Sheep and Goats

Category: Bible

  • Principles of Bible Translation: Matthew 5:3

    Most translations of the Bible are pretty accurate. Or, perhaps a better way to put it is that the differences between them are so minuscule to the overall picture that you can be reliably guided in your relationship with God by any one of them.

    In general, the more modern the translation, the more accurate it is. This is not because modern translators are smarter. It is because they have more to work with. Archeologists continually discover new things in their digs. This includes ancient biblical manuscripts. Sometimes they are complete works. Sometimes they are but fragments of a page. The more of these you have to compare and contrast, the better your final product will be. 

    view of the ancient city of myra demre turkey
    Photo by Ahmet Çığşar on Pexels.com

    That is why the King James Bible, for example, is not as accurate as more modern translations. It is not because its authors lacked integrity. They were brilliant and, to this day, the translation is unequalled with regard to literary expression. Countless idioms it introduced have become common phrasing, ‘skin of one’s teeth,’ for example. But the manuscript backing is nowhere near as extensive as modern versions have to draw on. Plus, more recent discoveries show that, in a few cases, errors had crept in to the texts as they were handed down—copied and recopied and recopied again. It happens. That’s why, for example, the Gospel of Mark ends with verses that modern translations do not include, or if they do they flag them as disputed.

    One hesitates to recommend AI, because people start citing its answers in their entirety and the thread gets so long and cumbersome that nobody can plow through it. But, as a research tool of your own, there’s a place for it. It is rapidly becoming a far more powerful tool than Wikipedia, which itself replaced encyclopedias

    Therefore, for any given scripture, enter renderings from different translations, in this case the NWT (since that is the most commonly asked about here) vs whatever you are comparing it to—KJV, NIV, NAB, whatever, and ask for the rationale behind both. Don’t phrase it in terms of one being right and one being wrong. Just ask what considerations have gone into translating to justify whatever differences you see. 

    Doing this will eliminate the conspiratorial suspicion that so many have, that one party or the other is trying to “change” scripture. You will get a sense of what moves one translation to differ from another and yet both be acceptable.

    For example: Explain the different of translation at Matthew 5:3. The NWT says ‘Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.’ Most translations render it as ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit.’ Why the difference?

    Many times I have discussed with this or that person at the door how we each have a spiritual need, but that does not mean we are conscious of it. It can be likened to vitamins. No one goes around feeling a hunger for vitamins, yet without them, one gets sick and never quite knows why. Therefore, it’s well if people make themselves conscious of their need for vitamins—which usually comes just from normal diet, but it you’ve fallen into a weird or deficient one, you might not be getting enough.

    Spiritual need is like that, too. People have it. They are not necessarily conscious of it.

    But it’s hard to explain this from any other translation because most say, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” What’s with that?

    Here is where AI becomes very helpful. Enter the verse in two different translations. Without stating that one is right and one is wrong, ask it to explain the difference. When I tried this with Matthew 5:3, it returned: (everything that follows is from ChatGPT. I tried the same in Grok, the X version (formerly Twitter) and got similar results):

    Matthew 5:3 in Greek reads:

    μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι

    (makárioi hoi ptōchoì tō pneúmati)

    A fairly literal word-for-word gloss is:

    • μακάριοι (makarioi) – blessed, happy, fortunate

    • οἱ πτωχοί (hoi ptōchoi) – the poor, the destitute

    • τῷ πνεύματι (tō pneumati) – in spirit

    So, literally:

    “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

    That’s why most translations render it that way.

    ⸻

    2. What does “poor in spirit” mean?

    In first-century Jewish thought, “poor” (πτωχός) was not just economic. It often meant:

    • humble

    • aware of one’s dependence on God

    • lacking spiritual self-sufficiency

    Examples:

    • Psalm 34:18 – “the brokenhearted”

    • Isaiah 66:2 – “the humble and contrite in spirit”

    So “poor in spirit” does not mean spiritually weak or deficient, but rather:

    those who recognize their need for God

    ⸻

    3. Why the NWT translates it differently

    The New World Translation (NWT) says:

    “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.”

