1/29/2024
Sometimes I look at the language and wonder. I wonder how we understand each other, even when we speak a common language. We see language and meaning shaped by society, both formally in defining new terms and words, and informally in slang. You can see this as people with differing viewpoints try to communicate with each other on social media. They miscommunicate and misunderstand each other often because the meanings of words and terms can be parsed infinitely, and it has me pondering - if things are this messy when having a conversation with a contemporary, how screwed up would it be figuring out a conversation 2000 years from now, or 2000 years past?
Here's my favorite current example. There are many words for a person's hindquarters - butt, booty, behind, rear end, and a sufficient amount of vulgar terms. There are terms to describe how we communicate - call, text, shout out, dial, tweet, post... But you can't just pick a random word for hindquarters, and a random term for call and have it mean the same thing every time. A "butt dial" is very different from a "booty call". Welcome to the wonderful world of Biblical translation.
Much of the controversy surrounding Christianity right now centers on what the "scriptures" mean. Those scriptures in Christianity are called the Bible - a collection of ancient writings that, depending on the text, have origins from 1700 to 6000 years ago. Some of the older texts are based on oral histories going back even further. Many of those selected scriptures either do not apply to Christianity or were selected to bolster Jesus' rep as the divine God-man of the Semitic world sent to save us all from the depths of hell. Some texts were chosen for a single passage of prophecy. Many were excluded because they messed with the narrative that the church wanted to promote.
The main focus of my seminary studies was Scripture and the history of what we have come to know as the “Bible.” All religions have a God, or an array of Gods — these beliefs developed in cultural conformity to the worshipers, without regard to how others may believe or not. Humans did not create God, they just recognized the hand of something far beyond what we, as humans, are capable of. If we go by the principle of one God / Source / Divinity / Consciousness — then these separate factions all serve the same God. The same God would not issue different marching orders to different groups of people unless he became an all too human psychopathic sadist.
Let’s move past the difference in the perceived God, and straight into Christian theology. Jesus preached a loving God, wanting desperately to join back in his relationship with humans before Adam and Eve were failed experiments of "Vengeful God". That the plan included murdering Jesus is a side point we will hit on in another article.
Jesus, as recorded in scripture, summed up the whole of the “law & prophets” in Mark 12:30–31 (regular readers can say it with me) — Honor God. And honor God by honoring other people with love and compassion. His entire ministry was summed up in 2 sentences. Let’s go with that as we figure out what the church did in throwing together its Holy Book.
The Christian part of the Bible — the New Testament — has 27 books recognized by most denominations. Out of that, there are 4 gospels, 1 history of the early church, and 22 books of opinions, mostly written by Paul, the after-the-fact apostle. I go the Jefferson route — if it isn’t attributed as a direct quote of Jesus, I don’t bother with it in applying my faith. I was raised to follow Jesus, not people. I’d imagine it was pretty much the same in the tradition you were raised in.
Then I went to seminary — which, as I have stated, is not the best thing for shoring up faith. An education leads to questions — many of which are uncomfortable to Christian leaders. One of my most inspiring professors said that the words of Jesus are truth, the rest is commentary. I accept that.
Enter my studies in language/translation. The New Testament (from now on “NT”) was written entirely in Koine Greek — a variation of Greek, no longer in use — sort of like we don’t go around saying Thee / Thine in everyday conversation in English anymore. Koine Greek has the same problem as Arabic — some words and concepts have no direct translation into English. The Muslims insist that you can only understand the Quran when you read it in Arabic. The same is true of the NT — except the language is this ancient form of Greek. There are concepts and nuances in the original language that make a precise translation nearly impossible in some instances. Hence my example of booty-call and butt-dial.
What this means is that when you get a decent lexicon (translation tool — I use Danker’s) for any given Greek word your translation may be direct (word = word) or indirect (a word in Greek can have 2, 10, 50 acceptable translations depending on context. There are no clear rules as to what is a proper translation for these types of words/concepts. Another example that I use in my classes is “Whazzup???” from a widely distributed commercial in the USA during the 1990s. Any American who was around then is aware that it refers to a beer commercial and gets the joke. A person unfamiliar would not understand the joke. “What is up?” — the sky? the ceiling? prices? The context of the word/phrase and the time used matter — A LOT.
