Hebrew in Greek (1)
He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying Matthew 5:2
Opened His Mouth – Today a good number of scholars believe that Matthew’s gospel was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek. Much of the evidence for this view comes from the number of Hebrew idioms in Matthew’s Greek text. In other words, the Greek of Matthew’s gospel contains many expressions that don’t make sense in Greek but are perfectly clear in Hebrew. That raises the question, “Why would Matthew write a Greek gospel that was full of idioms that only make sense in Hebrew?” The obvious answer is, “He didn’t. Someone translated a Hebrew text into Greek, and in the process, converted Hebrew idioms into awkward Greek expressions.”
This verse is an example. What is the point of writing “opened his mouth” and “saying” in the same sentence? It’s redundant. No one can speak without opening his mouth, so why write it twice? The answer is a Hebrew, not a Greek, answer. We have seen this Hebrew doubling over and over when the Hebrew text wants to emphasize the importance of the statement. Hebrew routinely uses the same expression twice in order to draw attention to a particular thought. Greek doesn’t do this. So, what we have here is a Hebrew linguistic device translated into Greek. It makes perfect sense in Hebrew (like Isaiah’s use of shalom, shalom for “perfect peace”) but it is awkward and redundant in Greek.
Once we see that the Greek text is really a translation of an underlying Hebrew text, we realize that it is perfectly normal to find repeated expressions like this one. Now we know that Matthew used this repeated expression in order to do what any good Hebrew writer would do – call attention to the importance of the event. In other words, this is Matthew’s way of putting an exclamation point behind what Yeshua is about to say! It doesn’t make sense in Greek and it seems strange in English, but it is just what we would expect in Hebrew.
How many other expressions in Matthew are really Hebrew translated into Greek? Actually, a lot. Does this really matter? Actually, it does. Why? Because often the Greek translation of the Hebrew expression fails to capture the idiom and, as a result, the translation says something in a word-for-word expression that was not intended in the idiom. It’s like translating our idiom “kicked the bucket” as if it is really about someone exerting effort to place a foot against a bucket with sudden force. The idiom is a cultural expression. It is not accurately translated in a wooden word-for-word conversion. If it is translated this way, all kinds of misunderstanding might occur.
What happens when Hebrew idioms are woodenly translated into Greek in Matthew’s gospel? Well, a whole lot of theological assumptions seem to rest on verses that might not actually say what we thought they said. We might be in for some surprises. We might just discover that we will have to read Matthew from a Jewish point of view if we want to understand what he really wrote. We might have to start over, re-reading his words while asking ourselves, “What would this mean in Hebrew?” or “Where does this idea connect to a lesson from the Tanakh?” Maybe “Jesus” is a lot more Jewish than we imagine. Matthew seems to think so.
Topical Index: Hebrew idioms, opened his mouth, Matthew 5:2
“We might be in for some surprises. We might just discover that we will have to read Matthew from a Jewish point of view if we want to understand what he really wrote. We might have to start over, re-reading his words while asking ourselves, “What would this mean in Hebrew?” or “Where does this idea connect to a lesson from the Tanakh?” Maybe “Jesus” is a lot more Jewish than we imagine. Matthew seems to think so.”
That’s pretty much what I’ve had to do once I started reading here! Of course, I’ve had to do it with the whole Bible… It’s both exhilarating and overwhelming, and I’m loving it! Realizing that what we’ve always taken for granted might not be what we thought opens a world of possibility for understanding Yeshua more, His Father deeper, and our faith accurately. That’s really exciting to me! Granted, much of the time I’m probably like a bull in a china shop (Can you imagine someone translating that word-for-word and the confusion it would cause in the middle of a text?! I’m kind of laughing at the mental image of that one.), but hopefully as I continue to dig the process will be a little more refined. 🙂
Anyway, I loved the last thought, that “Jesus” is more Jewish that we imagine. It’s a little jolting to realize that even though I’ve always known He’s Jewish, I’ve never actually thought of Him as Jewish. So placing Him in that light gives everything a slightly different shading.
