Not all variations in Bible translations invite theological debate. Using different synonyms for certain words, for instance, are certainly acceptable providing the English usages adequately reflect legitimate meanings inherent in the original words. Other translation differences, however, are more striking and demand explanations even if the theology poses no difficulties. Psalm 145:13 illustrates this type of translation variation.
At the present time the New International Version (NIV) Bible is prominent among evangelical Christians. One can count on its presence in church and Bible studies. Also one can count on the appearance of the missing nun (נ), which may cause some consternation.
In the New American Standard Bible (NASB),and many other translations, Psalm 145:13 reads, “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Thy dominion endures throughout all generations.” The NIV reads, “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures through all generations. The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made.” One can easily see that the NIV in this verse is twice as long as the NASB.
The footnote found in the NIV reads, “This psalm is an acrostic poem, the verses of which (including verse 13b) begin with the successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet.” Of the 22 Hebrew letters, in this Psalm only 21 are represented in the Hebrew Bible. The question naturally arises, “Has the transmission of the text accidentally or intentionally omitted the verse beginning with the letter nun?”
The textual apparatus of the Hebrew Bible gives the absent nun text as well as the manuscript support for reinserting it into the text: insert the nun strophe to agree with one Hebrew manuscript, the Septuagint, and the Syriac manuscripts. Compare verse 17 (my translation of the apparatus note). Upon comparing verses 13 and 17 it is easy to see that only the first word differs. Verse 17 begins with the tsade (צ) letter of the Hebrew alphabet (צַדִּיק, “righteous”), and the disputed text (13b) begins with the word “faithful” (נֶאֱמַן), producing a verse beginning with the letter nun ((נ)). After the first word in these two verses the texts are exactly the same.
What happened in the manuscript transmission of Psalm 145:13 is unknown. The Psalmist may not have included a nun verse; or the copyists may have inadvertently dropped the nun text out; or the copyists may have intentionally dropped out the nun text, although this is highly unlikely since there is no apparent reason why the text would be considered unsuitable.
But, evaluation must be done since the English Bibles differ on this verse and people will want some answer for this very-visible difference. First, the fact that the poem is intentionally acrostic favors an inadvertent omission. Although it is not unique to discover a missing letter in an acrostic poem (cp. Psalm 25, et al), the intent of the author surely began with the idea of representing each of the 22 Hebrew letters. Second, repetition is a common poetic feature so that the similarities between verses 13 and 17 are not unique. Third, the contents of the debated portion fits admirably both with verse 13b and 17, The LORD is
[ faithful/righteous] to all his promises and loving toward all he has made.
Based tentatively on the above evaluation, the longer reading of verse 13 should be granted legitimacy. The only theological addition to the poem is an emphasis on God’s faithfulness. Surely no one can find fault with this inclusion!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
A Wonderful Anachronism
Without question the language of the King James Version is outdated. In one linguistic situation, however, this is unfortunate for it avoided a communication problem of modern English. Even the New King James Version fails in its communication no doubt based on its desire to bring the Bible into modern English.
Modern English does not distinguish between the 2nd person singular “you” and the 2nd person plural “you.” You refers to both without distinction. The antiquated King James Version uses thee/thou for the singular and ye for the plural, thus recording the distinction that is clear in the original text of the New Testament.
To point out this difference some modern English translations insert a distinguishing term as in the New American Standard Bible rendition of John 4:48, “So Jesus said to him, ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.’” People defines you as plural. Of course, the word “people” is not in the original text but this procedure works well as long as the translators are consistent. Unfortunately this is not always the case. These translators encountered the same problem at John 3:7 and 11 but failed to identify the variance in number:
“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”
“Truly, truly I say to you, we speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and you do not receive our witness.”
The King James Version translators maintained consistency and thereby represented a clearer and more accurate translation at these points:
“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.”
O the wonderful anachronism of the antiquated King James Version!
Modern English does not distinguish between the 2nd person singular “you” and the 2nd person plural “you.” You refers to both without distinction. The antiquated King James Version uses thee/thou for the singular and ye for the plural, thus recording the distinction that is clear in the original text of the New Testament.
To point out this difference some modern English translations insert a distinguishing term as in the New American Standard Bible rendition of John 4:48, “So Jesus said to him, ‘Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.’” People defines you as plural. Of course, the word “people” is not in the original text but this procedure works well as long as the translators are consistent. Unfortunately this is not always the case. These translators encountered the same problem at John 3:7 and 11 but failed to identify the variance in number:
“Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”
“Truly, truly I say to you, we speak that which we know, and bear witness of that which we have seen; and you do not receive our witness.”