    This is not a literal translation, but an interpretive (dynamic) translation. The translators chose to:

    1. Explain the meaning rather than preserve the idiom

    2. Avoid a phrase (“poor in spirit”) that modern readers might misunderstand as:

    • spiritually inadequate

    • lacking faith

    • morally weak

    In effect, the NWT translates the interpretation:

    “poor in spirit” = aware of one’s spiritual need

    Neither rendering is grammatically wrong, but they serve different purposes:

    • “Poor in spirit” preserves Jesus’ original phrasing and biblical imagery

    • “Conscious of their spiritual need” spells out what the phrase means

    ⸻

    5. Is anything “added” in the NWT?

    The phrase “conscious of” is not explicitly in the Greek, so critics rightly say the NWT is interpretive here.

    However, the concept is strongly supported by:

    • Jewish background

    • Old Testament usage

    • The context of humility and dependence in the Beatitudes

    So the issue is not accuracy vs. inaccuracy, but:

    literal translation vs. explanatory paraphrase

    ⸻

    6. Bottom line

    • Greek text: “Blessed are the poor in spirit”

    • Meaning: Those who humbly recognize their dependence on God

    • NWT choice: Translate the meaning instead of the idiom

    If you want:

    • Closer to Jesus’ words → “poor in spirit”

    • Closer to Jesus’ meaning (as interpreted) → “conscious of their spiritual need”

    [end of AI. Back to me]:

    It may be a bad precedent to cite AI. I’ve seen threads where everyone starts doing it, and they get so long nobody can plow through them. But explaining the difference in translation for any given verse seems to me a fine use of it. One can read human comments over the differences of rendering this or that verse and get the sense the one commenting knows little about translating. If you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over all the AI part. In fact, if you’re not interested in the verse, just skip over the entire post. AI just adds detail if you want it to.

    ******  The bookstore

  • An Increased Focus on Jesus

    There are times when I think that if Jehovah’s Witnesses would simply modify their schedule of congregation Bible reading, that in itself would go a long way towards muzzling accusations that they don’t do Jesus. They certainly do. How anyone can make that charge is beyond me, yet there are those that continually make it.

    Just modify the Bible reading schedule. For as long as I can remember, probably always, Jehovah’s Witnesses have worked their way through the Bible, a few chapters at a time, at each mid-week meeting. Reach the end of Revelation and start in again at Genesis. This means they are only 20% within the New Testament, for 20% is all the NT comprises of the overall Bible.

    pink pencil on open bible page and pink
    Photo by John-Mark Smith on Pexels.com

    We ARE living at the time the New Testament is in effect. We ARE living at the time that Jesus rules as king. Maybe change the focus of the weekly Bible reading to better reflect that, maybe make it something like: Pentateuch, the NT, the wisdom chapters of the OT, the NT, the prophets, NT, and so forth, making the ratio more 50/50. Even trimming the 80/20 (OT/NT) to 66/33 would help.

    Nah, I don’t think it will ever happen, or even that it would be a good idea. Who would want to take responsibility for skipping over any part of the “all Scripture” which is “written for our instruction?” Nor would that change placate the “Jesus IS God” people. It will probably be 80/20 Genesis-through-Revelation for the duration of this system of things. But who knows? Every once in a while, the teaching program of meetings is adjusted. Maybe this one too will happen someday.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Come Now and Let Us Reason Together

    “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.” It was M.D. Craven’s favorite Bible quote. Or at least, he sure did use it a lot. I can hear him now. “Come now, and let us reason together,” he would say. It was sort of his mission statement as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

    It is not particularly a good rendering of Isaiah 1:18, but it’s how the King James Version of the Bible translates the verse. By the time I’d met Merrill, the New World Translation had been out for only a dozen years. Witnesses had previously used the King James Version in their personal study, meetings, and ministry. Merrill had stuck with what he knew. 

    The NWT much better conveys the thought, with it’s: “‘Come, now, and let us set matters straight between us,’ says Jehovah.” (‘LORD’ in all caps is always a fill-in for the divine name “Jehovah”—sometimes rendered “Yahweh” or something similar. It is the consonants that matter. The vowels are anyone’s guess.) “Set matters straight” is plainly what has to be done. The rest of Isaiah chapter 1 (and the preceding) makes that clear. It will not be just a matter of “reasoning.” Changes will have to be made. 