On a total other point… I was watching the History Channel (translation: nerd) and they had this show on Yeshua and the other books that weren’t included in our version of the Bible (is this the Apocrypha?). How do those books fit in with our view of Christianity? For example, one of the books tells about an account of Yeshua’s early life where He was supposedly not the nicest person (even accused of pushing a friend of a roof and killing him… and of course raising him from the dead to declare his innocence) but eventually grew into the man we have in our Bible today. This would seem to contradict the notion of the godhood and perfection of the Messiah. But what about the other books, like accounts of other people in the Old Testament? Were they left out by Constantine in his revisions? Or where they deliberately excluded by the Jewish people? Any thoughts?
Thanks, Amanda Y
I am not an expert on pseudepigraphal books of this period, but in general, many spurious “gospels” were written long after the Apostolic period attributing all kinds of miracles and events to the years between Yeshua’s birth and the baptism of John. Obviously, this is a time ripe for additions since none of the canonized gospels recount any events during this period. Most of the works are so out of character with the uniform presentation of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that scholars almost unanimously consider them fictitious. None were included in the canon, but not because Constantine rejected them. Rather, they were not included because the believing community did not treat them as sacred texts. Canonization is the last step in the process of authorizing writings. The first step is that the community accepts the writing and builds the practice of faith around that writing. This is not the case with the pseudepigraphal works.
What about the Book of Enoch that Peter quotes?
I dont know whether to laugh or cry. -Maybe I’ll do both.
So- G-d is Sovereign. He is large and He is in charge. Yes? No? He just “stood by” until the year 2010 when some man came along and “discovered” Matthew was a Jew. Wow! 2000 years and how many thousands of lives have been “corrupted” by a Greek translation of the words of YHWH.
Excuse me for playing devil’s advocated here but, that G-d is pretty lame. If His word is so all-fired important (and dear ones- it is- it is only our life-blood), what kind of G-d what just “stand by” and watch His sacred words be butchered by a bunch of hillbilly Greeks. The entire “newer” testament- written in Greek! Shame, shame, and shame. Bad ol’ Greeks. Uncircumcised heathen- that’s what we.. er- they are!
Let’s cut our Bible in two then and “throw out” all that is Greek. No one has a clue do they? -Only the (just recently- “new and improved,” “enlightened” ones.
Back to the garden once more then.. (seems like we’ve returned here a bunch lately..) Here are the words of Hasatan (the deceiver) -and I quote- (excuse me.. in horror of horrors- in English)- “Hath G-d said?” Let us all then.. together- right here and right now – doubt the word of G-d. Did G-d really say that? Naw.. that’s just an “idiomatic expression”- a bunch of strange poetry thrown together by some drunken hillbilly Greeks.
May I read the words again- “written” for our instruction. How about “back to the Bible” instead of this ludicrous campaign to “dis” the Greeks. (bunch of dummyheads),
How about we return to the study of the words of life. Written, Professor Moen for our edification in Greek and Hebrew. How about “every” word of G-d is pure. Maybe there is value in Hebrew and (shudder) Greek? Could we possibly hold our nose and find “value” in the original Greek writings? Is there “life -together?”
Greek and Hebrew. “Both” y’all. Not either/or.- Our Bible is NOT two books. One Book – written for our instruction. Written in Hebrew and in Greek and I guarantee it -this was done with purposed intention.
Again, do you begin to think G-d would allow His words to be corrupted by the Greek and then 2,000 years later be “rediscovered” as a corrupted pile of idioms and poetry?
Read these words. Two plus two equals four. Now translate this into Hebrew. (to the Jew first) and then translate it into the Greek. (and also to the Greek.)
G-d’s word is for every nation, tribe and tongue. I praise G-d (yes, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) His words have been and are being translated into every language on the planet. Wycliffe Bible translators have done (and are doing) an excellent job of placing a copy of our Bible into the hungry hearts of “every nation.” (-Bunch of heathen Gentiles if you ask me..)