The King James Version translators maintained consistency and thereby represented a clearer and more accurate translation at these points:
“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.”
O the wonderful anachronism of the antiquated King James Version!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Why Is This Promise from God a Failure?
“Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” (New International Version, NIV), Proverbs 16:3
John was a sincere Christian who believed the word of God, every word. What a joy to discover Proverbs 16:3! This “blank check” would revolutionize his ministry for the Lord with the guarantee of success—not a Warrantee, “we’ll fix it when it breaks,” but a Guarantee, “it can’t fail because God cannot lie!” Encouraged by this promise and with big plans for changing the world, John committed to the Lord his burden for establishing a retreat center for embattled pastors. He worked out all of the plans and waited for God to fulfill His promise. He is still waiting. Has God lied? Is this promise simply biblical “pie in the sky?” Where is the success? Or, must he reinterpret success by saying that God is just “putting it off” until a more favorable time—a reinterpretation that in reality is a way of saying “It doesn’t work!” without impugning God directly.
John’s problem, although he is unaware of it, centers on his belief in the Word of God, in this case the NIV translation. What he needs to ask, instead of the above questions, is whether the NIV has presented the reader with the only interpretive option. If he asks the right people that question, people capable of evaluating translations based on the original languages, the answer will be “No, there is no divine promise in this proverb as suggested by the NIV translation.”
The problem with the NIV in this verse appears to be two-fold. (1) The verse has two clauses, an independent imperative clause, “Commit to the LORD whatever you do,” and a probable dependent clause of result. The NIV presents two independent clauses. (2) The connotation of the English word “success” has only a questionable counterpart in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word כּוּן (in the Niphal stem) means “to be directed rightly” when used in moral contexts such as this one. Also, the translation of “plans” in the NIV is a derivative concept developed from the basic sense of “thoughts” (מַחֲשָׁבָה). The primary senses of these words make perfect sense.
The original Hebrew text focuses primary attention on independent imperative clause. The result clause plays a secondary role and does not represent a promise-like idea as suggested by the NIV translation. An acceptable translation of this proverb reads, Commit your works to Yahweh so that your thought processes may be directed rightly.
The point of the proverb is for the believer to demonstrate dependence upon God by inviting Him into the intended activity allowing Him to direct one’s thought processes. In other words, it is an invitation for a divine/human work operating within one’s mind. Once done, the believer must trust in those thoughts leaving the success outcome up to the sovereign God. James 1:5-7 (New American Standard Bible) represents a New Testament counterpart to this Old Testament proverb:
5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,
8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
John was a sincere Christian who believed the word of God, every word. What a joy to discover Proverbs 16:3! This “blank check” would revolutionize his ministry for the Lord with the guarantee of success—not a Warrantee, “we’ll fix it when it breaks,” but a Guarantee, “it can’t fail because God cannot lie!” Encouraged by this promise and with big plans for changing the world, John committed to the Lord his burden for establishing a retreat center for embattled pastors. He worked out all of the plans and waited for God to fulfill His promise. He is still waiting. Has God lied? Is this promise simply biblical “pie in the sky?” Where is the success? Or, must he reinterpret success by saying that God is just “putting it off” until a more favorable time—a reinterpretation that in reality is a way of saying “It doesn’t work!” without impugning God directly.
John’s problem, although he is unaware of it, centers on his belief in the Word of God, in this case the NIV translation. What he needs to ask, instead of the above questions, is whether the NIV has presented the reader with the only interpretive option. If he asks the right people that question, people capable of evaluating translations based on the original languages, the answer will be “No, there is no divine promise in this proverb as suggested by the NIV translation.”
The problem with the NIV in this verse appears to be two-fold. (1) The verse has two clauses, an independent imperative clause, “Commit to the LORD whatever you do,” and a probable dependent clause of result. The NIV presents two independent clauses. (2) The connotation of the English word “success” has only a questionable counterpart in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word כּוּן (in the Niphal stem) means “to be directed rightly” when used in moral contexts such as this one. Also, the translation of “plans” in the NIV is a derivative concept developed from the basic sense of “thoughts” (מַחֲשָׁבָה). The primary senses of these words make perfect sense.
The original Hebrew text focuses primary attention on independent imperative clause. The result clause plays a secondary role and does not represent a promise-like idea as suggested by the NIV translation. An acceptable translation of this proverb reads, Commit your works to Yahweh so that your thought processes may be directed rightly.
