Classics Greek Scholars translate Ephesians 5

------------------------

"... and subordinating yourselves to each other in awe of Christ.  Wives should subordinate themselves to their husbands as to the Lord."

   -- Richmond Lattimore

------------------------

"   Be submissive to each other in awe and fear of the Mashiah.

Husbands, wives, and rules of the household
    Wives, submit to your husbands as to the lord.*

*Few passages have aroused more controversy and ire, on both sides, than these instructions about wives and husbands. As an apology for the commanding position of the husband, it is argued that there is a reciprocal agreement of responsibility that affects both husband and wife, especially with regard to love and loyalty. However, in the end [by this "complementarian" argument] the wife must obey her husband, and given his CEO position (financial images, from wages to redemption are favorite metaphors in New Testament persuasion), there is no question [in the minds of "complementarians"] where ultimate authority lies: 'Wives, submit to your husbands as to the lord.' ...

Between the initial and end verses that prescribe a wife's position in the household, it should be seen [contra the hierarchical argument] that there is also a core of idealized love between man and woman, with emphasis on the mystery of caring for person and flesh. After the diatribe against ill use of the body, an idealized love appears immediately in verses 31-32, ending with 'This is a great mystery.' However, the author immediately catches himself and warns inconsolably in verse 33, 'and a wife should be in awe and fear of her husband.'"

   -- Willis Barnstone

------------------------

"... while you are supporting one another out of love and respect for the Anointed One, wives, with your own husbands, as with the Lord.*

*ὑποτασσω, hupotasso, support. The oft-quoted verse, "Wives, submit to your husbands" does not occur in any known Greek text, yet has made its way into nearly every Bible version. The word, erroneously appearing as an imperative (in verse 22 where no verb appears), is in fact a participle and is in verse 21: 'supporting one another'. Even if mistranslated [in this context as] 'submitting', it would be 'submitting to one another'...."

   -- Ann Nyland

------------------------

Of all three scholars, Nyland is the one whose English translation follows the Greek syntax and phrasing in such a way that the participial verbal ὑποτασσω, hupotasso, is part of a subordinate clause running down from an important main-clause imperative right through to expectations of one positioning oneself to one's others, under those others, always keeping the holy spirit and Jesus and God-as-Master in view.  The main verbs for Paul and his readers in Ephesus are further away from the "submit" verbal, the commanding imperatives much much earlier in what we call verse 18.  These main verbs are a negative and a positive put in contrast well before the subordinating verbs.  So pardon my pun, my looking at how subordinate is submitted below what's truly more important, start to finish:

μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ,
ἐν ᾧ ἐστὶν ἀσωτία,
ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε
ἐν πνεύματι,
...
ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις
ἐν φόβῳ χριστοῦ
αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν
ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ

"Don't be intoxicated with wine,
in a way that's unsavory,
Do instead be filled up
in Spirit...

positioning oneself under one's others
in fearful awe of Messiah
the women to their own men
as to Master."

The phrasing is clearly ambiguous, allowing the Greek reader and the English translator to interpret according to his or her own viewpoint.   Where one breaks the section headers, the verses, the sentences, the clauses, and the phrases matters.  Whether one sees women as inherently and naturally equal ontologically and functionally with men matters.

In Viet Nam, when I grew up there, left handers were seen as naturally and inherently inferior to right handers.  Get this; lefties were ontologically equal with righties.  But, functionally, they were not equal.  Hence, left handers were not accommodated in the school classrooms.  Left handers had to sit in desks made for right handers.  Left handers had to hold their pencils and chalk in their right hands to write.  This  was actually prescribed in the school code and also in the culture.  If you were born a lefty, as all of my siblings were, then nothing else about you mattered; you had to submit yourself to the right handers and their world.  When my mother started teaching my siblings and me, however, she threw these rules right out.  She was our schoolmaster.  We submitted ourselves to new rules that allowed for my siblings to learn to write with their left hands.  There was a new school code of freedom for each and all of us.  None of us could  feel or act superior to the other because of which hand we used naturally.  Turns out, one of my sibs found out he was ambidextrous.  The point?  Our new school master made all the difference, gave new freedom, didn't give room for superiority because of default or majority biology.

Jesus Identified with Women around Wayne Grudem

"The way [Wayne] Grudem has always understood that text ... so clearly excludes me [a woman] from being one of those [mortal humans that] Jesus came to identify with."

     --Kristen

"We can look at some examples of these changes from the 1984 NIV to the 2002 TNIV.

