Shame, Philomela, you unbiblical liberal bird

"When we say 'built on common ground,' we mean that the Common English Bible is the result of collaboration between opposites: scholars working with average readers; conservatives working with liberals; teens working with retirees; men working with women; many denominations and many ethnicities coming together around the common goal of creating a vibrant and clear translation for 21st century readers, with the ultimate objective of mutually accomplishing God's overall work in the world."
-- Paul Franklyn, PhD, associate publisher for the Common English Bible

"All these are unpersuasive for the reasons given.  Yet Gorgias' exclamation to the swallow when she flew down and let go her droppings on him is in the best tragic manner:  he said, 'Shame on you, Philomela'; for if a bird did it there was no shame, but [it would have been] shameful for a maiden.  He thus rebuked the bird well by calling it what it once had been rather than what it now was."
-- Aristotle

If you know the story of Philomela in Greek mythology, then you know how she was raped and how her rapist cut her tongue out because she yelled out exclamations of protest and how tragically in the end the gods translated her into a swallow.  If you know the Greek language of Aristotle here in his Rhetoric (Bekker page 1406b line 18), then you know how he's calling Philomela a παρθενον /parthenon/ but how he's praising Gorgias for calling her a bird, or rather for calling this swallow a shameful Philomela, because she's pooped on him.  That's right. Aristotle himself is saying that Philomela is still a "parthenon" who [read between the lines here] pooped on the man who desired her ['Shame on you, Philomela, because you did this to a man before you were a bird and while you were still a virgin, conservatively speaking, before he transformed you into something else, you maiden.  How inappropriate of you.  How shameful of you'].  Yes, this can be subtle stuff.  And in our status quo world, so conservative and so man first, we should not read too much into these things.  And if you do, then shame on you for your protests.

If you know how male English translators care about this word, parthenon, especially when it's sacred, then you know that "conservatives" translate it "virgin" while their opposites, the "liberals," translate it "maiden."  If you pay attention to how the man Paul Franklyn divides the world, then you see his polar opposite binaries as follows:

"scholars" / "average readers"
"conservatives" / "liberals"
"teens" / "retirees"
"men" / "women"
"denominations" / "ethnicities"

Opposites, in this way of thinking, are distinct even if there can be something in common between them, some common ground below them.

"a bird pooping" / "a maiden dropping protests of No! No! No! No!"

In these binaries, very subtly, not all is equal between the opposites.  Notice, if you will, how the men ordering the opposites put the better one on the left of / the lesser one. 

"men" / "women"
"denominations" / "ethnicities"
"virgin as translation of παρθενος" / "maiden or young lady or young woman or (unmarried) girl as translation of παρθενος"

Now listen to the language, the ordering of pairs, from BBB blogger Wayne Leman in his recent post on the question of whether Franklyn's Common English Bible translation is "liberal" or not.  Leman is attempting to deconstruct the "conservative" / "liberal" binary.  Ironically, however, he re-constructs his own binary, with "liberal" as the still-botched category:

"Some conservatives consider translation of Hebrew almah in this verse [i.e., Isaiah 7:14] as 'young woman' instead of 'virgin' to be liberal. But is it, or does it actually reflect accurate biblical scholarship?"

"What you think might be a liberal translation of some verse may be shown to be an accurate translation, especially when you find other verses in the translation which continue to support whatever is your own theological viewpoint."

Did you see it?  Here it is:

"accurate biblical scholarship" / "liberal"

"an accurate translation" / "a liberal translation"

Of course, Leman is arguing that "young woman" (as the best English for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14) is an actual reflection of biblical scholarship that is accurate.  In opposition to that, for Leman, is the very same translation that is motivated by what would be liberal.

Commenter Joel Hoffman says something similar, quoting and with some nuance correcting Leman:

"I think everyone agrees that changing 'virgin' to 'young woman' for alma in Isaiah 7:14 is 'accurate biblical scholarship,' but the decision to prefer that scholarship over tradition is liberal."

Here, as a variation, Hoffman's binary pits what is good against what is (not "liberal" exactly but what is, rather, instead) botched "tradition":

"accurate biblical scholarship" / "tradition"

The point for both Leman and Hoffman is that which opposes "accurate biblical scholarship" is botched, is lesser, is "in-accurate" and "un-biblical" and "not scholarly."