OK, Carl, slow down a bit. First, it is quite clear that Paul wrote in Greek. Many of the New Testament documents were composed originally in Greek. That isn’t the issue here. The issue is that Matthew (and perhaps only Matthew) doesn’t seem to have been written in Greek. It has far too many Hebraic constructions and idioms. So, if we want to understand MATTHEW, then we will have to ask the questions about the Hebrew meanings.
Second, every Greek scholar knows that the Greek of the New Testament does not emulate classical Greek. It follows the meanings of Greek found in the LXX, and consequently, the Greek NT is heavily influenced by Hebrew thought. So, even the Greek portions of the NT require a Hebrew perspective.
Finally, just a comment on the “God stood by.” Yes, in fact, God does stand by and allow men to make mistakes, circumvent His plans, corrupt others, misunderstand Him, preach bad theology, etc. God stood by during the Holocaust. He stood by during countless wars and genocide. He stands by while you and I sin. Why do we think He will interfere in the human process in ways that prevent poor translations and bad theology. Did He correct the antebellum theologians when they argued for slavery on the basis of the Bible? So, yes, God does allow human beings to sin and to make mistakes and to misunderstand. Luther saw some light not being shed abroad. Why didn’t God just correct all that stuff in 376AD. Why wait 1200 years before He brought a Martin Luther to the scene?
The text is not the same as the Spirit. God has always been at work in the lives of those who wish to follow Him. But that does not guarantee that the text is perfect. To suggest that God would not allow men to perpetrate error about the text is to endorse something that is historically unwarranted. We don’t worship the Bible. We worship the God revealed in the Bible and we hunt for the best way to understand what He said in the words, the fallible words, of men.
It’s Greek and Hebrew, for sure. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t open to question, debate and revision.
Brilliantly stated Skip.
But…did you have to mention Martin Luther, the Jew hater who’s anti-semitical diatribes inspired another German several hundred years later to murder 6 million Jews?
But Luther is another can of worms for us Protestant Christians to deal with on another day…
Carl, respectfully, if the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, which of the 53 English translations does that statement apply to?
“Greek and Hebrew. “Both” y’all. Not either/or.- Our Bible is NOT two books. One Book – written for our instruction.”
Hi Carl,
I think you make many good points. And I think one can argue, for example, the Bible is NOT two books. But one can also argue thatit is two books, or X number of books.
Maybe we haven’t found them all yet.
I noticed the other day that Paul said something like “there is one God but sure seems like there are other gods.” Made me think of the “false gods” and the other “Sons of God.”
Lots of things to argue about 🙂
Skip, would you be willing to go through the whole book of Matthew and give us your translation insights?
I am already doing this each week in a Bible study in Winter Garden. It is being recorded and put up on the website as a podcast. Just search for Matthew and you will see it.
Robin, Skip’s lessons on the Book of Matthew can be found at https://skipmoen.com/category/matthew/.
Skip, “kicked the bucket” was a great example. Thx!
Each of the four gospels is said to have it’s own “flavor.” Mathew is said to present Jesus (Yeshua) as King. The inscription on the tslav (execution stake) read “Here is Jesus- King of the Jews” (Mathew 27.37). Luke 23.38 tells us – And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Very interesting even in the choice of these three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. I don’t think anyone was left out.
Yes, I am one of few remaining Biblicists who believe in the inerrancy of the (original) scriptures. I believe “every” word of G-d is pure. I can go and look at a flower and “wonder” Who created such a beautiful thing, but then I can go to the word of G-d and find out Who did this thing. I “know” G-d by spending time with my nose in this book. It is a book like no other. I believe we can all agree on this. Just for the sake of those who would like to fit me into a little box- I was weaned on the KJV. It is still my preferred version even though I have found errors contained in this translation. I love the poetry and the flow. Do I read other translations? Most assuredly, I do. I have found the website biblos.com to be very helpful to me with it’s readily available parallel translations and also readily available Greek and Hebrew helps.
