reads according to their theological bias.  It makes the text appear to discount Torah observance.  Try reading the verse without the word “mere” and you will get a different message.  The NASB is committed to a two covenant theology, and the translation puts it into this verse without giving the reader any explanation or justification.

The NIV is worse.  The translators of the NIV actually change the tense of the Greek so that this verse reads, “These are a shadow of things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”  This is blatant theological propaganda disguised as accurate translation.  You will also notice that the rest of the verse has been changed the further diminish the connection to Torah by adding the word “however.”  Now you know why I often refer to the NIV as the “Nearly Inspired Version.”  The translators alter, add or subtract from the Greek and Hebrew in order to communicate their particular theological position.  Of course, they don’t tell the reader anything about these decisions, so the poor reader doesn’t know that they are being spoon-fed theological propaganda, not an accurate translation.

The NIV and NASB aren’t alone in this anti-Semitic view.  The New Living Translation changes the tense and the secondary phrase.  The RSV adds the word “only” instead of “mere” – with the same effect.  Only the KJV, NKJV, ESV and the NRSV actually translate the verse as it is written in the Greek text.  Unless you know something about the bias of the translating committees, you will always be subject to their interpretations hidden in the choice of words.  There is no English translation that accurately conveys the full meaning of the Greek or Hebrew.  As you can see, this is not simply the result of the difficulty of capturing the nuances and depth of meaning in one language and converting it to another.  There are deliberate alterations in play here as well.

So, what are we to do?  If you find this discouraging, don’t despair.  Yes, you will have to be a lot more careful about what you claim to be God’s Word if you are reading a translation, but now you know some of the red flags.  At least the NASB puts the words in brackets.  The NIV doesn’t even bother to show you that they have changed the text.  Now you know that you will need several different English Bibles to get closer to the original.  And, of course, you could start exploring an interlinear whenever you think that the English text doesn’t quite sound right.  In addition, there are a number of internet links that can help.  Just start looking for explanations that give full weight to the fact that all these writers were Jewish.

There’s a movement afoot to recapture the cultural heritage we lost when Christianity left its true Jewish roots behind.  It’s a grassroots effort to understand God’s point of view from the perspective of the people He chose for His self-revelation.  As we approach the end of this year, it might be worth while to make a commitment to take a much longer look at Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.  I am quite sure you will discover that you have been grafted into a way of living that is far richer than you could have imagined.  May you be blessed in your diligence to uncover what God really said.

Topical Index:  Translation

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: ,  | Comments off

A Sign of Blessing

Sunday, July 27th, 2008 | Author:

and tongues as of fire, being distributed, appeared to them, and it sat on each of them. Acts 2:3

Tongues As Of Fire – The Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost.  We all know that.  But have you ever asked why this is described as tongues of fire?  After all, when the Spirit is revealed at Jesus’ baptism, the imagery is a dove, not a flame.  Why does the Spirit come as fire?  When you see the reason, you will be even more amazed at the intricacy of God’s Word.

On the day of Pentecost, the disciples gathered to celebrate the memorial when God gave the Law at Sinai.  Something happened that no one expected.  The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of tongues of fire (Greek – glossai osei puros), causing a stir that touched thousands of men and women.  There’s more here than we think.  In order to see just how the tongues of fire are evidence of a blessing, we need to look at the first form of the Hebrew alphabet, the pictographs.

The Hebrew word for bless is ashre.  It consists of the consonants A S R.  In pictographic representation, this word is made up of the image of a man’s head (R) and the idea of fire (the combination of A (strong) and S (devourer)).  Therefore, in pictographic imagery, a blessing is the picture of fire on the head.  When the Spirit arrives as tongues of fire, the image itself announces that the Spirit has come to bless.  Fire on the head is the physical manifestation of meaning of the word “blessing”.

Notice that the verse does not use the plural in the description of the distribution (“it sat”, not “they sat”).  There were many tongues of fire but only one Spirit.  The blessings were distributed, but there was only one giver.  Correct translation must follow the grammar of the original, even if it doesn’t follow the rules of grammar in the translation.

What do we learn from this peek into the past?  First, we see that God’s choice of Hebrew is not accidental.  There are elements of Hebrew that reveal things about God that cannot be captured in any other language.  We only see these when we dig deep into the Hebrew language itself.

Secondly, we discover that phrases and thoughts that we could not understand in translated languages begin to make sense.  For example, when Paul says that treating your enemy with kindness heaped coals of fire on his head, we see this same idea of blessing buried in Paul’s language.  By being kind to my enemy, I bless him.  And blessing is the picture of fire on the head.  Now you know that Paul used the imagery of the ancient pictographs to communicate his message.  Now it makes perfect sense.

The Bible is rich in images, much richer than we have ever imagined.  If you want to know this God that you serve, dig into His chosen language.  You will discover so much more about Him.  It is the quest of a lifetime.  Hopefully, this tiny glimpse will encourage you to get out your mental trowel and begin a spiritual excavation of your own.

Topical Index:  Translation

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: ,  | One Comment

Not Quite Right

Thursday, July 17th, 2008 | Author:

And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;” Acts 15:8

Knows The Heart – Luke was a Greek physician.  Therefore, many students of Scripture assume that Luke wrote to Greeks in Greek with Greek thought patterns.  But the language Luke uses actually indicates something else.  The problem is that our translations don’t show you this other point of view because the translations also represent a Greek worldview.  What Luke actually says is changed to fit the way that the Greek mind would think.  As a result, we entirely miss the fact that Luke might have been born a Greek but he thought like a Hebrew.  He was a true convert.  He changed his mind!