Combine this with the fact that ALL Bible translations were sponsored by someone with an already-held belief about what Christianity is supposed to look like, according to them. And usually by a committee, which favors the sponsor’s beliefs. So, if when doing the translation, 12 appropriate choices appear as valid translations, the one that is picked, most closely resembles the belief of the sponsor. An example below:
We need to lay this layer over what has happened to the texts since they were written, and the time elapsed between them and the originals written 50–150 years prior. We have no “original” texts in the handwriting of the men who supposedly wrote them. A sizeable portion of theologians believe that the earliest gospel — Mark — was written between 50 CE and 65CE, from the memories of Peter, and Mark himself, as he was an eyewitness to Jesus during his ministry. A similar number of scholars believe that Mark was written much later by others. I thread this theological needle by allowing that the original text was written by Mark, and in opposition to Paul's teaching. It was later accepted into Canon (as the voice of someone who was not Paul, for balance), and slowly edited into an uneasy compliance with Pauline theology.
Most theologians hold that Luke and Matthew were both based on Mark. Different events were stressed because they were addressing a different audience than Mark. The oldest reliable text we have of Mark dates about 200–250CE. That’s a lot of room for both mistakes and addendums. No, I am not now and have never been a literalist on scripture.
So, we are dealing with copies of copies of original texts, all handled and translated by groups of people with personal biases as to what Jesus might have meant with terms that don’t translate well out of Greek. After that, we have nearly 2000 years for more mistakes and biases to be introduced. All of these texts were hand-written up until Gutenberg printed his first Bible (in the King James Version — which had its own biases included). Since then, the bible has been re-translated into English in over 50 recognized versions by various denominations favoring their specific quirks.
Now let’s get even more basic than that. Thomas Jefferson made the “quotes of Jesus” into what passes for the Jefferson Bible (titled “The Morals of Jesus”). This was a surgical rendering of Jesus’ teachings excised from the rest of the NT. The “words in red” only. Applying the whole article to the Jefferson Bible, we can only assume that the same sort of add-ons and mistranslations that were being called into issue in the 18th century on the NT, in general, should apply to the Gospels as well.
Christians — be honest. You have recognized on any given Sunday, that the words of Jesus sometimes don’t match Jesus’ basic teaching of a loving God. Using Mark 12: 30–31 as my touchstone, and the knowledge that I received while in seminary, the road I have taken has led me to the conclusion that the NT mistranslation running rampant in all Bibles currently on the market applies to the “words in red” as well.
I have re-examined those “words in red” and have either come up with translations more in line with Jesus’ core teaching or have disregarded them as later edits or add-ons to the original text. It seems that clarifying what Jesus said, even when he plainly says something, is the go-to methodology. This has been normal practice in every “new” Bible that has occurred in the past 100 years within the confines of that religion’s dogma.
For reference materials, I use the Nestle-Aland Greek NT text, which remains the most reliable source of the oldest Greek Texts, and the Danker lexicon, (which is the most complete Christian interpretation of the Greek terms and concepts in use today).
I don’t do this willy-nilly. It is a lot of work. I just would like to have a belief that both serves my tradition and is open to God’s universal truth of love and compassion which is the basis of most other religions. This isn’t groundbreaking. Many others have recognized that culture and politics have infected the “mainstream” of most faiths. My purpose is only to add context. It is the foibles of humanity that screw up the intentions of God. As a believer in the concept of a higher power, it is my preference not to piss that higher power off with bad concepts based on poor choices in translation.
This should even appeal to the atheists among my followers. Yes, I do have them, and I appreciate them. They serve to keep me honest in what I can profess to know, and what, even to my own faith is speculation. In the area of the Bible, the data is so incomplete, that really, any conclusion is in large part speculation. The Bible is not clear, even in its own language, as we cannot know with precision, what unintentional meanings that the words used could have had in the context of the time. All of this has caused me to be careful in the use of scripture, both from the pulpit and in my daily life.
I will be offering courses on this subject, and the current state of religion as a tool for faith, and a tool for hate, online in the form of Zoom meetings. There will be no cost until the demand outweighs my ability to deliver on a free platform. The first offering will be a translation course underlying and demonstrating what I have put forward in this article. If you would like to take part, let me know. You can reach me by commenting here. Or hit me up on any of the social media that I use.
Continue in Faith, Peace, and Love,
Ecc. RL Brandner, New Ecclesiastes Ministries
Thanks.
I envy your ability to understand koine Greek and look forward to the course you mention.
Cheers,