    “Though your sins are like scarlet, They will be made as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson cloth, They will become like wool,” says the rest of verse 18, in any translation. For that to happen, Israelites must not just “reason.” They must “return to me [Jehovah] with all your hearts, With fasting and weeping and wailing.  Rip apart your hearts, and not your garments,” as Joel 2:12-13 puts it. It’s not an intellectual effort called for. It’s an effort of the heart. But if they made that effort, the rift between them would heal: Though their sins were like scarlet, they would be made white as snow.

    “Let us reason together” still prevails among Bible translations. Such is the influence of the KJV. I counted 24 translations at BibleGateway that do it that way. But more recent translations (the KJV is 400 years old!) are given to variants as “settling” (7), “discussing,” (5) or “talking things over.” (8) A few invite those Israelites to “argue” (5) and you get the impression that this is not an argument God is going to lose. Still, it is humble for him to phrase it that way, consistent with offering to “settle,” “talk things over,” or “discuss.” “Let us have it out,” says Byington, as though inviting those renegades to a barroom brawl. And NET ominously invites them to “consider your options.”

    It’s like how I would “consider my options” when Merrill himself would ask to borrow my car because his was in the shop. In normal circumstances, the answer would be “No way!” for he was a horrible driver. He had once been a good driver, presumably. In his working days, he’d driven the Bangor to Boston route for Greyhound Bus and, when asked what the M.D. stood for, he would reply, “Master Driver,” a title he would explain was “self-assumed.” But that was long ago. Unbeknownst to him, but painfully obvious to everyone else, his skills had slipped. “Forget about it!” is what I wanted to tell him.

    But he had been so good to me, taking me under his wing at a crucial time, that had he said: “Tom, I’d like to borrow your car and wrap it around a tree,” I would have still felt compelled to lend it to him. I “considered my options,” and then handed him the keys. Despite my misgivings, it always came back to me in one piece. 

    not like this

    ******  The bookstore

    Some kickback from those who preferred “reason” for Isaiah 1:18 sent me cracking the books, but not before offering a glib: 

    “Excuse me, sir, I’m taking a poll,” said a guy in sweats. I agreed, of course, and made ready to spout off opinions. “I’ll take that one,” he continued, and made off with the 10-foot pole behind me for his upcoming pole vault.

    Context is everything. Many words have multiple meanings & shades of meanings, even words spelled identically. Context indicates “set matters straight” works better.

    But then: One commentary (Grok) lists the key verb as “nivvakhah.” It has a judicial flavor. Primary meanings: to decide, judge, prove, rebuke, reprove, convince, arbitrate. In the times of King James, “reason” often carried that meaning, but today it just suggests an intellectual discussion. The upshot of the entire verse is that they will lose their case for sure, but God is offering terms to wipe that slate clean.

  • Is the Kingdom of God “within you,” “among you,” or “in your midst?”(Luke 17:21)…Part 1

    Is the Kingdom of God “within you,” “among you,” or “in your midst?”(Luke 17:21)

    Prepositions are flexible—in Greek no less than in English. In both languages, context helps determine how they are best translated. Older Bibles are likely to say that “the kingdom of God is within you.” The Wycliffe Bible (1395), the Tyndale Bible (1530) Coverdale Bible (1535), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops’ Bible (1568), and Rheims New Testament (1582) all render the original word, “entos,” this way. So does the King James Version of 1611, playing ‘follow the leader.’

    More modern translators note that this old rendering doesn’t make much sense. The context betrays it. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees. Throughout the New Testament, that bunch is antagonistic to him. If the kingdom of God was “within them,” they sure didn’t do a good job of finding it.

    The King James Version was such an expressive work that no one touched for nearly 300 years, save for a renegade or two. Yet, says the preface to the Revised Standard Version, though English-speaking peoples owe it an “incalculable debt,” it has “grave defects.” This is through no fault of its own. It is just that its authors did not have access to much older manuscripts that were discovered after its date of publication. Nor did they have access to secular texts shedding light on just how koine Greek was used in Jesus’ time.

    Says that RSV preface: “The King James Version of the Bible was based on a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.” It sources few manuscripts earlier than the 10th century. Even when it has access to some, it barely uses them, sticking with the rendering of the familiar but more unreliable earlier works cited above.