This is where you fit in brother Skip. I would ask you sir not to be “sidetracked” by commentary on the horrors of Greek thinking. Yes, reveal unto us (the learners) of the wonders and beauty of the Hebrew foundations of our Bible, but then also show unto us the force or passion of the Greek as well. I’ve said it on more than one occasion and I’m convinced (hard-headed is right!) more than ever- it is not “either/or” it’s both! How do I know this? .. “back to the Bible!”- yes, the absolute best “commentary” on G-d’s book is G-d’s book! (And this is His book!)
Our Bible was written by men. – Fallible men. (just like me- and you too! dear one..). This is another “confirmation” to me, G-d “assembled” this entire book from how many different authors over a span of how long and the end result of all these “different” pieces and parts is one seamless message- the word of G-d. I know of no other book in the entire history of the world that comes close to the life-changing power of this book.
I do not worship the book, but I do worship the Author.
I would like to consider at some point the book of Ruth, because “we” is Ruth. Ruth was a Moabite. A “half-breed”- neither Jew nor Gentile, and yet she was “redeemed” by Boaz- her Kinsman-Redeemer.
What would be the “correct” translation of this portion of scripture -(Galatians 3.27,28,29) .. “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you.” (and yes, dear family- there is “much more.”)
One of my many “favorites” (2 Corinthians 5.17)- “Therefore, if anyone is in the Messiah, he is a new creation. Old things have disappeared, and-look!-all things have become new!”
And brother Patrick.. if you believe (as some do), our wonderful Bible is “inspired in spots,” then I do hope (truly), you know someone who is inspired to “spot the spots!”.
If this book is just another book, what hope do we have? What does the Bible say about itself? How well do we know this book?
What did Yeshua mean by His statement to the Pharisees- “Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” (Matthew 22.29) Especially because this verse came out of the book of Matthew and especially because Matthew was a Jew- I view this verse as a Hebrew tautology. The “power of G-d” is the scripture. His words are our life-force. Where would we be without the word of G-d? -I would be l-o-s-t. Imagine life without the authority of G-d’s book. -Not a pretty picture, is it?
Thank you for your patience with me brother Skip,- I do appreciate what you do and I will repeat what I have said earlier about your ministry and what you do for us (hungry sheep) daily. We (all) need to know this book and learn to cleave unto the LORD and to His words. -“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.”
“In essentials unity, in nonessentials diversity, -in all things love.”
I certainly hold the belief that the words of this book were manifest by God through men. Of course, that is not the same as saying that the English Bible translations are without error. Obviously, they are not. The argument isn’t about the use of the Greek language or the Hebrew language. The argument is about the worldview that hides behind the use of one language or another. Just as English idioms rest of certain assumptions about the world, so Greek and Hebrew rest on certain assumptions. What I have tried to make clear for many years now is that the Greek worldview is antithetical to the Hebrew worldview. So, even if the Scriptures use Greek, they do not convey a Greek message. They convey a Hebrew message with Greek language. If we read the Greek portions of Scripture from a Greek perspective, we will certainly err. This has been demonstrated over and over where the English translation relies on the Greek worldview rather than the Hebrew worldview. After all, every single author of the biblical text was Jewish or a proselyte to Judaism or a Hebrew. It only stands to reason that these men (and women) wrote with their own culture in mind.
Inerrancy is a most difficult and often confused doctrine. It is the result of an attempt to capture doctrinally the authority of the text for the believing community. But it is an argument from silence since inerrancy is only claimed for the original text and none of the original text exists. So, inerrancy is confessional, not evidential. There is nothing wrong with this. By confession, the believing community invests authority in certain sacred writings. However, when it comes to actually providing the explanation of this doctrine, we face a lot of difficulties. First, the Word of God was originally oral, not written. Of course, eventually it was written down, but the believing community did not cease to function simply because God communicated orally. The Bible is the collection of written documents that rest on a oral, prophetic tradition. So, while we could claim that the words of the prophets as uttered were inspired, it takes another step to say that the words which were written down after the prophets spoke them, and usually by someone else, had that same inspired quality.
