The Pioneers’ New Testament

Translation Notes

To accompany

The Pioneers' New Testament

2014 corrections Copyright ? 2014, Ruth P. Martin

You are free to make personal copies of this material.

No portion may be reproduced in any form for sale, or for other profit of any individual or group.

Table of Contents TRANSLATION NOTES ..........................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................3 THE TASK OF A TRANSLATOR ............................................................................................................6 MATTHEW ................................................................................................................................................ 8 MARK ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 LUKE .......................................................................................................................................................37 JOHN .......................................................................................................................................................54 ACTS: "THE APOSTLES' ACTIVITIES".............................................................................................72 ROMANS ................................................................................................................................................87 I CORINTHIANS ...................................................................................................................................96 II CORINTHIANS.................................................................................................................................104 GALATIANS .........................................................................................................................................109 EPHESIANS ..........................................................................................................................................112 PHILIPPIANS ........................................................................................................................................ 117 COLOSSIANS .......................................................................................................................................120 THESSALONIANS ...............................................................................................................................123 TIMOTHY .............................................................................................................................................126 TITUS ....................................................................................................................................................131 PHILEMON ...........................................................................................................................................133 HEBREWS ............................................................................................................................................134 JAMES ...................................................................................................................................................141 PETER ...................................................................................................................................................143 JOHN'S LETTERS ................................................................................................................................148 JUDE ......................................................................................................................................................152 THE REVELATION ..............................................................................................................................153 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................163 Bibliography........................................................................................................................................... 169

1

TRANSLATION NOTES

For more than fifty years now, I have searched for people with whom to explore the Lord's intentions for his people. Except for a scattered few brief interludes, that search has failed. I had hoped that the dissemination of my New Testament translation might provoke the discussion and contacts needed for greater faithfulness. But without any endorsement or any distributor, that also failed to produce the needed critical evaluation and interchange. These observations, too, should have been refined by the challenge and counsel of a mutually seeking community of brethren. They have not: and consequently they are fragmentary and mostly untested. But fifty years is a long time. Only the Lord knows how many years may be left. Certainly not fifty more! So I am beginning to record some thoughts that perhaps someone, someday, will correct, add to, and find a way to offer this message to the Body of Christ. With sadness, I no longer expect to live to see "ordinary folks" like myself privileged to contribute to that Body. Someday, though, the Lord will again make his voice heard and his people will again recognize the glorious message of Pentecost ? that he intends to speak to all of us through all of us. What a beautiful time that will be! Meanwhile, this is intended to be sort of an explanatory supplement to my New Testament translation. In the introduction to that work, I noted that I had deliberately chosen to avoid standard "Christian vocabulary" in favor of an attempt to use words in ways that would have been familiar to the first readers of the texts. This is an attempt to explain some of those vocabulary choices; to explain grammatical structures that are unfamiliar to the reader of English; and to include miscellaneous other observations that I have found helpful over the years. Please do not interpret this as any kind of a "doctrinal statement", or anything but the efforts of one follower of the Lord Jesus Christ to share with other followers (or potential followers) some of the treasures of his Kingdom.

2

INTRODUCTION

There are probably as many ways to approach the study of the New Testament as there are people who choose to do so. Some aim to discredit, or at least cast doubt upon its precepts and its integrity. Others attempt to "prove" some particular quirk of doctrine or conviction, in order to force their perspective upon others. Some glean from its pages a list of specific ideas and/or behaviors, which they then use as a screen to sift out who is or is not a "faithful believer". Is this collection of writings a detailed and coherent history, a scientific text, a philosophical or theological treatise, a wordfor-word transcription meticulously dictated by God? Is it a document created by a medieval hierarchy to solidify its power over its ignorant subjects? The assumptions with which one undertakes this study have an enormous impact on its outcome. Therefore, it is only fair that a reader be made aware of the perspective from which the present document is written.