    With benefit of updated scholarship, many current translations lean towards “the kingdom of God is among you” (CEB, AMP, or ISV) or “the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (ESV, NIV, NASB, NET)

    By no means is it just the New World Translation that says “in your midst.” Many do. In fact, a tally of Bibles old and new, from a few parallel sites, primarily Biblegateway.com, shows “within you” occurs 33 times. That is the majority, but not when compared to the sum of “among you” 20 times, and “in your midst” 18 times: 38 times. The latter two mean essentiallly the same thing: that Jesus was “among them” or “in their midst” through his personal presence and what it stood for. In short, the king designate of that kingdom was the one addressing them.

    So why do so many who identify as Christians today claim the “kingdom of God is within you,” when it is based on outdated scholarship? “Among you” or “in your midst” is what flies today.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • More on Living Forever: A Blessing or a Curse

    Should you visit Rochester, NY, you may decide to visit the George Eastman house, as I did when I was there. Mr. Eastman, who brought photography to the masses and who founded Kodak, turned philanthropist once he’d made his fortune and built half the city. His preserved mansion showcases his life, his inventions, his contributions to society, and serves as the nucleus for all things photographic right up to the present. But snoop thoroughly and you will discover that he shot himself in the head at age 78. In the throes of old age, his health failing, one by one he saw his chums going senile, bedridden or wheelchair bound. He left behind a note: “To my friends – My work is done. Why wait?”

    Q: Why did George Eastman take his life?

    a) His work was done. Why wait?

    b) He longed for the blessed release of death to finally end a futile life that had dragged on and on for much too long.

    c) His health was failing and he (a lifelong bachelor) dreaded the indignities of old age -with its dependence upon others.

    Does anyone honestly think that, with health and youth, he would not have found more work in which to engross himself?

    In this, Mr. Eastman is much like Leonardo DaVinci, artist of the Mona Lisa – likely the most famous portrait of all time. Leonardo made his mark not only as an artist. He also contributed hugely in areas as diverse as geometry, anatomy, astronomy, architecture, and flight. Some of his sketches have been used as blueprints for devices in use today. He was a renaissance man; it may be that he originates the term. Yet toward the end of life, he reportedly sought God's forgiveness for "not using all the resources of his spirit and art."

    Eastman and DaVinci – two fellows that typify Dr. Jastrow’s statement from yesterday’s post. And they would be joined by most everyone else, were we not sucked into a morass of drudgery, duty, debt, injustice and hardship. Sure…you might well long for death if you can only envision more of that. Ditto for the frailness that comes with old age.

    I recently attended a funeral of someone who had been happy, content, and productive throughout life. Nonetheless, death was not unwelcome, relatives assured me, since he’d grown “so tired of being sick.”

    That’s why the Bible’ promise of everlasting life on a paradise earth is so appealing. It’s Robert Jastrow’s dream come true – unlimited time to grow minus the very real liabilities that eventually cause most of us to tire of life. Perfect health is promised, and an economic system will be in place so that people do not feel they are “toiling for nothing.” . . .

    “And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance; because they are the offspring made up of the blessed ones of Jehovah, and their descendants with them.”    Isa 65:21-23

    There’s a lot of things I’d like to do. I’ve done a few of them. But for the most part, I’ve just scratched the surface. And I’ve spent a fair amount of time shoveling aside the muck this system throws at you. No, everlasting life, should I find myself there, will not be a bad thing. Not at all.

    Thing is, with “everlasting life” you only know it is without end when you get to where the end should be and see it is not there. The Greek word itself ("aiónios") does not demand permanence to life—it is always contingent on God’s approval. It thus differs from Greek words that DO demand it—such as "aidios" of Romans 1:20 (eternal) and athanasia" of 1 Timothy 6:16 (immortality). For that reason, John 3:36–

    “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal ("aiónios") life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.”

    is rendered “everlasting life” in the King James Version. The New World Translation also says “everlasting life,” not “eternal life,” since there are other words ("aidios" and athanasia") that mean eternal or deathless. Why sow confusion?

    It’s all very well to live fully in the present—everyone should do that—but to ignore the future so as to just immerse oneself in the present surely is unnecessarily shallow. I very much like the idea of living forever.

    *****The bookstore

  • John 3:16–‘Exercise Faith’ or ‘Believe’?

    At John 3:16, the New World Translation uses the phrase “exercising faith.” Almost every other translation says “believe.” What’s with that?

    “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” NWT

    Variant readings aren’t necessarily worse. Sometimes they’re better. What’s with “exercise faith?” Is it an improvement or is it a turkey? I went to some online lexicons to find out.

