More on Mistranslations of the Bible (continued)

Note: The first part of this (More on Mistranslations of the Bible) was published in this blog on 11 May 2019.

Now, do we really care if the biblical David was either gay or bi? Some may, but I certainly don't. What I do care about is the absence of a single translation into English that gives us the correct, literal meaning of the Hebrew words, So far I've checked the KJV, NASB,RSV, NIV, NWT, and JB (Koren Publishers 1997), as well as the Latin of St. Jerome's Vulgate.

What we have, instead, are all sorts of fanciful renderings, such as "until David exceeded," "but David wept more," "until he exerted himself," "but David did it the most," "until he recovered himself," "until David regained control of himself."

These little tap dances around the Hebrew words are all intended to avoid one central fact: the biblical David, King David, the slayer of Goliath and the hero of Israel, also supposedly a royal ancestor of Jesus, was either gay or bi. He clearly had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, which Jonathan's father, King Saul, condemned in the strongest terms and which became the motive for Saul's attempts to kill David.

What is important, though, is not that David, to whom some of the world's oldest and best poetry is attributed, was gay. What is important is that I have not been able to find a single version of the Bible that translates 1 Samuel 20.41 correctly and literally.

I don't claim to be a great Hebraist. If I know what those Biblical Hebrew words mean, then others do, too. But they are maintaining a silence that has now lasted almost two thousand years. This is something that we need to think about.

[to be continued]

Text © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler

Blue Skies

I was naked all summer
in those years,
brown as a berry,
as I cleaned the pool
or worked in the garden.
Age was still  an abstraction,
and I cared more for the sun
and my freedom
than for modesty.

How will it be
in the new place?
Age is no longer
an abstraction,
but there is plenty of sun,
my freedom is still there,
and modesty has flown the coop.
The woods behind us
will not care.

Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler.

An Acid Test for Bible Translations (Revisited)

This could be hard to explain, but if you care about biblical texts for literary, historical, poetic, religious or any other reasons, I think it is very important.

About six or seven years ago I became aware of what can only be called a conspiracy, to water down the language of the Scriptures, thereby making their words less offensive to governments and to wealthy, powerful elites. At the time, I had other fish to fry, and so said little about it, except for a Facebook Note, "The Book of Psalms and its Various Translations," and later another, "Where is Mercy?" They are reproduced in relatively recent entries in this blog.

What I found out, back in those days, was that I had half a dozen modern translations of the Bible into English that were victims of this "spinning" of scriptural meanings. I got rid of all of them.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to determine whether the translation that you use has been affected by this modern tendency to willful mistranslation to satisfy an agenda. I call it "the acid test."

If the translation you use was produced by Protestants, who use the Masoretic numbering of the Psalms (or if it is a Tanakh), go to Psalm 18. If your translation was produced by Catholics, it will will probably use the LXX/Vulgate numbering, in which case it will be Psalm 17. In either case, go to the last verse of the psalm, which will be either 50 or 51, depending on the numbering.

Our earliest sources for this psalm are in Hebrew and in Greek. If your translation includes a phrase such as "and shows mercy to his anointed," then it MAY be a good translation; if it says "and shows steadfast love (or kindness, lovingkindness, love, etc.) to his anointed," then it has DEFINITELY been affected by the conspiracy mentioned above, and I would not use it. The word used in Biblical Hebrew is "chesed" which means, and has always meant, "mercy." The word used in Greek is "'éleos," which means "pity, mercy." The three Latin translations that I use (one based on the Greek, and two based on the Hebrew) all translate the word as "misericordia," which means "mercy."

If that example of the "acid test" is too complicated, here is a simpler one. Go to Proverbs 3.3. If it says something to the effect of "let not mercy and truth abandon you," or "let not mercy and truth be far from you," then you MAY have a good translation. But if it says "let not steadfast love and fidelity ..." or some such thing, then you DEFINITELY have a translation that has been a victim of the above-mentioned conspiracy to "soften" and "spin" meanings according to an agenda.

Why does it matter? Well, here's an example. If modern Israelis are to follow the advice of Proverbs 3.3, then their relations with the Palestinians should be characterized by "mercy and truth." "Mercy" is an accountable word that is generally tied to actions. "Truth" is also pretty accountable, since something is either true or it is false. But "steadfast love" is vague, unaccountable, relativistic, and tied to nothing. In concrete terms, it does not commit to any particular type of behavior, or any behavior at all. The same can be said of "fidelity," which is vaguer and more relative than "truth." In other words, it's a weasel word. By the way, the words used in Biblical Hebrew are "chesed" (mercy), and "emet" (truth). I've known those meanings for more than fifty years, and they are the meanings that they've always had in Biblical Hebrew. Saint Jerome knew them in 400 CE, and the translators of the Septuagint knew them in about 200 BCE. Why change them now, except to assuage some people's consciences and let them weasel their way out of doing what is just (and merciful and truthful).

I should mention here that the meanings of words are subject to change over time. Thus, in Modern Hebrew, which did not exist at the time when the books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were written, "chesed" is often used to mean "charity" or "kindness." But to introduce these meanings into an ancient text is to introduce anachronism and distortion of the original text. The best translator for an ancient text is an ancient translator. Failing that, we at least need a respectful one.

I'm not a fundamentalist. I'm a poet and a translator, and words matter to me. I hope they matter to you, too.

Text © 2017-2019 by Donald C. Traxler.

Respect / ᎪᎯᏳᎯ

ᎪᎯᏳᎯ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᎵᏍᎨᏛᎨᏍᏙᏗ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ.
ᎢᏳᏃ ᎢᏧᎳ ᎤᎭᏎ ᎪᎯᏳᎯᏁ
ᏏᏴᏫ ᏐᎢ ᎾᏍᎩᎭᎢ,
ᎥᏝᎪᎱᏍᏗ ᏰᎵᏆᏎ ᎠᎴᏫᏍᏙᏗ ᎢᏧᎸ.