Academically, I respect the work of those who are continually sifting through any available manuscripts to assemble the most complete text possible. I feel strongly that anyone who chooses to take the New Testament seriously, should certainly welcome any work that allows us to discern with greater accuracy the original message. I view folks who devote themselves to textual work, when they do so with academic integrity, as helpful brethren.

Being a confessed "language junkie," however, trained in linguistics and the cultural challenges of translation, I have chosen rather to devote my energies to working toward an accurate transmission of the message, rather than its "DNA." This choice is colored by my own history.

Although I had been exposed to "Sunday school stories" as a child, I was a college student when I first encountered the idea that the New Testament described a way of life, not just stories. Always having been a lonely person, I was enthralled, as I began to read it, with the wonderful ways Jesus and his followers interacted with each other and with other folks. I saw a concern, a degree of caring, a purposefulness, belonging, yes, even "love", that I had never seen. There were ? and are -"churches" all over the landscape. Why had I never seen that kind of living? I needed to know more.

As I delved into a study of the Greek language, and the diverse cultures from which these documents arose, the conviction grew that the major reason for misunderstanding of the message was failure to explore those extremely important resources. Self-styled "scholars", some highly respected, scoffed at many New Testament directives as "artifacts of contemporary culture", without ever closely examining that culture. Even a cursory perusal of contemporaneous history and literature makes it obvious that the attitudes and relationships called for in the New Testament challenge far more aspects of its ambient culture than they endorse. We denizens of late 20th/early 21st century western culture inhabit a universe that, except for some technological advances, would fit very well into the Greco-Roman world of the first century. Sociological, economic, religious, ethical, linguistic and intellectual pluralism, enhanced (or aggravated, depending on one's perspective) by the relative ease of travel along eastern and Mediterranean trade routes, created a mix not at all unlike the scrambled cultural milieu in which we still obsess over Thales' (6th c. BC) admonition to "Know thyself." Jesus' contrasting instruction that true life is to be found in "losing oneself" grated as harshly upon their ears as it does upon ours.

From various sources, I have accumulated this list of characteristics of first century BC/AD culture in the Greco-Roman world. Have we changed very much? There was:

? unprecedented ease of travel and communication. ? world-wide trade, bringing previously unheard-of luxury to the wealthy classes ? huge racial and ethnic diversity ? cheapening of life, leading to abandonment of babies, aged, and infirm ? a universally spoken and understood language ? religious plurality, fed by trade routes ? a single, dominant military power, brutally suppressing local uprisings ? executions, political and criminal, were shockingly common ? all manner of sexual deviations acceptable in society, even as a part of worship ? thousands assembling to watch increasingly brutal sports events, in stadiums holding

tens of thousands ? large cities, encompassing extreme wealth and abject poverty, strain resources.

3

? political figures claiming to represent deities, and demanding ritual worship ? women holding more political and social power than ever before in recorded history ? an uncommonly just legal system, but one easily manipulated by the powerful

and/or wealthy

And that is just a sample!

Linguistically, it is difficult for 20/21 century Americans to appreciate a culture in which nearly everyone was at least minimally conversant in three languages ? often more. This is not so rare in Europe and parts of Asia and Africa, but to us it seems incredible. Everyone of course spoke his own "native" language ? Aramaic, in the Roman province of Palestina. But business, philosophic discussion, and scholarship required Greek. Since the third century BC Diaspora, even the Hebrew scriptures were most common in the Septuagint (Greek) translation. And legal matters related to the Roman occupation forces, required Latin. Literacy may not have been particularly widespread, but language fluency certainly was.

And virtually every language I have ever encountered shares one extremely important feature that is conspicuously lacking in modern English: making a clear distinction between the singular and plural forms of the second person plural pronoun, "you." Most languages make this distinction in the forms of verbs, as well as expressed pronouns. In written or spoken communication, it is readily obvious whether the "you" being addressed is (1) a single individual, (2)a group of people treated corporately as a group, or (3)the individuals in a group as individuals. In English, there is no way to be certain. This, I believe, is at the root of the almost universal failure, among groups that are sincerely seeking to be faithful, to understand or to embody the corporate nature of "the church" -- the Body of Christ. The vast majority of the precepts of the New Testament are addressed to "you" PLURAL. English readers assume the singular form, leading to much more private, individualistic interpretations.