    The Greek word is pisteuō. “Believe” will do as a translation choice. It is not wrong. However, pisteuō “often implies ongoing action rather than a single moment of belief. Some argue that this suggests an active, continuous faith rather than a mere one-time decision.”

    There it is in a nutshell. With God, is it just “one and done?” Or is it a lifetime active course? Sometimes I think people who attack the NWT over this phrase regard spiritual exercise with the same horror that a couch potato regards physical exercise.

    The commentary points to a problem with the English language: “In English, ‘believe’ can sometimes imply a mere acknowledgment of facts without corresponding action. ‘Exercising faith’ attempts to capture the idea that genuine faith involves more than just mental agreement; it requires sustained effort and trust in God.”

    So, while “believe” is not wrong as a translation choice, it does have this drawback in English of not fully conveying Jesus’ meaning.

    We see then that, at worst, “exercise faith” is a harmless variant of the Greek word. At best it is a great improvement in describing what a Christian’s relationship with God and Christ should be. It is not a “one and done.” It is not surprising that Jehovah’s Witnesses would choose the first rendering. They are all about “sustained effort and trust in God.”

    On another thread, someone was fretting about the “power” and “dogma” of the Witness Governing Body, their supposed lack of “consultation” and “listening.” I dunno. Seems to me that they used their “power” to make sure an important nuance of the Greek verb stood out, whereas nearly everyone else buries it, usually inadvertently but perhaps in some cases by design—you know, by people who don’t want to do the work Jesus commanded but want to feel morally superior to those who do. As to their “consultation” and “listening”—didn’t they do that with lexicon sources rather than just automatically defer to the most common? Not that I think the Governing Body has direct involvement with the New World Translation. But they clearly had oversight.

    “Exercise faith” accords more with the rest of the scriptures than does any rendering possibly suggesting a “one-and-done.” “Faith without works is dead,” for example, from James 2:26. Or (yesterday’s Watchtower Study was a review and commentary on John chapter 6) Jesus direction to: “Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains for everlasting life.” Not one disciple complained that Jesus was abusing his authority by advising work.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Gifts in Men or Gift to Men: Ephesians 4:8

    Q: Why does the New World Translation say at Ephesians 4:8 “gifts in men,” whereas most translations say, “gifts to men?”

    Hmm. Do they? I checked some resources and they do—by a long shot. This becomes relevant because Ephesians 4:8 was the theme scripture for a recent Watchtower Study: “Show Appreciation for “Gifts in Men”—from the October 2024 issue.

    I thought at first that the NWT was up to its old tricks, choosing a unique rendering of the preposition, which they would have to justify. I didn’t doubt they would be able to, but I thought they would have to do it. 

    At second glance, it appeared that NWT is the only translation that had it correct! I asked ChatGBT, “At Ephesians 4:8, why do some translations say gifts IN men?” The answer was long and technical. You don’t want Brother Chat in your Kingdom Hall because his windy answers will surely not abide by any 30-second goal. The phrase I zeroed in on was: “The Greek word Paul uses, "ἐν" (en), is typically translated as "in" but can also mean "among" or "through," depending on the context. This flexibility creates the variation in translation.”

    Ha! The word they render as “in” is “typically translated” that way, only in this case, everyone else declines to do it! Corroborating this is Appendix 7C at the back of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. It is a diagram illustrating basic meanings of Greek prepositions. The word at Ephesians 4:8 is “en.” It means, first of all, “in.” (At the JW website, enter “prepositions” in the Search box.)

    The “gifts in men” allows one to view the men themselves as gifts. The gifts to men (or unto) better furthers the view that holy spirit is the gift, but also allows for the view that the recipients do little with it beyond basking in their own smug ‘righteousness.’ None of that on the Witnesses’ watch. Witnesses are into applying scripture, not just thinking themselves holy by virtue of it.

    The difference is subtle because the “gifts to men” results in the same product as the “gifts in men.” That is, it results in men who use their given talents for the benefit of the entire “body of Christ,” with the end result that “we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (vs 13-14)

    At any rate, the friends at our Watchtower Study that Sunday had nothing but praise for the gifts in men they have experienced. None of the grumbling you may hear online from ones who have run afoul of discipline or who prefer kicking against the goads. Just unsolicited  accolade after accolade, many of which also threatened the 30-second target or even trounced it entirely. It was not of just servants, not just elders, not just circuit overseers, though all of these drew praise.

