Language and Idiom

I'm a keen user of bible study software. I use a combination of Libronix' Logos 3.0, Wordsearch 7.0, and e-sword.

One of the things I have noticed particularly since studying the Talmud and other Jewish writings has been the extremely well developed original language tools. I have the Scholar's Library edition of Logos and the dictionary meaning of words and an analysis of how it has been translated in various parts of the bible are just a few clicks away. They are good, very good. However I recently came across by a book by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard called "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus".

Bivin was founder and director of the Jerusalem Perspective and number of the Jerusalem School Synoptic Studies a think tank with other Christian and Jewish Scholars. The book has been endorsed by notable Jewish scholar David Flusser. Blizzard Was adjunct assistant professor at the Centre for huddle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas, Austin.

Bivin and Blizzard point out that Jesus uses many Hebrew idioms in his everyday speech. Unfortunately idioms by their very nature are difficult to Understand outside their historical and cultural contexts. How can non-English speakers accurately translate phrases such as "let's get cracking", "I like the cut of his jib", or "sailing too close to the wind"? Similarly the English translator and reader of the Hebrew scriptures faces a similar challenge.

Unfortunately our early church fathers took a strongly anti-Jewish stance. So successful were they that by the time of Constantine church creeds included Vows to reject all the "Jewish" festivals, and even to avoid dining at the same able as a Jew. Needless to say with such thinking becoming widely held, a schism between Jewish and Gentile society became entrenched. Without contact with Jewish society, Christian theologians and translators toiled without even knowing that Jewish idioms were used by Jesus and attempt to infer the meaning of his Words; and as Bivin and Blizzard sadly illustrate, with sometimes absurd results.

I was interested to discover that the "good eye" and "bad eye" in Matthew 6.22-23 means a "generous heart" and a "miserly spirit" respectively. Yet I have encountered many a commentator's writings concerning the possible meaning of this passage, usually developing an explanation that differs markedly from the theme of generosity.

Did I say that the bible scholar is faced with a challenge in correctly translating scripture without the benefit of a thorough understanding of Jewish culture and idioms? I would venture to say that the task is impossible without contact with Jewish society and literature.

Bivin and Blizzard give a number of examples to illustrate their point. Here is one: "Set his face to..." and "his face was set toward..."(9:51) When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
(9:52) And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
(9:53) but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. (Luke 9.51-53)

Translators have read into this passage that Jesus had moments of misgivings or even doubts about going to Jerusalem. But the phrase he "set his face to go to..." and "his face was set to..." has no such connotation as Hebrew idioms . They should have been translated as "he was travelling to..."

Clearly the risk of error is great when translating outside of the Jewish context and therefore it would not be surprising to find theology based on studying flawed translations would also be in error.

They look at a number of theological positions that have gained prominence but in their opinion are built on mistranslations: Pacifism; Torah abrogation; giving without discernment; are all examples offered,

If even half were true, then many of the things we have taken for granted as accepted tenets of Christianity must be questioned.

-------------------------------
Uploaded with my Apple Newton