The point of the proverb is for the believer to demonstrate dependence upon God by inviting Him into the intended activity allowing Him to direct one’s thought processes. In other words, it is an invitation for a divine/human work operating within one’s mind. Once done, the believer must trust in those thoughts leaving the success outcome up to the sovereign God. James 1:5-7 (New American Standard Bible) represents a New Testament counterpart to this Old Testament proverb:
5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,
8 being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
A “Perfect” Perusal
Although a portrait of Jesus Christ does not exist, most of the writers of the New Testament did know what He looked and sounded like. The shape of His face, the resonant quality of His voice—all were known to them. The use of the perfect aspect [traditionally called tense] in 1 John 1:1 confirms this statement.
Recalling a scene from the movie “Sleepless in Seattle,” the youngster tells his dad that he is beginning to forget what his deceased mother looked like. He closes his eyes in concentration, yet he still cannot fully outline her face. Time takes its toll. Were it not for photographs, eventually the young boy would be unable to picture his mother in his mind’s eye.
But this is exactly what is not happening in 1 John 1:1. John says that he and his fellow apostles have heard and can still “hear” [ἀκηκόαμεν] the timber of His voice. They have seen and can still picture [ἑωράκαμεν] His image in their mind’s eye. Time had not yet dimmed the image and the sounds of Jesus’ life on earth.
Ronald Ward attempts to catch the force of the perfect aspect in 1 John 1:1, “That which was from the beginning which still rings in our ears, the vision of which is still before our eyes . . . .” (Hidden Meaning in the New Testament, 50, italics mine). The Greek grammarian, A. T. Robertson, notes that “Some instances of the perfect [aspect] clamor for notice” (The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 100). He illustrates on page 101, “Once more in I Cor. 15:4 Paul employs a present perfect indicative [emphasizing the existing state] of the Resurrection of Jesus in the midst of a long list of aorist indicatives. . . . Paul undoubtedly means to emphasize the fact that Jesus is still risen by the present perfect. He is the Risen Lord, as is shown by the very [aspect] that is employed.”
Christians today, of course, cannot say what John said in 1 John 1:1. No one has seen and heard Christ directly. None can picture Him or create the sound of His voice in one’s mind. But this is only a temporal deficiency. When Jesus returns all believers can join John and speak in the perfect aspect forevermore! Today, however, Christians can still proclaim the risen Christ with confidence. The Apostle Paul has eternally validated this truth through his use of the perfect aspect, “Christ is risen!”
Recalling a scene from the movie “Sleepless in Seattle,” the youngster tells his dad that he is beginning to forget what his deceased mother looked like. He closes his eyes in concentration, yet he still cannot fully outline her face. Time takes its toll. Were it not for photographs, eventually the young boy would be unable to picture his mother in his mind’s eye.
But this is exactly what is not happening in 1 John 1:1. John says that he and his fellow apostles have heard and can still “hear” [ἀκηκόαμεν] the timber of His voice. They have seen and can still picture [ἑωράκαμεν] His image in their mind’s eye. Time had not yet dimmed the image and the sounds of Jesus’ life on earth.
Ronald Ward attempts to catch the force of the perfect aspect in 1 John 1:1, “That which was from the beginning which still rings in our ears, the vision of which is still before our eyes . . . .” (Hidden Meaning in the New Testament, 50, italics mine). The Greek grammarian, A. T. Robertson, notes that “Some instances of the perfect [aspect] clamor for notice” (The Minister and His Greek New Testament, 100). He illustrates on page 101, “Once more in I Cor. 15:4 Paul employs a present perfect indicative [emphasizing the existing state] of the Resurrection of Jesus in the midst of a long list of aorist indicatives. . . . Paul undoubtedly means to emphasize the fact that Jesus is still risen by the present perfect. He is the Risen Lord, as is shown by the very [aspect] that is employed.”
