Posted on 01/24/2003 7:34:07 AM PST by Brookhaven
Nelson NKJV reference Bible for me. I love it.
the only point LL is making is that prostitute, or "sacred" prostitute, is a more literal translation of qadesh than sodomite. This is true, beyond argument. Sodomite might be a legitimate interpretation of qadesh, I don't doubt — and I don't think LL would disagree. (He will correct me if I err.) But the issue at hand is translation, and "sodomite" is not a good or literal translation of qadesh
That is all I was trying to say. We should not twist the plain meaning of one verse to score anti-homosexual points, and then complain if others twist the meaning of other verses to score pro-homsexual points. Consistency is a virtue.
The Bible has some very unambiguous condemnations of homosexuality-- Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 for example-- but the verses in Deuteronomy condemning the qadesh are speaking of pagan cult prostitution, which was not necessarily the same thing. It may have been homosexual, or may have been heterosexual, given the Canaanite's obsession with fertility; I suspect it was both. But "sodomite" is simply not an accurate translation.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that (a) I am a Jew, not a Christian, and (b) I am not a very observant Jew, and in many areas of my life I do not fully observe the Torah. But when I do not follow the text of the Torah, I admit it, and don't try to mistranslate the text to hide what I'm doing. I am a sinner, but at least I try to avoid the sin of intellectual dishonesty.
"You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in You." ~~ Augustine
Thus my annoyance with the recent fad among American Catholic Churches to change the phrase "This is the word of the Lord," to, "Word of the Lord," after the first and second readings.
There is no literal Latin equivalent for a phrase like, "this is the," but leaving it out of the English translation confuses the purpose of good translation exactly in the way you state above. A "literal" translation and a "word for word" translation are not necessarily the same thing.
Your threads sort of get to the point about which the article is concerned. Truth be told, translating anything from any language into any other language, can never be a precise science. Like it or not, there is at least a semblence of 'art form' to it. This becomes all the more clear when you try to translate an ancient language into the modern venacular, in our case, English. Bear in mind that the Holy Scriptures are translated into many other languages as well, and each have their own unique idiosyncristies dependent on their cultural existence as a society. Every language has their own colloquial expressions that, when translated literally into another language, make no sense. I am no fan of "dynamic equivalence" - it is a fraud used by heterodox people to push their various social and political agendas. It would be nice if every person had the time and capability to learn the original languages of the Holy Scriptures, but that is not a practical possibility. Nor do I believe God requires this as a necessary condition for salvation.
The conversation that you have been having can be applied to verses and words all over the Bible. Take the traditional translation into English of John 1;14:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.(RSV)
The Greek literally translate as "He pitched his tent among us" or "set His tabernacle with us" which was already a colloquial way of saying "dwelt among us" in Greek at that time.
In another thread concerning this article I pointed out that in St. Mark's Gospel that the Greek term "hodes" (don't know how to put Greek on the screen), "the Way" is thematically placed throughout his Gospel pointing to Jesus as THE WAY. Which indeed was an early term for Christians before they were called Christians. This same expression is variously translated as "along the roadside", "set out for", "on the path", etc. Read in this way, a reader can miss the "poetry" of this underlying theme St. Mark places in his Gospel.
I think accurate translations are a must. Interpretation and explanations belong in the footnotes!
This is my preferred translation. Scepter Publishers and I believe Ignatius Press still publish it. I've heard that the Holy See prefers to use this translation (the Catholic Edition) for official documents translated into English.
I don't think it's a fad anymore. I think the official translations coming out now have Verbum Dei as "The Word of God". Technically, it is correct, the Latin doesn't have Hic. I think even during the '70's Pope Paul VI covered this concept in one of his encyclicals.
Not owning a television for 15 years, i really can't tell you what Jerry Falwell looks like these days. My problem with Jerry is more his apparent naivete. Theologically, he has endoursed the ministry of the heretic Charles Finney, who was actually a pelagian, denying the blood attonement of Christ. i do not believe that this is deliberate error on Falwell's part. My biggest concern is the "professional exaggeration" that he is acustomed to, and has been embarrassed by in the past...there is a term for it..."evangelically speaking". Those two things mentioned, i have no personal animosity for Falwell. i do believe that Johnathan Falwell will probably be the preacher that Jerry wishes he was, at least the kid seems to have the tools.