The binary (i.e., that "either / or" division) is what allows men who know things to know them op-positionally.  And what comes first (i.e., on the left side of the pair in a left-to-right listing) is determined, actually pre-determined by them, to be naturally what's best.

---

So let's now look at how this works out in Bible translation.   Franklyn lists these binaries as opposites that must find common ground for his Common English Bible translation:

"men" / "women"
"denominations" / "ethnicities" 

When you look at the CEB team of translators (i.e., individuals on either side of his oppositions), what's interesting is how somebody like Adele Berlin on the team can neither be one of the men nor is actually able to be person of a Christian denomination.  Must Berlin, a woman, be the opposite of the men?  Is she, as not a member of a denomination, a person of some specific marked ethnicity?  Which one?  Is this a Christian / Jewish binary?

It's no secret that the problem in Bible translation with the words almah (עלמה) and pathenos (παρθενος) is the problem over whether the girl Mary (the mother of Jesus) was a virgin, or not, when these words are used.

How this seems to mirror Gorgias' and Aristotle's own tragic problem of whether Philomela is an ὄρνιθι /ornithi/ or a παρθένος /parthenos/.  One is appropriate and not shameful; the other is inappropriate, and shameful.


The Hebrew alma is in Isaiah 7:14.  So is the Greek pathenos in the earliest translation of Isaiah 7:14.  Whoever the maiden is that this scripture and that these words refer to might have been a virgin.  And the "young woman," as the common denominator CEB translation team has translated the Hebrew, might she be the prophesied Mary, the mother of Immanuel as Jesus, or not? 

The binary way of knowing the answer will not tolerate ambiguity.  Either she is, or not.  Either this is accurate, or not.  Either it is respectable, or it's shameful.

When we get to the New Testament, then we leave the Hebrew and have only the Greek.  Moreover, both in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of Luke, we have the story of the pregnant Mary not being "known" or "impregnated" by her man, her fiancé, her husband, Joseph.  In both stories, she is a virgin with child by the Holy Spirit.  So now, in these contexts, is the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) any less ambiguous than the Hebrew almah (עלמה) and its Greek translation the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) in Isaiah 7:14?  Do the stories of the virgin Mary require the Greek word to be translated unambiguously in Matthew 1:23 and in Luke 1:27?

Is one translation accurate, biblical, scholarly, respectable, and the other not?

I'll let you answer.  And to help, it may be interesting to see how various translators have translated the words:

the Hebrew almah (עלמה) as "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 - JPS, JPCT, RSV, NET, NEB, NABRE 2011, NAB 2011, The Inclusive Bible

the Hebrew almah (עלמה) as "the young woman is with child" and "a young woman who is pregnant" and "A girl who is presently a virgin" and "a young woman is now with child" and "young woman is pregnant" in Isaiah 7:14 - NRSV and Good News Translation and The Message and The Bible in Basic English and the Common English Bible

the Hebrew almah (עלמה) as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 - pretty much all the other translations

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "virgin" in LXX Isaiah 7:14 - Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, NETS by Moisés Silva

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "maiden" in Matthew 1:23 - Weymouth, Richmond Lattimore

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "the unmarried girl" in Matthew 1:23 - Ann Nyland

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "young woman" in Matthew 1:23 - Willis Barnstone

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "virgin" in Matthew 1:23 - pretty much all the other translations

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "young woman" in Luke 1:27 - The Inclusive Bible

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "the unmarried girl" in Luke 1:27 - Ann Nyland

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "virgin" in Luke 1:27 - pretty much all the other translations

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "girl" in Aristotle's Rhetoric - W. Rhys Roberts

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "young lady" in Aristotle's Rhetoric - J. H. Freese

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "maiden" in Aristotle's Rhetoric - George A. Kennedy

the Greek pathenos (παρθενος) as "virgin" in Aristotle's Rhetoric - anon, 1683

Is one translation accurate, biblical, scholarly, respectable, and the other not?

Would Jesus Discriminate?

This is the question posed by a controversial campaign of the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Metropolitan Community Churches. Some of my local friends who are all (presumably) straight have been arguing about it on Facebook. And Rod (who also lives here in DFW) wrote at his blog (Political Jesus) a helpful post (a questionable interpretation of Matthew 8:5-13?) to get at the issues. Last time I linked to Rodney's post, he made a couple of additional, useful comments - especially noting this: "There is a failure I think to examine all power dynamics present in the Matthew passage if Matthew 8:5-13 is just about Jesus affirming a relationship."