In addition, as we have seen, many if not all of the apostolic authors alter the text to fit their polemic arguments. They do so without any qualms, claiming all the while that the altered text is God’s word. This strikes at the heart of a doctrine of inspiration since it implies that the altered text is also inspired, but at the same time, not an accurate quotation of the original. How is this to be? Obviously, the apostolic authors did not have the same idea of inerrancy that we do. Who is more likely to have understood it correctly, the men who wrote the New Testament or the theologians who struggled with trying to understand it hundreds of years later. Oh, and by the way, the believing community seems not to have been corrupted or destroyed simply because they did not have a clearly defined doctrine of inspiration.
In summary so far, inspiration has nothing to do with translation. Every translation will have necessary reductions, additions, misunderstandings, cultural bias, etc. So, pick whatever translation you like. It really doesn’t matter too much as long as you are aware that the translation is inadequate to express the original. Then, dig! Never settle for the translated text. That would be like telling yourself that you really don’t need to read Romeo and Juliet in Shakespearian English. Any modern equivalent with do.
There is no question that the Bible is a marvelous and unparalleled book. You are right about its theme and quality. But, of course, you have to read it with a certain frame of reference to see this. That’s why many can read the Bible as literature and never hear what it says. It takes a paradigm to see from inside the paradigm. So, while Paul argues that there is neither Jew nor Greek, he obviously does not mean that there is literally neither Jew nor Greek. There are still Jews and Greeks in the world. He means that as far as status within the Kingdom, no one is treated any differently than another.
I have to go now, but there is a lot more to say about all this. Perhaps my lectures on hermeneutics and inspiration will help. I don’t believe the Bible is inspired in spots. You are right to say that this involves a super-sleuth ability to see the spots. But I also don’t believe that “inspired” in the Hebrew culture means what we take it to mean today. We have pushed this concept into the Greek world of “correct answers” and “one right thought.” That isn’t the way the authors act. So, we will have to do better if we want to see this book as the men who wrote it see it.
Again Skip, excellently stated. Thank you for clarifying that.
Carl, I believe that what we do is more important than what we know.
And I believe that we show our love to God by being loving to one another, every day.
Therefore, as you wrote, “in all things love [as an action, not a feeling].” 🙂
Shalom, Patrick
Each of the four gospels is said to have it’s own “flavor.” Mathew is said to present Jesus (Yeshua) as King. The inscription on the tslav (execution stake) read “Here is Jesus- King of the Jews” (Mathew 27.37). Luke 23.38 tells us – And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Very interesting even in the choice of these three languages, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. I don’t think anyone was left out. I believe “every” word of G-d is pure. I can go and look at a flower and “wonder” Who created such a beautiful thing, but then I can go to the word of G-d and find out Who did this thing.
I “know” G-d by spending time with my nose in this book. It is a book like no other. I believe we can all agree on this. Just for the sake of those who would like to fit me into a little box- I was weaned on the KJV.
It is still my preferred version even though I have found errors contained in this translation. I love the poetry and the flow. Do I read other translations? Most assuredly, I do. I have found the website biblos.com to be very helpful to me with it’s readily available parallel translations and also readily available Greek and Hebrew helps.
You are right, at that time, no one was left out. The people there were familiar with Greek and Hebrew culture because they lived in it. 2,000 yrs later, we have no clue if there was a particular nuance in the words. Do you think that 2,000 yrs from now people will understand the nuance of “Yes we can!” or “Hell no, we won’t go”. Chances are they won’t. The problem is not the translation of the words it is the deeper meaning that the words carry to the people who are hearing them. Knowing Jewish culture and the way they think, not speak is the difference. The people in the first century that were familiar with Jewish culture and life, didn’t have to read it, they saw it lived out.
Yes, I am one of few remaining Biblicists who believe in the inerrancy of the (original) scriptures.
I too believe that the original scriptures were inerrant what does that mean and ,which ones were they by the way? It took a long time for people to come to an actual cannon. We don’t have the originals anymore. Also, the way that the Jewish people remembered what God said was not necessarily by writing it down. They memorized it. They lived it, they breathed it…they had standing stones every day. What’s a standing stone? Well that’s in the bible. 2000 yrs later we assume that the written word IS the way to remember things, to know that they are true, but that was NOT Yeshua’s message. While He said, “it is written”, He never said, only believe what is written nor did he say, I am going to have this all written down for you so you don’t have to worry about losing my story. God told the chosen people to never let the Word depart from their lips. Meditate on it…live it. He didn’t say READ it. Gods Word is our life.
