"And if any human would go to law with thee, and take away thy tunic, from-let to him thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, under-lead with him two."
Jesus had already taught that, as we resist evil, we are to resist it non-violently. And now he gets specific. If any human (the Etymological New Testament differentiates "male" from "human" in the Greek text) uses the law to take your undergarment, then "from-let" to him your outer garment. The Greek word often translated "to forgive" comes from a two part word meaning literally "to let go from." Whether it is someone else' wrongs or our own outer garment, there are times to "from-let." In this verse, it is a way to resist evil without employing violence.
In the same way the ENT translates ultra-literally with the word "under-lead." By acquiescing to being compelled to go a mile, we begin to transform the relationship from victim/abuser to something new.
In addition to providing interesting information about etymologies, the ENT also allows the reader to see how the same word is uses in a variety of passages where it simply cannot be translated by the same English word. It is fascinating to read the New Testament and see the number of things that we are to "from-let."
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
Matthew 5:38,39
"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, resist not violently the misery gushing: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Occasionally, very literal translation requires an additional word to clarify the meaning of the original one. In the passage above, the Etymological New Testament makes the meaning clear with the translation "resist not violently." Jesus' point is not to forbid all resistance to evil (gushing misery), but that we not employ violence as we resist. To miss this sense of the original can make a critical difference in how we engage society around us. In this way, the turning of our cheek is not mere passivity to evil aggression, but a strategic part of our resistance to miserable evil around us in this world...as followers of Jesus' way.
Occasionally, very literal translation requires an additional word to clarify the meaning of the original one. In the passage above, the Etymological New Testament makes the meaning clear with the translation "resist not violently." Jesus' point is not to forbid all resistance to evil (gushing misery), but that we not employ violence as we resist. To miss this sense of the original can make a critical difference in how we engage society around us. In this way, the turning of our cheek is not mere passivity to evil aggression, but a strategic part of our resistance to miserable evil around us in this world...as followers of Jesus' way.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Matthew 5:36 , 37
"Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea; No, no: and whatsoever is more than these is of misery-gushing."
Jesus embraces what could be called the Minimalist Theory of Morality. Rather than recommending the elaborate oaths common to the middle eastern culture of his day, Jesus instructs us to keep it simple. The best way to communicate one's integrity is to simply affirm with one word...and then do it.
The Etymological New Testament notes the problem with any further speech, "...and whatsoever is more than these is of misery-gushing." Shakespeare would later write, Methinks thou dost protest too loudly. Jesus identifies the source of extraneous affirmation: "misery-gushing." Typically translated "evil", this Greek expression is a two-part word from "misery" and "to gush." As we see too often among our political leadership (and religious institutions), when they wish to obscure they multiply words. Let's embrace the minimalist idea and "swear not at all", even if a court asks us to do so. Our yes or no will mean just that.
Jesus embraces what could be called the Minimalist Theory of Morality. Rather than recommending the elaborate oaths common to the middle eastern culture of his day, Jesus instructs us to keep it simple. The best way to communicate one's integrity is to simply affirm with one word...and then do it.
The Etymological New Testament notes the problem with any further speech, "...and whatsoever is more than these is of misery-gushing." Shakespeare would later write, Methinks thou dost protest too loudly. Jesus identifies the source of extraneous affirmation: "misery-gushing." Typically translated "evil", this Greek expression is a two-part word from "misery" and "to gush." As we see too often among our political leadership (and religious institutions), when they wish to obscure they multiply words. Let's embrace the minimalist idea and "swear not at all", even if a court asks us to do so. Our yes or no will mean just that.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Matthew 5:33,34
"Again,
you have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not on-oath,
but shalt from-give unto the Affirmer thy oaths: 34 but I say unto you, swear
not at all..."
In both the Old Testament and the New, the importance of doing what we promise is critically important. But, there's a definite difference in how we personally assure others (and God) that we will perform as stated. In the verse and a half above, Jesus makes this difference as clear as possible. He says, in the Etymological New Testament that "Thou shalt not on-oath..." The ENT's ultra-literal translation allows the reader to see the two-part word Jesus used to indicate a superficial ("on") oath. The OT forbade superficial oaths, on-oaths. One had to genuinely "from-give" what one had sworn. This is one method to help ensure that one does as promised: make the oath more elaborate. Add a phrase like "so help me God" to a promise. Perhaps, if we make our oaths more intense and complex, we will really perform them.
Jesus takes a different tact. By stripping our affirmations of all verbal clutter, we are left with simply our Yes or our No. Nothing else...except our integrity. This minimalist approach is the New Testament answer to human perfidy. We do as we say because we wish to retain our dignity, our self respect. We claim allegiance to Jesus and his teaching. And now we will do as we have promised.
In both the Old Testament and the New, the importance of doing what we promise is critically important. But, there's a definite difference in how we personally assure others (and God) that we will perform as stated. In the verse and a half above, Jesus makes this difference as clear as possible. He says, in the Etymological New Testament that "Thou shalt not on-oath..." The ENT's ultra-literal translation allows the reader to see the two-part word Jesus used to indicate a superficial ("on") oath. The OT forbade superficial oaths, on-oaths. One had to genuinely "from-give" what one had sworn. This is one method to help ensure that one does as promised: make the oath more elaborate. Add a phrase like "so help me God" to a promise. Perhaps, if we make our oaths more intense and complex, we will really perform them.