NIV Hebrews 2:6 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
TNIV Hebrews 2:6 What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

What's wrong? The TNIV removes the possibility of connecting this verse with Jesus, who called himself 'the Son of Man.' It mistranslates the singular Greek words huios ('son') and anthropos ('man'). It no longer refers to the human race as a unity named 'man' (the name given by God in Gen. 5:2), but 'mere mortals.' This adds the idea of mortality that is not in the Greek text. (Note that man as created by God was not mortal, and this passage has creation language in it.) But the TNIV's goal has been achieved: The male-oriented details are erased."
     -- Wayne

Kristen reads what Wayne wrote.  She gets us all wondering whether the text of the Bible has Jesus identified with women as much as with men, whether Jesus is identified in the Bible as a mortal, a mere human being.

Wayne is dead set against the TNIV, saying it "mistranslates" Hebrews 2:6.  Is his "understanding" justified?  Where does he leave women around him in relation to his Jesus, a Jesus whom he understands does not have any "idea of mortality" and, more importantly, does have each and every one of his "male-oriented details" intact and emphasized?

Let's look first at a couple of really good translations by a couple of really good translators on this verse.  Then, second, let's look at the original languages again.  Then, third, let's come back to the NIV 1984 translation and the TNIV; finally, we'll come to the NIV 2011.

-----

First, here is how Richmond Lattimore and Ann Nyland translate Hebrews 2:6.  Both of these translators know their Greek very well.

Richmond has this (and I'm using bold font the way Wayne does to mark certain words):

What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you consider him?

Ann has this (and I'm still using the bold font):

What is humanity that you remember it, or the Human Being that you visit him?

The translations are quite different.  Has one mistranslated?  No.  Has Ann just liberally added "the idea of mortality that is not in the Greek text"?  Has she erased the "male-oriented details"?  No and no.

Richmond is sticking with a more traditional English for his translation of the Bible.  He's following the English of the KJV.  But please notice that he uses other, different English for his translation of Homer's Iliad.  He uses "mortal men" and "mortals" and "humanity" and "human people" for the plural of anthropos; this is not a mistranslation.  Likewise, Richmond uses of "child" and "children" for huios; this also is also not a mistranslation.  Richmond's English is not adding "the idea of mortality that is not in the Greek text."  That idea of mortals and of mortality really is already in the Greek text of Homer.   Similarly, Richmond is not erasing the "male-oriented details" of the children in the Greek text.  Let's look:

In his time two generations of mortal men had perished, (1.250)

But the gods give to mortals not everything at the same time; (4.320)

his heart out, skulking aside from the trodden track of humanity.  (6.202)

as is natural for human people, between men and women. (9.134)

Askalaphos led these, and Ialmenos, children of Ares, (2.512)

children of Euenos, king, and son of Selepios. (2.693)


child of Iphikles, who in turn was son to Phylakos (2.705)

Next he killed two children of Dardanian Priam (5.159)

So Richmond is free to translate the Greek text without adding and without erasing anything.  For Hebrews 2:6, he's decided to stick with the old traditional English he finds in the King James Version.  However, he could have translated that this way, the way he correctly translates Homer's Iliad again and again.  (If anyone wants, I'll also show more examples from his translation of Homer's Odyssey.)

Richmond would have had no problem correctly rendering Hebrews 2:6 like this:

What is humanity, that you are mindful of it, or the child of a mortal, that you consider him or her?

Now let's go back to Ann's English for the Greek.  But let's go first to how she correctly goes back to the Psalms.  She's noticing in her translation of Hebrews 2:6 how the writer is quoting the Psalms, either Psalms 8:4-5 or Psalms 144:3 or both.  When Ann translates this, that is, when she translates Psalms 8:4-5 and Psalms 144:3, she looks at both the Greek and also the Hebrew.  The Psalms are also in Greek because of a very early translation of them from Hebrew into this Hebraic Hellene.  The Greek writer of Hebrews is quoting from this Greek translation of the Hebrew Psalms.  So let's look at how Ann translates these Psalms from the Hebrew and from the Greek into English:

what is the humankind, that you should notice them, human beings, that you should pay attention to them? and make them a little less than the elohim?  You crown mankind with honor and significance.

Yahweh, what is the human race, that you should notice them, humankind, that you should be concerned about them?