I think examining the power dynamics is always helpful. But I want to examine the power dynamics in the silences here. Aristotle would discriminate, and his logic does. Jesus's methods tend to do things very very differently. When you read Cheryl Glenn's careful research about the rhetorics of silence (Unspoken: A Rhetoric of Silence), you tend to think of Jesus also. When you read Krista Ratcliffe's recovery of rhetorical listening (in Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness and in other articles), you see how Aristotle explicitly left listening out of the methods of rhetorics that were common among Greeks before his famous formulation of the "science." So I think there's a contrast in power dynamics from the get-go, when one sets out to ask "Would Jesus Discriminate"? It's a rhetorical question followed up with "Then why should we?" The point is Jesus listened, and he was silent, at least as Matthew writes of and translates him. (Aristotle insisted on discrimination, and he insisted on authoring without a translator).

So let's come back to the text of Matthew 8:5-13 and to the question of interpretation of Greek words there. Three of the most interesting English translators of the New Testament are also classical Greek scholars, who hear the echoes of the ancients in the first century texts. I'm talking about Ann Nyland, Richmond Lattimore, and Willis Barnstone. (Nyland has actually worked with her publisher to package her translation and lexical commentary as a Study New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bi, And Transgender: With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning And Context). So, it's interesting to see how Nyland, Lattimore, and Barnstone translate the word παῖς (pais) into English from Matthew 5. They all translate the word as "servant." Lattimore actually hears echoes of intimacy and in one sentence has the Roman officer saying, "my son."

The thing I want to stress is that Matthew is translating! Perhaps the Roman officer is speaking Greek in this bit of history; but even if he is, Matthew's Jesus doesn't typically speak Greek aloud but rather speaks Hebrew Aramaic which Matthew renders for readers into Greek. The phrase "ὁ παῖς μου" (in 8:6 and 8:8) is a quotation of the Roman officer by Matthew, a likely translation - with Matthew making his own story teller's note (in 8:13) with his conclusion (to what Jesus affirmed) that "his servant" (i.e., "ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ") was healed then.

The important thing to note in Matthew's translating is that he, the Greek-language storyteller and translator, does not discriminate. Matthew is rather like Anne Carson when she translates the poetry fragments of Sappho into English from Greek. Carson first notes how much so many have made discriminations about the sexual orientation of the one whom Plato called the "tenth muse"; Carson says (on page xi of the Preface to If not, winter):

Controversies about her personal ethics and way of life have taken up a lot of people's time throughout the history of Sapphic scholarship. It seems that she knew and loved women as deeply as she did music. Can we leave the matter there? As Gertrude Stein says:

She ought to be a very happy woman. Now we are able to recognize a photograph. We are able to get what we want."

The translator, Carson says, does not discriminate. And she goes on (on page xii) to acknowledge her translator "principle that Walter Benjamin calls 'the intention toward language' of the original'." She says that he says:

The task of the translator consists in finding that intended effect upon the language into which he is translating which produces in it the echo of the original. . . . Unlike a work of literature, translation does not find itself in the center of the language forest but on the outside; it calls into it without entering, aiming at that single spot where the echo is able to give, in its own language, the reverberation of the work in the alien one.

The translator, Carson says, does not discriminate but reverberates.

Matthew translating reverberates. He echoes the sentiments of the Roman officer of the first century. He echoes Jesus's own reverberations of the original sentiments of this man and his servant, his son.

When Sheep Don't Need Sex: More Wordplay in Matthew

Below is my translating of Matthew's storytelling and translating.  I've put in brackets the original Greek words that translate some of the original Hebrew words along with those even more original Hebrew words.  Of course, the spoken language Matthew translates mostly was probably Hebrew Aramaic; and yet not all of this story is spoken language, is it?  (Suzanne gets us listening to the words of Syriac Aramaic in a related post.)

The protagonist of Matthew's Greek story and translation is the protagonist who questions the readings of his antagonists.  There is text in this oral story, then.  The word for "reading" in Greek, of course, is a play on the word for "knowing"; it literally means to "know from above."  The protagonist knows some of the high holy Hebrew scriptures from God above, and he quotes a bit of it back to the antagonists.  They seem hung up on how he reads the Torah Law, and how it relates to the healing of a mortal human being.