Christians today, of course, cannot say what John said in 1 John 1:1. No one has seen and heard Christ directly. None can picture Him or create the sound of His voice in one’s mind. But this is only a temporal deficiency. When Jesus returns all believers can join John and speak in the perfect aspect forevermore! Today, however, Christians can still proclaim the risen Christ with confidence. The Apostle Paul has eternally validated this truth through his use of the perfect aspect, “Christ is risen!”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Appearances Can Be Deceiving
Sometimes things are not as they seem. Exodus 32:18 may seem unimportant on the surface, but appearances can be deceiving. Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments while Joshua was waiting part way up the mountain. The Israelites were at the mountain’s base having what appears to be a party. The poem of verse 18 (New American Standard Bible) is designed to produce an emotional response:
The emotion in this poem is communicated through sound and sense rather than images. The repetition of similar sounds, the Hebrew words in brackets, draws attention strongly to the last line demanding further contemplation of the word for “singing.” Singing reflects an emotional response, and in this case it is a musical response to something very bad. Sometimes things are not as they seem.
The ironic sense of the poem relates primarily to the word singing. Word-play is involved as evidenced by noting once again the Hebrew italicized terms in the above translation. The third word (עַנּוֹת) differs from the preceding two words by the presence of a dagesh (sound-hardening point). This same spelling, dagesh included, reflects two different words: singing and affliction (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 776-777). Here is the irony: The people are singing enthusiastically in a fog of spiritual affliction. Having made a “god” to lead them back to Egypt, they rejoiced thinking that a problem had been resolved. In reality they had entered the spiritual darkness of idolatry. Moses’ response can be paraphrased thus:
But again, sometimes things are not as they seem. In the context of Israel, the irony clearly applies. They sang while sinning. They experienced an illusion of spiritual victory. In the context of Christianity, the irony may also apply. Have we ever sung, “All to Jesus I Surrender,” without having the slightest intention of doing so? How much of our worship is illusion? We must constantly evaluate our spiritual lives so that when it comes to worship things really are as they seem.
“It is not the sound of the cry [עֲנוֹת] of triumph;
Nor is it the sound of the cry [עֲנוֹת] of defeat;
But the sound of singing [עַנּוֹת] I hear.”
The emotion in this poem is communicated through sound and sense rather than images. The repetition of similar sounds, the Hebrew words in brackets, draws attention strongly to the last line demanding further contemplation of the word for “singing.” Singing reflects an emotional response, and in this case it is a musical response to something very bad. Sometimes things are not as they seem.
The ironic sense of the poem relates primarily to the word singing. Word-play is involved as evidenced by noting once again the Hebrew italicized terms in the above translation. The third word (עַנּוֹת) differs from the preceding two words by the presence of a dagesh (sound-hardening point). This same spelling, dagesh included, reflects two different words: singing and affliction (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 776-777). Here is the irony: The people are singing enthusiastically in a fog of spiritual affliction. Having made a “god” to lead them back to Egypt, they rejoiced thinking that a problem had been resolved. In reality they had entered the spiritual darkness of idolatry. Moses’ response can be paraphrased thus:
“This is not a sound in response to victory in war;
And this is not a sound in response to defeat in war;
This is a sound of enthusiastic singing by a spiritually afflicted people that I am hearing.”
But again, sometimes things are not as they seem. In the context of Israel, the irony clearly applies. They sang while sinning. They experienced an illusion of spiritual victory. In the context of Christianity, the irony may also apply. Have we ever sung, “All to Jesus I Surrender,” without having the slightest intention of doing so? How much of our worship is illusion? We must constantly evaluate our spiritual lives so that when it comes to worship things really are as they seem.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
A “Misdirected” Translation
“But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38, New International Version and similar in the New American Standard Bible, NASB and many other English translations, bold mine)
Based on the English translations, the question arises as to the lexical difference between the English words “know” and “understand.” Webster says that to know is “to perceive or understand as fact or truth; apprehend clearly and with certainty” and to understand is “to grasp the meaning of.” Though overlap occurs between these English terms, the translations imply a difference in the depth of meaning, even if slight; and the interpretive focus of the verse ties to this difference.
Based on the Greek text, the question centers on the lexical differences between the words translated “know” (γνῶτε) and “understand” (γινώσκητε). Surprise! There is no difference. The terms have the same root and the same range of meanings. The only variation is in the aspect (formerly called “tense”) of the verbs. The first word (γνῶτε) is an aorist subjunctive whereas the second (γινώσκητε) is a present subjunctive. The difference is not lexical but syntactical. The translations have misdirected the meaning of the text, its interpretation and application.
This problem has existed since the early days of the transmission of the New Testament. Recognizing that the words translated know and understand have the same lexical meaning, the copyists of many New Testament manuscripts exhibited a variety of alternative readings—various changes to the grammatical form of the second word, replacing “know” with “believe,” and even omitting the latter word entirely. Clearly a perceived tautology, a redundancy, appeared to exist in the text by these copyists (see Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 198). However, tautology would in fact exist if the two words in question represented the same grammatical form, but they do not. There is a difference in the syntax of the verbal aspects that can account for an understandable duplication of the lexical meaning and lead to a clearer translation and interpretation of the verse as written.