Notice how Ann is not mistranslating.  She is not adding mortality, not erasing male-oriented details.  She is letting the psalmist sing as in the Hebrew and as in its Greek translation.  The idea of humanity, of humankind, of human beings, of the human race, is already in the text before translation.  And the gender neutrality is already there in the original languages.  And so, in Hebrews 2:6, Ann is letting the writer of Hebrews quote the Psalms this gender inclusive way.  She's letting the Bible speak of Jesus in a gender neutral way, in a way that includes women and men, females and males, girls and boys.  The Psalmist and the writer of Hebrews, like Homer too, are all making distinctions between God and humans, between immortal divinity and mortal humanity.  Richmond Lattimore and Ann Nyland do well to let the original language writers be inclusive for the human beings.

-----

Second, now, let's look at the original languages again.

Here's the original in Hebrews:

Τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος [anthrōpos, mortal human, gender neutral man]
ὅτι μιμνῄσκη αὐτοῦ,
ἢ υἱὸς [huios child, son]
ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou, mortal human's]
ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν;

Here's the original Greek translation of the Hebrew [and the Hebrew] of the two Psalms quoted by the writer of Hebrews:

τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος [anthrōpos, mortal human, gender neutral man] [אנוש, 'ĕnôsh, properly a mortal, man, person, mankind]
ὅτι μιμνῄσκῃ αὐτοῦ 

ἢ υἱὸς [huios child, son] [בן, ben, son, grandson, child, member of a group, children (pl. - male and female)]

ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou, mortal human's] [אדם 'adam, person, human, man, Adam]
ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν; 

κύριε τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος [anthrōpos, mortal human] [אדם 'adam, person, human, man, Adam]
ὅτι ἐγνώσθης αὐτῷ 

ἢ υἱὸς [huios child, son] [בן, ben, son, grandson, child, member of a group, children (pl. - male and female)]

ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou, mortal human's] [אנוש, ''ĕnôsh, properly a mortal, man, person, mankind]
ὅτι λογίζῃ αὐτόν

Notice how the Hebrew words for mortals, for humans, in Psalm 8:4 are reversed in Psalm 144:3.  But notice how the Greek translation of both words is always the same word for human beings in the two Psalms.  But really notice how both the Hebrew and its Greek translation, and its Greek quotation by the writer of Hebrews, all have the sense of mortality, of humanity, and the inclusion of males-and-females without the male-only detail.

-----

Third, now, let's look at the NIV translations again.  They do what the Greek and the Hebrew do.  When you read the original languages of the Bible, then you can see how, in many ways, in fact, the TNIV and the NIV 2011 are improvements over the NIV 1984.

NIV 1984 Hebrews 2:6 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 

TNIV Hebrews 2:6 What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

NIV 2011 Hebrews 2:6  What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?

NIV 1984 Psalm 8:4  what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

TNIV Psalm 8:4  what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

NIV 2011 Psalm 8:4  what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?  [footnote: Or what is a human being that you are mindful of him, / a son of man that you care for him?]

NIV 1984 Psalm 144:3  O LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?

TNIV Psalm 144:3  LORD, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?

NIV 2011 Psalm 144:3  LORD, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?

-----

Could it be that Wayne Grudem and the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are relying only on Bible translations that are only gender accurate when they exclude women and when they only include "male-oriented details'?

Could it be that the writer of Hebrews has identified the really biblical Jesus with mortal human beings, both men and women, in ways that really go around what Wayne prefers?

Yes, it could be.

cheering or groaning? laughing or laboring towards liberty?

There are lots of ways to look at the Earth and earthquakes.  In an earlier post today, I looked at how the Bible (at least I Maccabees in Greek and in English translation) shows mother Earth as sympathetic and empathetic.

Then, similarly, there's what Paul writes to Romans (in Greek, for which I'll also supply some great English translations below).  Paul, we all know, was an earthquake survivor, was actually literally liberated by this act of God.  More on that in a moment.

But first, here's what an American radio talk-show host says to his audience.  Notice how he's assuming that "the quake and subsequent tsunami" are to be viewed as a vengeful act.  Notice how he's saying that "Gaia" (i.e., Mother Earth) mocks and "just wipes out" the Japanese, to spite them:

"On his Friday [March 11, 2011] show, Rush Limbaugh wondered if environmentalists will 'cheer' the earthquake in Japan, since the quake and subsequent tsunami hit the region of the country that thrives on car manufacturing."

"Rush Limbaugh laughed about Japanese refugees recycling after the earthquake that struck the country on his Tuesday [March 15] show.... 'They've given us the Prius. Even now, refugees are recycling their garbage.' Here, he began to laugh, continuing, 'and yet, Gaia levels them! Just wipes them out!'"

Now here's the contrast to Rush Limbaugh.  It's Bible, and not just the turn-or-pay preacher's Bible either.