For example, in the Sermon on the Mount as recorded by Matthew, there are 215 instances of either a second-person verb form or the pronoun "you". Of these, 127 are of a plural form, and only 88 singular ? and about half of the singular ones are OT quotations. It makes an enormous difference, for example, whether I am expected, singlehandedly, to figure out how to "do good to those who are persecuting (me)", or if that is to be done in the context and with the counsel and support of a committed brotherhood! Some of the implications and other linguistic studies are explored in an earlier volume, Citizens of the Kingdom (1993).

The study of the language and culture from which the New Testament documents came to us can thus be extremely valuable in understanding what the original writers were trying to say. Vocabulary and grammatical structure make a huge difference in languages more precise than ours. Please see the Appendix for a brief introduction to significant aspects of these considerations. Here, I will simply point out the following:

Paying close attention to the usage of a word, both elsewhere in the NT and in other period or classical writings, can help sharpen our concept of what the first readers "heard" by virtue of its use.

Distinguishing between singular and plural is crucial to understanding both instructions and prospects for individuals and/or communities

Understanding verb tenses makes a huge difference: simple past-present-future in ordinary narrative, but even more so the present vs. aorist imperatives, infinitives, and participles, which refer not to time at all, but to the difference between a snapshot and a video: a single event, or constant action.

These disciplines will be an enormous help in understanding what a given passage actually SAYS. They can answer many questions, resolve many apparent ambiguities, and also raise other questions that may not have occurred to the reader of English versions.

However, you should also be aware of what they will NOT do: They will NOT enable you more skillfully to pull out "big guns" and pontificate, "The Greek says...." and thereby

win every argument. They will NEITHER enhance NOR shoot down the flights of fancy and intricate diagrams of self-styled

"theologians" who try to reduce the message of Kingdom living to a list of cut-and-dried "doctrines". Vocabulary and grammar can't speak to something that is not there.

They will NOT solve every problem nor resolve every mystery. They will not magically produce "answers" to every dilemma.

4

You will notice that there are many issues that have become "hobby horses" for some folks that I have simply declined to address. I advocate no "code" with which to decipher allegorical or metaphorical passages. That is not the job of a translator. Translation involves simply (or not!) rendering, as faithfully as possible, the original intent of the writer into the target language. Simply, "What does it SAY?" (See the following essay).

You may also notice that there are many individual "verses" (an artificial creation many centuries after the original text) that do not conform to any standard formulations of "doctrine" or "theology." Please remember, I did not "change" them. I consulted nobody's systematic formulation ? only the text. Challenge my work on linguistic grounds, and I will owe (and pay!) you a debt of gratitude. Challenge it on the grounds of somebody's "points of doctrine", or "systematic theology", and I will answer , "SO ------?" The standard for God's people is what HE says ? not somebody's edited report. I am well aware that people who like their "beliefs" domesticated, housebroken, and sorted into neat little boxes, feel mightily threatened by this approach, as were their forebears who designed Inquisitions, drownings, and burnings for those who raised questions in the past. They prefer to start with their conclusions, and marshal (or alter) a handful of texts to "prove" their point. The followers of Jesus with whom I identify choose rather to mine for the treasure of "What does the text say?", and build their lives on the results.

So this is not a commentary in any classical sense. It seeks neither to attack nor to defend any version of the text, nor any "doctrinal position." It is merely a collection of observations, linguistic and cultural, that have grown out of a fifty year quest to become a part of the beautiful demonstration project that I see my Lord outlining in this "operators manual" that he has provided for his people.

There is no way I can credit all the tidbits to their original sources ? the years have blurred those. The best I can do is to say, if you see something that you may have said first, I thank you sincerely, and if there is a second edition, I will gladly acknowledge it. I do not claim to have originated many of these observations: I merely include things that have helped me along the way. May they enrich your journey as well.