    Someone extended the point to showing appreciation to anyone, be it servant, elder, CO, brother, sister, or anyone met in the ministry or workplace. Dishing out genuine praise benefits the giver more than the recipient. It trains one’s way of thinking, not to take people for granted, and look to their best side. Someone else said the CO’s day off is frequently anything but that, since everyone knows what it is and they slam him with phone calls that day. 

    We have in our congregation an LDC brother (Local Design Committee) who said it takes about 500 brothers or sisters to build a Kingdom Hall, plus other hundreds in support roles. The ones in overseer roles, though they have a project to complete and must keep on reasonable schedule, primarily view themselves and are trained as shepherds. They have a way of breaking down any task into manageable steps and parcelling them out to volunteers according to their ability.

    He summed up the review questions with the observation that the young men and women have power—it is what defines them. And, if they turn it towards career, they can do nicely for themselves—certainly not nothing. But, when they turn their gifts to the of building up the body of Christ, they end up writing a “bestseller.” He may have been thinking of the book of remembrance that Malachi 3:17 speaks of, about those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.

     

    Notwithstanding how that Watchtower Study made use of the  New World Translation’s “gifts in men,” that is not to say that “gifts to men” is wrong. In fact, since AI is no more than a compilation of human scholarship, it may not be surprising that it sides with the majority “gifts to men.” Greek prepositions are tricky. There is not a strict one-on-one correspondence to the prepositions of other languages (which also may be tricky). Other factors can influence how they are rendered. Complicating matters further is the fact that Ephesians 4:8 itself is an application of Psalm 68:18: “You ascended on high; You carried away captives; You took gifts in the form of men.”

    Says wordy Brother Chat: “The phrase “gifts in men” could arise from an attempt to closely mirror the original Psalm's emphasis on "receiving gifts among men." Some older translations or more literal renderings may choose this phrasing to preserve the link to the Psalm's wording.” 

    If there is one thing we know about the NWT, it is that if favors “literal renderings.” Its translators shy away from more interpretive renderings, lest they too get hoodwinked by the “every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men” of vs 14!

    “On the other hand,” says Chat, "gifts to men" reflects Paul's interpretation and application of the [Psalm 68:18] verse in Ephesians, where the focus is on the giving of spiritual gifts. Most modern translations adopt this phrasing to align with Paul’s theological point.”

    Then it summarizes:

    • "Gifts in men": This might suggest that God bestows gifts within people, placing spiritual gifts in individuals to be exercised.
    • "Gifts to men": This emphasizes the act of giving, highlighting that Christ distributes spiritual gifts to individuals for the benefit of the church.

    Point is, the NWT goes for literalism, which is what they generally do in translating. The others are more modified by context. At first glance, I prefer the majority “to men” interpretation. But since both effectively return the same result, qualified men who turn their gifts toward the betterment of the body of Christ, the more literal one also works.

    Just to make sure Chat wasn’t pulling a fast one on me, I arm-twisted it: 

    Q: How is that Greek preposition in Ephesians 4:8 usually translated in other settings?

    A: (long and windy, as usual) . . . then: “The preposition in question in Ephesians 4:8 is "ἐν" (Greek: en). This preposition is highly versatile in Greek and is most commonly translated as "in" or "within", depending on the context.”

    Then some hi-falutin stuff about how, “its meaning can shift based on its grammatical and contextual usage. . . . When analyzing translations, the choice of "in men" versus "to men" hinges on interpretive considerations rather than rigid adherence to the preposition's usual usage. Most translators view the theological emphasis of Paul's argument—Christ giving gifts—as justifying the rendering "to men" over a more literal "in men" or "among men." This also aligns with the broader narrative of Ephesians 4 about equipping the saints.“

    So, either is correct. Not allowed is looking down one’s nose at the other for using the “wrong” translation. There are a few instances where translations are wrong, but this is not one of them.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • “If it Were Indeed Some Wrong or Some Wicked Act of Villainy . . .”