Here's the Bible showing Mother Earth to be our mother, showing her quakes to be labors toward our liberty.

Here's the Jewish Paul writing to men and women living in the capital city of the Jew-mocking Roman empire.  I'm giving you a few English translations because the translators, without some committee weakening the force, were able to render the Greek in some powerful ways, fitting for the noted events:

... ἐφ’ ἑλπίδι ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ. Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν. Οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες, ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν, υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν.
....--Paul

We know that all creation groans. Till now
It suffers labor pains, and not only creation
Aches but we too, the first fruits of the spirit,
Groan and in eagerness wait for adoption
And for the redemption of our bodies.
....--Willis Barnstone (translating Paul)

Yet there was the hope that creation itself also would be set free from slavery to decay, and have the glorious freedom of God's children. We know that all creation keeps sighing deeply together and is in birthing pains together up to the present time. Not only that, but also we ourselves who have the Spirit given to us as the first offering, we also keep sighing deeply within ourselves looking forward to our adoption, that is, the setting free of our body.
....--Ann Nyland (translating Paul)

... but there is hope, because this world will be set free from slavery to decay into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.  For we know that the whole world groans and is in labor together, until now; not only that, but even we who have some foretaste of the Spirit also groan within ourselves as we await adoption and the redemption of the body.
....--Richmond Lattimore (translating Paul)

... in hope, That also the creation itself be freed from servitude of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that all creation groans together and travails together until now. And not only, but also they having the first fruits of the Spirit, and we ourselves groan in ourselves, waiting for adoption as a son, the redemption of our body.
....--Julia Evelina Smith (translating Paul)

And here's the Jewish physician Luke, for his friend, Theo-Philus, making a record of how an act of God actually freed Paul's body, how an earthquake liberated not only Paul but also other prisoners and even one of the imperial prison wardens:

ἄφνω δὲ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας, ὥστε σαλευθῆναι τὰ θεμέλια τοῦ δεσμωτηρίου· ἠνεῴχθησαν δὲ παραχρῆμα αἱ θύραι πᾶσαι, καὶ πάντων τὰ δεσμὰ ἀνέθη.
....--Luke, at the onset of this act of God, this liberating earthquake

Suddenly there was an earthquake so great that it shook the foundations of the prison, and all the doors came open and everyone's chains came loose.
....--Willis Barnstone (translating Luke)

Suddenly there was such a major earthquake, that the foundations of the prison were rendered unstable! Immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains became loose.
....--Ann Nyland (translating Luke)

and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken, and all the doors came open, and the chains fell off all of them.
....--Richmond Lattimore (translating Luke)

And suddenly was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and the bonds of all were let loose.
....--Julia Evelina Smith (translating Luke)

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.

sounds of Good Friday

Reb Joshua ben Joseph speaks Greek. At least, his students have him speaking Hellene - a translating of his Hebrew Aramaic. (He, of course, to English speaking Christians today is "Jesus").

Mark, a student recording his last days, comments and says he says the following on that good Friday in the garden he calls Oil-Press (גת שמנא Gethsemane):

καὶ ἤρξατο ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι καὶ ἀδημονεῖν.
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου·

Greek scholar Richmond Lattimore renders Mark's rendering as this:

"and then he began to be shaken and distressed
and he said: My soul is in anguish to the point of death."

But maybe Mark is just talking around what he said more or less directly. Maybe there were things he said too painful to record in Greek letters.

Maybe there are ways the Greeks in pain would say it differently. Like this; listen:

ὀτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ!

"Oh shame upon the earth!" renders Lattimore. And he goes on to identify who's speaking to whom (Cassandra to Apollo): Ὦπολλον Ὦπολλον. "Apollo Apollo!"

but one who seems to hear, to hear and feel the excruciating pain of abandonment and its anticipation, has no good words, no wordy translation of the utterances the gutterances. Here's Anne Carson's rendering, her Englishing of the cries, the expressions of profound distresses. (Carson, of course, is also a Greek language expert with some difference to listen to; and hers "isn't your parents'" translation, says Kat Balkoski). Listen:

"OTOTOI POPOI DA! Apollo! O!pollo! Woepollo! O!"

We're left wondering, then, what if on that good Friday he'd taken (instead of men) with him to the garden the women close to him. First, would they have abandoned him the way the men, and his father, do? Second, would they have heard him differently? And would Anne Carson translate for us (either Joshua/Jesus or Mark or that woman hearing, feeling, and translating with Joshua)? And would we hear?

ὀτοτοτοῖ πόποι δᾶ!