“Yes, keep this book of the Torah on your lips, and meditate on it day and night, so that you will take care to act according to everything written in it. Then your undertakings will prosper, and you will succeed.” Joshua 1:8, (Complete Jewish Bible). The way Jewish people learned is the way Yeshua learned. The way Yeshua learned is the way He taught His disciples to learn. The way the disciples learned is the way they taught their disciples to learn and so on and so on (Matt. 28:19-20)
Where do we, in the 21st century live out the life that God chose for His people? What are the festivals we are celebrating? How about Passover? Wasn’t Yeshua having a meal for Passover? Didn’t He say, “do this” which “this was he talking about” only the last part? How do we know? I would think that since HE saw it as important enough to follow, and we are to imitate Him, that we should at least be doing that. What changed? Why?
If we were living God’s word every day, every year, year after year, following the pattern, we could see what discipleship is. It is not reading, it is living. To a Greek, it is knowing all the right things to say, all the right phrases…to a Torah observant Jew, its living a life that God ordained.
What would be the “correct” translation of this portion of scripture -(Galatians 3.27,28,29) .. “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you.” (and yes, dear family- there is “much more.”)
One of my many “favorites” (2 Corinthians 5.17)- “Therefore, if anyone is in the Messiah, he is a new creation. Old things have disappeared, and-look!-all things have become new!”
To understand what Paul is talking about here, you have to understand what Paul is talking about when he says “into Christ” or “in Christ”. There is so much data on this it’s exhausting. What Paul is trying to get at here is the corporate personality of Yeshua.
If Gentiles, for that is who Paul was addressing, wanted to become part of the community, then their baptism gave them entrance into the community of God’s people. New converts to Judaism were baptized as well. Paul, however, is talking about how we come together as Gentiles and Jews literally “in” the community who is Yeshua. Yeshua is the temple, the tabernacle, the place where Jews and Gentiles can worship together. There IS no Greek translation for that. So what did Paul do? He can’t explain it exactly in Greek, since there are no words to describe it. So he uses words that are used to substitute for Hebrew meanings; however meager, however inefficient. He is trying to describe a Hebrew understanding with a set of words that cannot really get to that meaning.
I sent Skip a little paragraph translated from American English into French then back into English as a way to show how language fails. It is written two times, first the way I wrote it, and second the way it comes out. The idioms do not translated into French and therefore come back very awkwardly. I hope this can help clarify the issue….rather than muddy the waters. An American would have no problem understanding this letter, but ask a Frenchman, and that would not be the case.
Dear Jack,
It’s about time that you decided to act your age. Getting all high and mighty just adds fuel to the proverbial fire. I’ve gone all out, against the clock I might add, to get this shindig ready for your arrival. A little bird told me that absence makes the heart grow fonder, but your actions speak louder than words. You took your sweet time getting here and to add insult to injury, you just turned your back on me when you got here. You just acted like all the sweat and tears I put into this thing for your was all in a day’s work. So you think I’m chopped liver? Well there must be 50 ways to leave someone like you.
You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don’t need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don’t need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
Paul Simon, “50 Ways to Leave your Lover”
Translation into French
Cher Jack
Il est grand time que vous ayez décidé d’agir votre âge. L’obtention tout haut et puissant ajoute juste le carburant au feu proverbial. J’ai été mis hors de service, contre l’horloge je pourrais ajouter, obtenir cette fiesta prête pour votre arrivée. Un petit oiseau m’a dit que loin des yeux, près du coeur, mais votre les mots valent moins que les actions. Vous avez pris votre temps sucré(doux) obtenant ici et ajouter l’insulte à la blessure, vous avez juste tourné votre dos sur moi quand vous êtes arrivés ici. Vous avez juste agi comme toute la sueur et des larmes pour lesquelles j’ai mis dans cette chose votre était tout dans le travail d’un jour. Donc vous pensez que je suis le foie haché ? Bien il doit y avoir 50 façons de laisser(quitter) quelqu’un comme vous.