The syntactical differences reflect the different functions of the aorist and present aspects. The aorist is ingressive meaning an entrance into a state of knowing; the present is progressive meaning a continuing to know. Here is a translation option that captures the essence of the meaning, “in order that you may come to know and continue knowing,” or as Abbott suggests (referenced in A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 850), “John employs the two forms with great deliberateness of ‘knowing’ and the development of it.” The difference is between “beginning and continuing to know” and not on “knowing and understanding” implying greater depth of knowledge.
The problem with the translation cited is that it causes one to raise the wrong question about the meaning of the text—“What is the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding?’” And asking the wrong question may lead to a wrong interpretation—“The listeners need to think deeper.” And the wrong interpretation may lead to a faulty application suggesting that there is a deeper level of meaning in the text.
In this passage Jesus invites his antagonistic Jewish listeners to begin to know Him and “continue travelling with Him,” so to speak, in confirming the fact that “. . . the Father is in Me and I in the Father (NASB),” a statement of deity stemming from John 10:30. Sadly, their response to this invitation was to try to seize and destroy Him.
A contextually proper and contemporary application for this passage would be for skeptics of Jesus’ self-proclaimed deity to begin to know Him by reading the Gospel with an open mind, and to continue adding to their knowledge, evaluating the weight of all the accumulating evidences regarding Jesus’ statement of deity, “. . . the Father is in Me and I in the Father.”
Based on the English translations, the question arises as to the lexical difference between the English words “know” and “understand.” Webster says that to know is “to perceive or understand as fact or truth; apprehend clearly and with certainty” and to understand is “to grasp the meaning of.” Though overlap occurs between these English terms, the translations imply a difference in the depth of meaning, even if slight; and the interpretive focus of the verse ties to this difference.
Based on the Greek text, the question centers on the lexical differences between the words translated “know” (γνῶτε) and “understand” (γινώσκητε). Surprise! There is no difference. The terms have the same root and the same range of meanings. The only variation is in the aspect (formerly called “tense”) of the verbs. The first word (γνῶτε) is an aorist subjunctive whereas the second (γινώσκητε) is a present subjunctive. The difference is not lexical but syntactical. The translations have misdirected the meaning of the text, its interpretation and application.
This problem has existed since the early days of the transmission of the New Testament. Recognizing that the words translated know and understand have the same lexical meaning, the copyists of many New Testament manuscripts exhibited a variety of alternative readings—various changes to the grammatical form of the second word, replacing “know” with “believe,” and even omitting the latter word entirely. Clearly a perceived tautology, a redundancy, appeared to exist in the text by these copyists (see Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 198). However, tautology would in fact exist if the two words in question represented the same grammatical form, but they do not. There is a difference in the syntax of the verbal aspects that can account for an understandable duplication of the lexical meaning and lead to a clearer translation and interpretation of the verse as written.
The syntactical differences reflect the different functions of the aorist and present aspects. The aorist is ingressive meaning an entrance into a state of knowing; the present is progressive meaning a continuing to know. Here is a translation option that captures the essence of the meaning, “in order that you may come to know and continue knowing,” or as Abbott suggests (referenced in A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 850), “John employs the two forms with great deliberateness of ‘knowing’ and the development of it.” The difference is between “beginning and continuing to know” and not on “knowing and understanding” implying greater depth of knowledge.
The problem with the translation cited is that it causes one to raise the wrong question about the meaning of the text—“What is the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding?’” And asking the wrong question may lead to a wrong interpretation—“The listeners need to think deeper.” And the wrong interpretation may lead to a faulty application suggesting that there is a deeper level of meaning in the text.
In this passage Jesus invites his antagonistic Jewish listeners to begin to know Him and “continue travelling with Him,” so to speak, in confirming the fact that “. . . the Father is in Me and I in the Father (NASB),” a statement of deity stemming from John 10:30. Sadly, their response to this invitation was to try to seize and destroy Him.
A contextually proper and contemporary application for this passage would be for skeptics of Jesus’ self-proclaimed deity to begin to know Him by reading the Gospel with an open mind, and to continue adding to their knowledge, evaluating the weight of all the accumulating evidences regarding Jesus’ statement of deity, “. . . the Father is in Me and I in the Father.”