    Sometimes a guy prefers the older translation to the newer one. Like with this passage from Acts 18:14, when the Jewish bigwigs hauled Paul before the proconsul because he was teaching new things: “Contrary to the law this person leads men to another persuasion in worshiping God,” they charged, as though it was a crime. (vs 13)

    It was a crime, according to their rules but the Roman proconsul Gallio could not have cared less. These people with their religious disputes were such a pain to him that he kept clear. He answers them, just before Paul is going to defend himself, and thereby making defense unnecessary, “If it were, indeed, some wrong or a wicked act of villainy, O Jews, I would with reason put up patiently with you.  But if it is controversies over speech and names and the law among you, you yourselves must see to it. I do not wish to be a judge of these things.” (14-15)

    You can read the contempt. It oozes from the guy’s mouth. If he had to (it wouldn’t be easy and he wouldn’t like the task), he would “put up patiently” with these characters. If this fellow Paul had actually done something “wrong” or—is it sarcasm here?—done some “wicked act of villainy,” he’d hear them out. But he hasn’t. So—‘Sheesh! won’t you leave me in peace already?’ you can almost hear his dismissal.

    The new version misses that entirely. Here, Gallio is just the earnest county official: He says, “If, indeed, it were some wrong or a serious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to hear you out patiently.” Yes, that rendering gets the job done. It conveys that he’s not going to get involved. But, it’s not as good. It doesn’t convey how he feels about his subjects. Sometimes we are so determined to paint people as mild that we paint them as bland.

    So, when the Jews are ignored, they take to beating the snot out of the synagogue head honcho—surely that will get Gallio’s attention. ‘Nope—I’m done,’ is his response, and you can almost see him rustling his newspaper to shoo them away. We read, “But Gallio would not concern himself at all with these things.” (17)

    That response is slightly modified, for the worse, I think, in the newer 2013 NWT version which reads that he would not “get involved,” implying he may have been “concerned” but his hands were tied by it not being his affair—so what could he do? Nah, I think he didn’t give a hoot. The older (originally from 1961) is better.

    Sigh—the wording from the new serves as the basis for Bearing Thorough Witness about God’s Kingdom, the current JW commentary on Acts of the Apostles. As to Gallio’s indifference, it suggests, “Perhaps Gallio thought that Sosthenes was the leader of the mob action against Paul and was therefore getting what he deserved.” I don’t think so; that implies he cared. I don’t think he did. He just wanted to get back to his paper and cup of coffee.

    No, I do not like the new. It is going in the direction of the newer mushier translations, like the New International Version (1978), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, ‘If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you.’” (14)

    It’s not as bad as the word-salad Message paraphrase (1993), which reads: “Just as Paul was about to defend himself, Gallio interrupted and said to the Jews, “If this was a matter of criminal conduct, I would gladly hear you out. But it sounds to me like one more Jewish squabble, another of your endless hairsplitting quarrels over religion. Take care of it on your own time. I can’t be bothered with this nonsense,”

    “Gladly!” He would “gladly” hear them out! NO! They are a pain in the neck! He would, “with reason, put up patiently” with them. The older versions render it better*. Like the Revised Standard Version of 1952: “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, I should have reason to bear with you, O Jews.” It’s not quite as strong as the older NWT, but it does convey he wouldn’t relish the task.

    Forget that verse about the codger who mutters, “Why were the old days better than the present ones?” (Ecclesiastes 7:10) I’ll tell you why he grumbles over that. Because, they were!!

    *In fairness to the Message, it does convey that Gallio considered the Jews’ concerns “nonsense.”

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • 1 Thessalonians 5: Verses Amassed on Jehovah’s Day

    If you’ve been around for awhile, as I have, you’re on the lookout for something,to make you prick up your ears. Most things don’t. Most things are reminders, reinforcements, applications, etc, of what you already know. So here featured in the WatchtowerStudy is a chapter in 1 Thessalonians in which verse after verse, each one a solid base hit, adds up to a grand slam of illustrations about Jehovah’s day. Had I ever looked at the passage that way?

    “Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.  For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape.  But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves, for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness. So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses.

    “For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and put on the breastplate of faith and love and the hope of salvation as a helmet  because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us, so that whether we stay awake or are asleep, we should live together with him.  Therefore, keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing.” (1 Thessalonians 1-11)

    The study was a verse-by-verse commentary. I love those things. The Day comes so quickly as to perhaps surprise even those expecting it, like birth pains, like a thief in the night, not to be slept through, nor drunk into oblivion in an effort to ignore. “When we want to sleep, we turn out the lights—intentionally,” said one brother, as he likened that course to what some do today in the face of plunging world conditions.