With my translating, what I'm trying to show is Matthew's clever wordplay, his poetry perhaps, and his rhetoric really.  Observe the contrasts and interplay between the words for God, for mortal humans, and for sheep.  This wordplay starts in verse 3 perhaps and really in verse 8.

Observe:   we get from Matthew neither the sex of the sheep nor the gender of the mortal human whose hand is healed.

This post is following on a few others earlier, which I've linked here.  Unfortunately, most of the discussion around Matthew 12 so far has ignored the beginning of Matthew's story and the start of his wordplay there.

Here goes:

---------

1  At that time, during Sabbath [Σάββατόν / שַׁבָּתֹ], Joshua [Ἰησοῦς / יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ] went through the grainfields.

Then, his apprentices were hungry and were beginning to pluck and to eat the stalks.  2 Then, the observing Separtists [Φαρισαῖοι /פרושים ] said to him:

Look at what your apprentices are doing.

This is not to be done during Sabbath [Σάββατόν / שַׁבָּתֹ].

3 Then, he said to them:

This is not known by your reading [ἀν-έγνωτε], is it?  What you’re saying is not known by your reading of what David [Δαυίδ / דָּוִיד] did when he was hungry, is it?  4  Or how he, and those with him too, went into the house of God [οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ /בֵּית אֱלֹהִים], and ate the showbread of the presence [ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως /לֶחֶם]?  This is not to be done by him?  Nor by those with him?  This is not to be done if not by the Priests [ἱερεῖς / הַכֹּהֲנִים] alone?

5 What you’re saying is not known by your reading [ἀν-έγνωτε] of Torah Law [Νόμος / תֹּורָה] either, is it?  During Sabbath [Σάββατόν / שַׁבָּתֹ] the Priests [ἱερεῖς / הַכֹּהֲנִים] in the Temple [ἱερος / הֵיכַל] defile Sabbath [Σάββατόν / שַׁבָּתֹ] and are innocent [ἀναίτιος /נָקִי], right?

Here, then, is a statement for you all:

6 “What’s greater than the Temple [ἱερος / הֵיכַל] is here.”

7 If you, then, had known [ἐγνώκειτε] what this is --

“It’s mercy I wish for and not sacrifice.”

[Ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν

/ כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא־זָבַח]

If you, then, had known [ἐγνώκειτε] what this is -- then there should not have you’re your judging condemnation [κατε-δικάσατε] of the innocent [ἀναίτιος /נָקִי].

8 The Master of Sabbath … is the offspring of a mortal human

[τοῦ Σαββάτου … ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

/ אֱנָש.ׁבַר … שַׁבָּתֹ]

9 Afterwards, he went from there into their Synagogue [συν·αγωγή / עֵדָֽה].

10 So observe:

There was a mortal human [ἄνθρωπος] who had a mangled hand.

They asked him about it - making this statement -

Is it to be done? 

to heal during Sabbath [Σάββατόν / שַׁבָּתֹ]?

They asked him this in order to accuse him.

11 Then he said to them:

Among all you mortal humans [ἄνθρωπος] there is someone who has just one sheep [πρόβατον ἕν / כִּבְשָׂה אַחַת קְטַנָּה].  Should it fall during Sabbath [Σάββατόν / שַׁבָּתֹ] into a pit, would that someone not grab it and lift it out?

12 How much more, then, would you carry a mortal human [ἄνθρωπος] than you would a sheep?

Thus, it is good [καλῶς / טֹוב] during Sabbath [Σάββατόν / שַׁבָּתֹ] to do this.

13 That’s when he made this statement to the mortal human [ἄνθρωπος]:

Put out you hand

 [Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου / שְׁלַח יָֽדְךָ]

And the hand was put out there, and it was restored, healthy as the other one.

14 So, the Separtists [Φαρισαῖοι /פרושים ] left and took council together to destroy him.

of sheep and men: overlooking wordplay in translation

There's an interesting discussion on translation with respect to gender inclusiveness and the Bible.  First, the background on the problem.  Then a look at a couple of translator's brilliant wordplay in the text in question.