With apologies to Dr. Seuss, I will conclude with a slightly altered quote from one of his/my heroes, Horton the Elephant, regarding the New Testament writers:

They meant what they said and they said what they meant: And JESUS IS FAITHFUL ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!!!

It's his opinion that counts!

Ruth Martin 2012

5

THE TASK OF A TRANSLATOR

The task of a translator, of any text, not just the Biblical one, if done responsibly, is excruciatingly difficult. It is exponentially more so if the translator has a serious commitment to the content of the text. This is because, in order to translate in an ethical and honest way, one must consciously resist, at every turn, the temptation to "slant" or prejudice the result in favor of his own opinion.

A translator, if responsible, is NOT an editor. A translator is NOT a commentator, and most certainly NOT a revisionist or critic. His job is consummately non-partisan. His commitment must be to the original writer or speaker: to convey, as closely as possible, in the target language, the intent of the originator of the text. He may not, under any circumstances, tamper with its content, if he is to produce honest work.

This becomes very complicated in the case of Biblical translation. Most people who undertake that task, despite doing so with the very best of intentions, approach it with a background of years of acquaintance with other people's distillations of what "the Bible says". I had the rather rare privilege of delving into the text near the beginning of my Christian commitment, but even so, had to be careful of the influence of "accepted teaching." Those with a longer history have an even more difficult assignment. This is because, as any serious student will attest, one cannot encounter "the living and powerful Word of God" without having his cage rattled, his presuppositions challenged, and his neatly defined understandings of faithfulness shuffled and rearranged.

The challenge is compounded further for those who derive their employment from this monumental task. An employer, be it church or other consortium, that chooses to fund such a project, usually has a reason for doing so, and an agenda to be fulfilled.

A case in point is seen in several recent attempts to remove or replace references to gender in English "translations" of Scripture. For starters, a goal like that immediately removes the work from the realm of "translation" altogether. These people, however well-intentioned, are not "translating." They are not rendering the original text in the target language. They are editing and revising it, thus doing violence, not only to the text and its authors, but to both languages, as well as impoverishing their readers by ignoring cultural contexts.

Let me illustrate with a single word, much abused by the "gender police" -- "sons", (uioi ), ) as in "sons of God." With a cavalier "inclusiveness", (they think), they rewrite the text to read "sons and daughters", so that the ladies won't feel left-out. Such a revision displays total cultural ignorance, diminishes the power of the statement, and obliterates the amazing inclusiveness of Paul's original writing! Yes, I really did ascribe "inclusiveness" to our good brother Paul, who has been mightily abused for the opposite, by folks who use only the English texts of Galatians 3:26-29. Paul has just made the classic statement that there is no distinction in the Kingdom between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, when he says, "You are ALL sons of God." To change that designation to "sons and daughters" (which he could have said), or "children" (for which he would have had a choice of two different words), completely ignores the import of the rest of the sentence, "if sons, then heirs"!!! The use of "daughters" or "children" removes the privilege of inheritance, for that was impossible in first century culture. He is saying that we are ALL considered SONS, in order that we ALL may be HEIRS ? heirs of God, together with Christ! This is not a question of gender, but of elevated, equal status!

The same is true of words like "brethren" -- the writers don't mean "brothers and sisters". They mean people of equal value and privilege! Rather than change and thereby cheapen the vocabulary, we need to teach the true meaning of the words that the writers chose. But that is the task of enlightened teachers, not translators.

There are other considerations of vocabulary. In relatively few cases does one find an exact, one-to-one correspondence between words in any two languages. In most instances, the Greek language is far more precise than English. Linguistically, one can discover the actual meaning of a word most accurately by looking at every incidence where it is used in a text. But this exercise must employ the original language, not the target language. (Young's Analytical Concordance is an excellent resource.) One must sort out instances where one Greek word has been

6

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download