Vous échappez juste le dos, Jack
Faites un nouveau plan, Stan
Vous ne devez pas être timides, Roy
Obtenez juste vous libre(gratuit)
Étape sur le bus, Gus
Vous ne devez pas discuter beaucoup
Baissez juste la clé(touche), le Côté sous le vent
Et obtenez vous libre(gratuit)
Paul Simon, “50 Façons de Laisser(Quitter) votre Amateur(Amant)”
Ä
BACK into English
Expensive Jack
He(It) is big time that you decided to act your age. The obtaining any top and the powerful just adds the fuel to the proverbial fire(light). I was put outside service, against the clock I could add, obtain this rave-up give for your arrival. A small bird said to me that far from eyes, near the heart, but your the words cost less than the actions(shares). You took your (soft) sweet time(weather) obtaining here and to add the insult for the wound, you just turned(shot) your back on me when you arrived here. You just acted as all the sweat and tears for which I put in this thing(matter) your was everything in the day work. Thus you think that I am the chopped liver? Indeed there should be 50 manners to let (leave) somebody as you.
You just escape the back, Jack
Made a new plan(shot), Stan
You are have to be shy, Roy
Just obtain you free (free)
Stage on the bus, Bloke
You do not have to discuss a lot
Fall
Your example of the verses reminds me of trying to use the online automatic translator to translate my letters that I send to parents into Spanish. My Hispanic students are usually laughing pretty hard when it’s all said and done. A lot does get lost in translation, although admittedly less is lost when it’s translated by humans (but with a bit of added bias).
I believe that no matter how we feel about inerrancy of the Bible or how it’s been changed by human hands, G-d still works through it. He may stand by and let it happen, but He works despite our misunderstanding. I find it so easy to get caught up in the need for a right and wrong answer, and I often forget that G-d is not limited in the same way that my understanding is limited.
So, I don’t know the answer. But I will be more diligent to seek out the original meaning of the text, despite the obstacles, knowing that in the end G-d’s purposes will be served, and those who seek will find Him no matter how backwards the translation. And once they know His great love, hopefully they will be inspired by places like this site to dig deeper and know YHWH in a more intimate (and more “accurate”) way.
🙂 Amanda
I do believe in in the inerrancy of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration and the ORIGINAL writings, coupled with the historical method of how the scribes would painstakingly copy the writings. As human error was discovered the “copies” were to be destroyed and the process would supposedly begin all over again. BUT, as we all are aware, humanity is far from perfect and there you have the opportunity for “error”. However, God has given us the gift of the Spirit to understand our need for deliverance and a Redeemer in order to be restored and reconciled to God. The subtle interjection of interpretative prejudices have given rise to the distortion of what was originally intended. I am glad to have been warned of taking the Scriptures at face value in some of these areas, especially when it comes to evangelical commentary. The major area of concern for me is when the references to “the Jews” implicates them as the murderers of Christ and the opposition to the formation of the “Christian” religion. In addition to the “TMZ”like reporting concerning Jewish intents and conspiracy to corrupt all religions into “law-keeping legalists”, evangelical pulpits help promote the gossip of “lost” Judaism and how the “old economy” was a type and shadow of the “true” religion. I am so “messed-up” now by Skip’s teaching, I can hear or read(translation) some good “Word” and get turned off when the Jew-bashing begins. This has given me cause to pray for the light of the Spirit to reveal the continuity of the everlasting Father’s perfectly reliable Way of Holiness to imperfect people in need of His truth.
Shalom, Skip
As I was “editing” Isaiah in the RSV yesterday to see what was actually written by the navi, I came across “shalom shalom,” and wanted to verify that this is actually a Hebrew idiom, even though it’s in the Tanakh only this once.
Doing a search, I found your article here, and the next reference was at Frost Illustrated, which is, evidently, a copy of your(?) article under the name “Junius Batten Pressey” and dated (per the url) a few days later than yours.