    The congregation of Thessalonica was founded amidst great persecution, another pointed out. The temptation in similar areas of persection, such as current Russia, is to imagine maybe that Day to come any second now. The temptation in more laid back areas is that it is yet a long ways off. Either view can mess one up.

    I kind of liked this side reference from Ephesians on keeping our act together: “For you were once darkness, but you are now light in connection with the Lord. Go on walking as children of light, for the fruitage of the light consists of every sort of goodness and righteousness and truth. Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. (Ephesians 4:8-12)

    Who knows what devious schemes or deeds or plots are referred to—things shameful even to mention? Good to be far away from where those things are launched.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Seed-Pickers Exposed

    So here I am just minding my own business, calling myself a seed-picker’ same as Paul’s derisive Greek critics said of him—he picks up a seed here and poops it out there, thus giving only the facade of wisdom, not the real thing—when along comes that know-it-all brother to say I am using the word wrong!

    “Aristophanes once wrote an award-winning play called ‘The Birds,’ he says. The play mentions birds as ‘seed-pickers’ more than once, and uses this same word ‘spermologos’ [seed-picker-sayer].

    “Aristophanes' play also mentions defecation and such private matters, but . . . and this is a big but . . . it doesn't ever tie the idea of seed-picking to ‘pooping.’ I have never seen a place where the word "spermologos" was tied to anything scatalogical.”

    Brother Know-it-All even adds the useful tidbit that Luke, the Bible writer who recorded Paul’s trip to the Athens marketplace where they called him seed-picker, manages to return the insult: “In fact, all Athenians and the foreigners staying there would spend their leisure time doing nothing else but telling or listening to something new.” (Acts 17:21)

    In other words, they don’t really do anything. Updated to the modern age, it would be, “They just fart away all their time scrolling on the internet,” same as my wife says of me.

    8B77960A-A2F5-4273-B474-740DDA8753A3I have to admit, I just made it up—the pooping part. But I’m sticking to it. (not literally) I mean, what becomes of that seed after it is ingested? It’s not as though the bird is simply OCD reorganizing like a neurotic file clerk. I can’t think of any better way for the big boys to deride a Jewish philosopher than to say he picks up a tidbit here and poops it out there.

    I’ll take on the whole ancient Greek world if I have to. They’re wrong. I’m right. Though I suppose I ought to explain I’m changing space and time. Thanks for the clarification, (smart-ass!)

    Moreover, I’ll stick with seed-picker. No surprise here that I distrust intellectualism. It’s not how Jesus taught. It’s okay as a spice, even as a semi-staple. “Bring your gift to the altar” if that is your gift. But when people carry on as though it is the be-all and end-all I smell a rat. I think of those reveling in heady matters “which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith.” (1 Timothy 1:4) As though the truth within us all resides in the brain and not the heart.

    And just who is “that know-it-all brother?” Since I am a Witness doing the Witness thing, I don’t do names (or I provide my own). Aristophanes will be “one worldly author,” same as Elon Musk will be “one wealthy businessman.”

    There are three ways to spin HQ’s avoidance of names:

    The pious way: ‘Give all glory to God; men are but dust on the scales.’

    The derisive Greek philosopher way: ‘Yeah, it’s because they have no idea who these people are.’

    The third way I think I have invented myself; if it copies anyone, I’m not aware of it: ‘It is the play we are watching, not the actors in the play. You don’t have to know the names of the actors to follow the play; it can even be a distraction if you do. Besides, as soon as you name a villain, you create the impression that removing that villain remedies things. Instead, another actor who has all the lines down pat instantly steps on stage and the play continues with barely a hiccup.’ 

    Nobody gains dignity in any of my writings, including myself. Always they lose a little, in keeping with us all being but dust on the scales who do well not to take ourselves too seriously. It’s a little dicey to know how much to ‘credit’ people. The introduction to Tom Irregardless begins standard boilerplate and then expands a little: 

    “All persons with names like ‘Irregardless’ are real though generally composite. You can meet them in my circuit or even yours. Events related are faithfully depicted except for a few that I’ve made up. Persons with names recognizable from history or current events—you’re nuts!—it’s not those people at all!”

    ***  The bookstore