Not being able to read Hebrew, all of this is news to me. This goes toward the point of having a Clergy as educated as we possibly can (as the Reformers showed by example), to explain these areas to the parishners in a non prejudical manner, so as to prevent God's people from drawing the wrong conclusion from the explanation, (such as the lie, "homosexuality is ok as long as you're not a prostitute").
Along those lines, i have not heard much discussion about perhaps the greatest "manuscript" finds, namely the non literary papyri (i.e., not New Testament manuscripts, or religious material) that gave us clues to the actual conditions of the Greek language at the time the biblical authors lived.
I think your key concept is in using the term "most literal". It would be nice if translating were simply a one to one "mathematical" approach with words. It decidedly is not. Take for example Latin and Greek which are participle driven languages. English is not. If you do a super-literal translation into English from one of these languages, taking into account the precise tenses, et al., of the participles (and the participles as participles) etc. Boy, do you have one very awkward translation. You need to then do another translation into English in its normal mode from the super-literal. (At least that's how I would do it in class). There is nothing new under the sun here. Language is mysterious because we are mysterious - it's how we express ourselves. And this because it is how God expresses Himself - "In the beginning was the 'Logos'".... The problems of translation is as old as the hills. The "dynamic equivalence" crowd would want to use the creative wisdom gathered over time for translation principles and abuse them to changing the very concepts being translated so that they are not only wholesale interpreting text, but mis-directing the interpretation for their various ends and agendas, which are legion.
The whole 'shrine whore' thing also demonstrates another important factor in Biblical exegesis. That of understanding the whole of the ancient civilizations involved in the narratives (cultural, political, economic, etc.). One word. Leviticus. Your average modern day American tends to be clueless as to what God is trying to tell us in this Book. An understanding of the ancient world that the Israelites were in at the time goes a long way to helping. That's why commentaries are so helpful, and hence why some individuals make it their professional concern to become "experts" on these subjects for the rest of us laymen who don't have the time or resources to become proficient at it. It is helpful to see how these "prostitutes" weren't identical to our modern day ones. That their prostitution was performed in the context of sacred (pagan) rites descended from the founding of their peoples. Such as Moab descended from the incestuous sin of Lot's daughter to being codified into their (false) religious practices, etc.
Whoa - Now the Old Testament begins to make sense! this can be fun! Sex sells!
Nice try. I knew better.
Ancient practices were often very different from what we would imagine.
Ancient pagan cults believed that when the gods had sex, they were "fertelizing" the Earth. So, if you had a good crop of wheat, it meant the gods were having sex.
Ancient pagans came to believe they could help the gods in their creation by having sex themselves. So, a system developed where both men and women would go to a temple and have ritual sex. Men would have ritual sex with women, and women would have ritual sex with men. In some cultures, everyone (from the highest to the lowest) was required to at least annually have ritual sex (often with a complete stranger.) This sex was considered an act of worship that was required to ensure good crops and other bessings from the gods.
This sound like insanity to modern ears, but I wanted to make the point that what happened in ancient times is often different from modern times.
Both homosexuality and ritual prostitution are condemed in the Bible. What's the harm in interpreting male ritual prostituion as sodomy? There has been a rise in pagan practices over the last 50 years (and I don't see it slowing down.) Undoubtedly, ritual sex will also rear its head along with other pagan practices. By intrepreting male ritual prostitution as sodomy, you strip the Bible of its condemnation of ritual sex. Will those that practice ritual sex in the future claim it isn't condemed in the Bible because the biblical reference only refers to "sodomy"?
Just as putting a liberal spin on the Bible causes poor interpretations, putting a conservative spin on the Bible also causes poor interpretations. God uses specific phrases for a reason. We should let the text stand on its own, rather than trying to add a slant that fits a particular doctrine of point of view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.