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A Mosaic Ambiguity and A Translator’s Decision
Different understandings of passages in English Bibles are often based on different interpretations of the grammar of the text. Consider Deuteronomy 30:20 (italics mine):
“. . . by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life . . . .” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)
“. . . and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, . . .” (New International Version, NIV)
Pronouns stand “in place of nouns.” Consequently, a regular need for interpreters is to determine a pronoun’s antecedent, the noun it replaces. The NASB locates the antecedent for the Hebrew pronoun translated this (הוּא) in the preceding ideas of loving, obeying, and holding fast. The NIV traces the antecedent for the pronoun back to the word “LORD” and, therefore, replaces the pronoun in question with that word. Which interpretation is the more probable?
First, a Hebrew pronoun can legitimately have preceding ideas as antecedents. But the feminine pronoun is typically used (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, paragraph 135p). The pronoun in Deuteronomy 30:20 is masculine.
Second, a Hebrew pronoun generally agrees with its antecedent in gender and number (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, paragraph 145). Furthermore, for communicative clarity, a pronoun normally agrees with the nearest antecedent. Again, the pronoun in Deuteronomy 30:20 is masculine singular, and the nearest preceding antecedent is “him,” then “his,” and finally the noun “LORD.”
In this instance it appears that the NIV has the best reading based on the grammar. But is it the best interpretation in the context?
The context of the NASB translation is clearly on covenant obedience to God. Moses lays out the lifestyle that will insure national blessing. Verses 18-19 contain covenant language and support this view satisfactorily. On the other hand the NIV focuses on a personal relationship to God, the author of life and death and the blessings and curses imbedded in the covenant. Again, the contextual evidence is strong. Since both interpretations have contextual justification, the reading that also conforms closest to the grammar of the language must enjoy interpretive priority—in this instance the NIV.
By way of application, Moses draws primary attention to a spiritual connection with God, the Source of life and blessings, and secondarily to obedience to His covenant. To further the thought, it is possible to obey God’s rules without genuine spirituality. Isaiah 29:13 says as much and is quoted by Jesus speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, “You hypocrites!, Well did Isaiah prophecy about you saying, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Matthew 15:7). It would appear that a biblical principle exists: Genuine spirituality results in obedience to God’s will whereas mere obedience can exist apart from genuine spirituality.
“. . . by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life . . . .” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)
“. . . and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, . . .” (New International Version, NIV)
Pronouns stand “in place of nouns.” Consequently, a regular need for interpreters is to determine a pronoun’s antecedent, the noun it replaces. The NASB locates the antecedent for the Hebrew pronoun translated this (הוּא) in the preceding ideas of loving, obeying, and holding fast. The NIV traces the antecedent for the pronoun back to the word “LORD” and, therefore, replaces the pronoun in question with that word. Which interpretation is the more probable?
First, a Hebrew pronoun can legitimately have preceding ideas as antecedents. But the feminine pronoun is typically used (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, paragraph 135p). The pronoun in Deuteronomy 30:20 is masculine.
Second, a Hebrew pronoun generally agrees with its antecedent in gender and number (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, paragraph 145). Furthermore, for communicative clarity, a pronoun normally agrees with the nearest antecedent. Again, the pronoun in Deuteronomy 30:20 is masculine singular, and the nearest preceding antecedent is “him,” then “his,” and finally the noun “LORD.”
In this instance it appears that the NIV has the best reading based on the grammar. But is it the best interpretation in the context?
The context of the NASB translation is clearly on covenant obedience to God. Moses lays out the lifestyle that will insure national blessing. Verses 18-19 contain covenant language and support this view satisfactorily. On the other hand the NIV focuses on a personal relationship to God, the author of life and death and the blessings and curses imbedded in the covenant. Again, the contextual evidence is strong. Since both interpretations have contextual justification, the reading that also conforms closest to the grammar of the language must enjoy interpretive priority—in this instance the NIV.
By way of application, Moses draws primary attention to a spiritual connection with God, the Source of life and blessings, and secondarily to obedience to His covenant. To further the thought, it is possible to obey God’s rules without genuine spirituality. Isaiah 29:13 says as much and is quoted by Jesus speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, “You hypocrites!, Well did Isaiah prophecy about you saying, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Matthew 15:7). It would appear that a biblical principle exists: Genuine spirituality results in obedience to God’s will whereas mere obedience can exist apart from genuine spirituality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)