Jesus takes a different tact. By stripping our affirmations of all verbal clutter, we are left with simply our Yes or our No. Nothing else...except our integrity. This minimalist approach is the New Testament answer to human perfidy. We do as we say because we wish to retain our dignity, our self respect. We claim allegiance to Jesus and his teaching. And now we will do as we have promised.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Matthew 5:32
"but
I say unto you, that every one who doth from-loose his woman, except for the
cause of fornication, attempteth to
make her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is from-loosed is perceived to commit adultery."
Most translations of the Bible that profess to be literal, also add italic words. These additional words are not literally present in the text, but clarify the sense of the verse. The Etymological New Testament also uses this same method. In the verse above two key words are added to make clear Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage.
The husband (or wife) who divorces a partner for frivolous reasons is actually attempting to make their spouse an adulterer. And, in that particular Jewish culture, the person who married the divorcee is often perceived to be committing adultery. Jesus teaching on marriage, here and elsewhere, shows that two things are important concerning marriage: a very strong commitment AND a non-judgmental attitude toward the one who is unfairly divorced.
Most translations of the Bible that profess to be literal, also add italic words. These additional words are not literally present in the text, but clarify the sense of the verse. The Etymological New Testament also uses this same method. In the verse above two key words are added to make clear Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage.
The husband (or wife) who divorces a partner for frivolous reasons is actually attempting to make their spouse an adulterer. And, in that particular Jewish culture, the person who married the divorcee is often perceived to be committing adultery. Jesus teaching on marriage, here and elsewhere, shows that two things are important concerning marriage: a very strong commitment AND a non-judgmental attitude toward the one who is unfairly divorced.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Matthew 5:31
"It
was said also to those of old time,
Whosoever shall from-loose his woman, let him give her a writing of from-stand."
In this section of Matthew 5, Jesus says some words about what we call divorce. The Etymological New Testament translates the verb and noun ultra-literally in verse 31 above. The verb is "from-loose" while the noun is "from-stand." To divorce one's spouse is to loose that person from the marriage bond. The resulting state is that they now stand from that former relationship.
In this case, the person being divorced, or from-loosed, is "his woman." The Greek text has no special word for "wife" (or "husband"). Rather, the context determines the translation...for most Bibles. The ENT consistently uses the literal "woman" or "man" which allows the reader to see the semantic range of these words in various contexts.
In this section of Matthew 5, Jesus says some words about what we call divorce. The Etymological New Testament translates the verb and noun ultra-literally in verse 31 above. The verb is "from-loose" while the noun is "from-stand." To divorce one's spouse is to loose that person from the marriage bond. The resulting state is that they now stand from that former relationship.
In this case, the person being divorced, or from-loosed, is "his woman." The Greek text has no special word for "wife" (or "husband"). Rather, the context determines the translation...for most Bibles. The ENT consistently uses the literal "woman" or "man" which allows the reader to see the semantic range of these words in various contexts.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Matthew 5:29 ...and Figures of Speech
"And
if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should be
from-whole-loosed, and not thy whole body be cast into Hinnom-Ravine."
The genres of scripture are many and varied. Even within Matthew's Account of Jesus' life, the reader must be aware of the various literary types. In this 29th verse of the fifth chapter, the Etymological New Testament remains very literal. The ENT provides no additional clues to the figures of speech being used. That is a limitation of ultra-literal translation. Versions of scripture that tend toward paraphrase can be very helpful in passages such as these. And, many good commentaries also make clear the hyperbole intentionally used by Jesus with his first century audience.
After his use of hyperbole to encourage us to pluck out our eye, Jesus speaks of what happens to us if we fail to live a disciplined life. The end result is being cast into Hinnom-Ravine. Many translations that are known as being very literal, translate "Hinnom Ravine" as "hell" in this and related verses. The problem is that translating as "hell" is actually a paraphrase rather than literal translation. It could be that one might be able to demonstrate that Jesus' linguistic use of the Hinnom valley southwest of Jerusalem was figurative. But, one would then need to go on to show what the specific literal concept was. But, if a translation is set forth as being a literal one, then it needs to fulfill that role. The proper place for speculation or theological argumentation is in a commentary or at least in a paraphrase of the text.
The Aramaic word GEHENNA is thus rendered ultra-literally in the Etymological New Testament as Hinnom-Ravine. How to understand this expression, whether literally or as a figure of speech, is left to the research of the reader.
The genres of scripture are many and varied. Even within Matthew's Account of Jesus' life, the reader must be aware of the various literary types. In this 29th verse of the fifth chapter, the Etymological New Testament remains very literal. The ENT provides no additional clues to the figures of speech being used. That is a limitation of ultra-literal translation. Versions of scripture that tend toward paraphrase can be very helpful in passages such as these. And, many good commentaries also make clear the hyperbole intentionally used by Jesus with his first century audience.
After his use of hyperbole to encourage us to pluck out our eye, Jesus speaks of what happens to us if we fail to live a disciplined life. The end result is being cast into Hinnom-Ravine. Many translations that are known as being very literal, translate "Hinnom Ravine" as "hell" in this and related verses. The problem is that translating as "hell" is actually a paraphrase rather than literal translation. It could be that one might be able to demonstrate that Jesus' linguistic use of the Hinnom valley southwest of Jerusalem was figurative. But, one would then need to go on to show what the specific literal concept was. But, if a translation is set forth as being a literal one, then it needs to fulfill that role. The proper place for speculation or theological argumentation is in a commentary or at least in a paraphrase of the text.
The Aramaic word GEHENNA is thus rendered ultra-literally in the Etymological New Testament as Hinnom-Ravine. How to understand this expression, whether literally or as a figure of speech, is left to the research of the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)