The phrase “knows the heart” isn’t quite right.  In the Greek text, this phrase is compressed into a single Greek word, kardiognostes.  Literally, the word means “heart-knower.”  The unusual thing about this word is that it is not a Greek expression.  Greeks did not think of the heart as the center of cognitive activity.  The Greek expression would have been “mind-knower.”  In Greek thought, the essence of a person is the rational function of the mind, not the fickle center of emotions ascribed to the heart.  Luke’s expression is Hebraic, not Greek.  It is found in 1 Kings 8:39 where the words are teda et-levavo (from yada – to know – and lev – heart).  Because “You [God] know the heart,” says Solomon, “you are able to give to each man according to all his ways.”  In other words, in Hebrew thought the heart is the center of personality. God judges actions, emotions, thoughts and attitudes by looking at the heart.  Of course, this idea is simply unimaginable in the Greek world.

From this little problem, we learn three important things.  First, of course, we learn that the Greek idea of rational priority doesn’t fit the biblical worldview.  God is not interested in what you think unless what you think shows itself in how you behave, what you feel and what kind of attitudes you express.  You are not your mind.  You are the embodiment of God’s animating energy breathed into you – all of you.  The radical difference between the compartmentalized Greek world of body, mind and soul, and the unified oneness of the Hebrew nephesh means that your spiritual existence is not separated and segregated from the rest of your life.  In God’s world, WYSIWYG applies (What You See Is What You Get).

Secondly, we are reminded of the crucial fact that God judges us according to the center of our personality – the heart.  He looks at our true self and He is the only One who can.  Luke knew this, even as a native Greek, because Luke thought like a Hebrew.  As a physician, this Hebrew perspective gives even more credence to Luke’s shift in point of view.

Finally, we discover that the subtle shift in translation language pushes us away from the unified embodiment of the biblical viewpoint toward a segmented Greek understanding of the world.  That subtle shift might not seem like much in this verse, but it leads to the concept that religion and politics don’t mix, that what I believe is my own business and that once I accept the rational tenets of the faith, I am home free.  That tiny shift has terrible consequences.  On top of all that, we learn that Luke spoke Hebrew.  Isn’t that interesting?  It just might change the way you think about the New Testament.

Topical Index:  Translation

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: ,  | Comments off

Theological Substitutions

Monday, July 14th, 2008 | Author:

for He says, “At the acceptable time I listened to you, and on the day of salvation I helped you”; behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation”; 2 Corinthians 6:2

The – Is it once upon a time or is it as an appropriate time?  If you read the translations in the NASB or the NIV or the NKJV, you might think that there is a single, acceptable time when God acts on behalf of His children.  That’s certainly what it looks like with the definite article “the” in front of those critical words.  The only problem is that there in no definite article in the Greek or the Hebrew texts.  So, how did it get there?

We might ask why anyone would add the definite article when the text clearly says, “an acceptable time” and “a day of salvation.”  The answer is a bit obscure but important.  In our preoccupation with the evangelical end-game of heaven, we continually stress the issue of final destiny.  We put a great deal of emphasis on the stamped-ticket theology, making sure that the opportunity to board the train to glory doesn’t pass by.  How much stronger is that clarion call when it is accompanied by a verse that gives you exactly one chance at the golden ring!  If you don’t ask for forgiveness right now, you might die and go to hell.  So get on your knees, sinner.  You never know what might happen to you tomorrow.

But what happens when we read the text as it is written?  What happens when we see that both Paul and Isaiah are not talking about a one-chance opportunity but rather about God’s ceaseless pursuit to restore relationship with Him.  If the verse reads, “At an opportune time (kairos) I listened to you, and on a day of salvation (deliverance and rescue) I helped you,” we see that God is at work over and over and over, bringing about kairos moments when He presents us with His glory and His reinforcements.  Now the emphasis shifts from the frenzy of ticket-punching to the unfailing pursuit of the Hound of Heaven.

Of course, that does not mean we can delay repentance.  None of us controls tomorrow.  The urgency of decision is still paramount.  Resistance leads to hard-heartedness and hard-heartedness is a step toward judgment.  I must respond to God’s pursuit if I want to enjoy the life I was meant to have and enter into a relationship I was meant to enjoy.  But the emphasis of this verse shifts from me to God.  This is a theological proclamation of His unyielding love, not a threat that I might miss the train.  It’s such a subtle change.  We would hardly notice the difference if we didn’t compare the text in the original languages.  But it’s still a change.  It makes a difference.  Frankly, it exposes a great problem with our contemporary translations.  They all come with theological bias.  If you read them at face value, you will be gently persuaded toward a particular theological point of view.  Unfortunately, this means that you and I have to do our homework.  It’s no longer possible to just rely on your favorite version.  Tiny changes creep into your thinking and all that it takes are tiny changes to remove you from the Word of God.

Today you discovered that reading the Bible isn’t as easy as you thought.  That’s OK.  If you are ready to do the work, you will know the truth.  That’s what you want, right?

Topical Index:  Translation

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: ,  | Comments off
« Previous Entries