-----

BACKGROUND

In his post "On Translation and Explanation," Joel M. Hoffman takes the TNIV and the Message bible translations to task for "explanation" but "not a translation."  Then Peter Kirk defends the TNIV and takes Joel to task for his explanation about the "original text."

The point of issue is whether Matthew the gospel writer means "a man" (which Joel says is the real "translation") or "a human being" or "people" (which Joel says is the seeming "explanation" of the TNIV and the Message respectively).

Peter suggests that Joel is seeing the original as meaning "only male human beings, not female ones"; Gary Zimmerli had also suggested the gender question in his comment here, saying "I think the [TNIV] translators don’t want to leave the door open to the idea that a woman may be less valuable."

The discussion is around Matthew 12, especially verses 10-12, especially in TNIV.

-------

TWO TRANSLATOR'S BRILLIANT WORDPLAY TRANSLATIONS

Below, you'll see how two brilliant translators work here.  The issues of whether the speakers, writers, translators, listeners, and readers get it should be clear.  What there is to get is how gods and humans are in contrast; and how humans and sheep are in contrast.  The larger context of the wordplay is something that both Joel and Peter have overlooked.  Matthew is emphasizing and is having Jesus emphasize who he is, as a human.

First, Ann Nyland translates [my italics added]:

10 There was a person who had a withered hand!...

11 This was Jesus' response.  

"Let's say one of you [persons] had a sheep.... "

12 "Isn't a person worth more than a sheep?...  "

13 Then he said to the person,...

In a footnote, Nyland also says [her italics below]:

...ἄνθρωπος, anthropos, is the word for human, humanity, person.  Grammatically, it is the common gender and not the masculine.

Both Nyland's translation and her explanation are just fine, don't you think?  [Note: she elides the word in v 11, as my bracket above notes].  Her translation doesn't have to explain, and Matthew's Greek doesn't either.

Second, then, I'm bringing up Matthew here because, very likely, he's also translating.  His Greek plays with words.

The fact is that we do not know what Jesus said in Hebrew Aramaic.  Matthew translates that to Greek.  Our best guess is that Jesus was referring to himself as בר אנש (bar 'anash).  So Matthew, in 12.8, makes that ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (which gets readers thinking perhaps of the aramaic of Daniel 7.13 or of its Greek translation in the Septuagint or both). 

Matthew wastes little ink before getting right into wordplay as he introduces a story about Jesus and as he translates a story-parable Jesus tells within the story.  You don't even have to read Greek to see the repetition of the word ἄνθρωπος, anthropos:

8 Κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 

9 Καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν. 

10 Καὶ ἰδού, ἄνθρωπος ἦν τὴν χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν· καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτόν, λέγοντες, 

Εἰ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεύειν;

 ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ.

11Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, 

Τίς ἔσται ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἕξει πρόβατον ἕν, καὶ ἐὰν ἐμπέσῃ τοῦτο τοῖς σάββασιν εἰς βόθυνον, οὐχὶ κρατήσει αὐτὸ καὶ ἐγερεῖ;

12 Πόσῳ οὖν διαφέρει ἄνθρωπος προβάτου. Ὥστε ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν καλῶς ποιεῖν.

13 Τότε λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, 

Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου. Καὶ ἐξέτεινεν, καὶ ἀποκατεστάθη ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη.

At this point, we're curious to see how Nyland translated verse 8, aren't we?  Well, it's masterful!  She is translating Matthew translating Jesus, as follows:

8 "... The Human Being is the Master of the Sabbath!" 

Nyland also offers a wonderful explanations in a footnote.  Here they are:

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ho huios tou anthropou, meaning a person associated with humanity, a translation of bar nasha, an Aramaic periphrasis for "person," would be read word for word as "one associated with humanity" (as non-gender specific language and "humanity" in the singular.  However, bar nasha means one associated with people", "a person", "the person", "humanity", "the representative person".

υἱὸς, huios, with a noun refers to a member of a class of people, and should not be translated as "son/child of".  The Benai Israel, translated in the KJV as "children/sons of Israel" should be translated as "members of the class of people called Israel" = "Israelites".  The expression is also Greek, and found as early as Homer.  Note also that ἄνθρωπος, anthropos, is the word for human, humanity, person.  Grammatically, it is the common gender and not the masculine.

 What are your thoughts about how Matthew translates Jesus and how Ann Nyland translates Matthew?