Respect is the most important thing.
If we have respect
for each other,
nothing can stop us.

Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler ꮨᏺꭽꮅ.

The Book of Psalms and its Various Translations (Revisited)

The following was published, in an earlier form, as a Facebook Note. It was republished, also in that earlier form, in this blog on 19 April 2017. The version below is updated with corrections and additions based on later information and further thought.

I'm very disappointed. Recently, after not having seen one for many years, I received a copy of Liber Psalmorum cum Canticis Breviarii Romani. It is the 1944-45 translation of the Psalms by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, ordered by Pius XII.

I expected a lot of it, because I agree with its announced premise: that the best text of the Psalms is the Hebrew text that underlies the Septuagint. Unfortunately, that Hebrew text no longer exists, and they have supposedly tried to reconstruct it. I cannot speak to their methods, but I'd like to say a few things about the results.

One expects a lot from a group calling itself the Pontifical Biblical Institute, so this translation has been very influential. In fact, the Book of Psalms in every Catholic translation of the Bible since the Second World War has been based on it. Due, I suppose, to the soundness of its basic premise, it has also strongly influenced modern Protestant translations, such as the NRSV and the NIV. All of this is extremely unfortunate.

This Liber Psalmorum, or New Latin Psalter (I'll refer to it as NLP from here on) has so far failed every test to which I have put it. Not only that: It seems to have started a very unfortunate trend in Psalms translation, and in Bible translation in general.

Recently I've noticed that modern translations of the Book of Psalms are tendentious in that they water down the original, strong language of the Psalms. The effect of this is to make the Psalms less of an indictment of the human social order, and to make them less embarrassing and threatening both to the civil governments of the world and to the institutional Church. I'll give some examples.

In Psalm 8, v. 5, the Vulgate, accurately reflecting the LXX, which itself reflects a Hebrew text older than the one we now possess, has the phrase "aut filius hominis, quoniam visitas eum," "or the son of man, that you visit him." But the NLP and its followers have "that you care for him." Now that Greek word has both of those meanings, so both interpretations are possible. But the Vulgate translated the word literally, suggesting a more intimate and direct relationship with God, something the institutional Church has always found threatening. By itself, I wouldn't say much about it, but it is part of an unfortunate pattern. The Hebrew word, by the way, doesn't have that ambiguity: it simply means "to visit." Now, my edition of the Vulgate has two versions of the Psalms, one based on the LXX and the other based on the (still unpointed) Hebrew text of Jerome's time. Both versions say "that you visit him." Likewise the KJV. But the NLP and its followers (almost all contemporary translations, including the NIV, the NASB--supposedly the most literal, and the beautiful translation of Robert Alter, 2018) give an alternate Greek meaning, despite the evidence of both the Hebrew text of 400 CE and the Masoretic Hebrew text. Only the Jerusalem Bible (Koren Publishers, Jerusalem, my edition is dated 1997) faithfully follows the Hebrew text.

I should take a little detour here, and say something about our beloved King James Version, of 1608. It contains, in my opinion, one of the last honest translations of the Book of Psalms. Where it differs from the Vulgate and the LXX, it is usually because something (often a whole verse) is missing from the Masoretic Hebrew, upon which it is based. For example, it leaves out the "NUN" verse that should be in Psalm 145, an alphabetic acrostic. But the omission had no agenda; it simply reflected the imperfect state of the Masoretic text that was (and is) available. The Hebrew text is far too important for it to be ignored, and the translators of the KJV did not ignore it. In recent years there has been a campaign against the KJV, saying that it is "not a good translation," and that contemporary translations are "better." In my opinion, neither assertion is true. The only problem I see with the KJV is that its beautiful, Elizabethan English is not always well understood today.

Another example of the watering-down process is seen in Psalm 9b (10), where the Greek and St. Jerome's Latin (both the version based on the LXX and the version based on the Hebrew text of his time) tell us that while the impious man fills himself with pride, the poor man "goes up in flames." But according to the NLP, the poor man "is vexed." The Hebrew word in the Masoretic text means "to burn," it does not mean "to vex," or "to hotly pursue."

Our last example, for present purposes, comes from Psalm 11 (Vulg. and LXX)/Psalm 12 (Hebrew and KJV), where we find (in the Vulgate, which is basically a faithful reflection of the LXX) the phrase "Propter miseriam inopum, et gemitum pauperum. . ." This can be translated as "Because of the misery of the needy and the groans of the poor. . . " The LXX  has "Because of the misery of beggars and the groaning of the poor. . . " Jerome's Hebrew-based version is even stronger: "Because of the destruction of the needy and the groaning of the poor," which is close to the Masoretic Hebrew of today. But in the NLP, the "misery of beggars" or "destruction of the needy" becomes "the affliction of the lowly" (afflictionem humilium).

Yes, let's forget that there are beggars, people in need, and let's reduce their "misery" or "destruction" to "affliction," which makes it all more abstract. Let's not offend the governments of the world, or the billionaires who own and control them.

In Florida and some other states, it is now illegal to feed the homeless or their children, and those who try to do it are arrested. To feed them is, of course, to notice them, and to admit that they exist.

All of this does not just "vex" me; it burns me up.

Text © 2011-2019 by Donald C. Traxler. 

Where Is Mercy? - Revisiting the Question

This was originally written as a Facebook Note, and published there on 18 Oct. 2015. That version was also published in this blog on 20 April 2017. I have now updated it with additional information, and so am publishing it in the blog again.

This morning I had occasion to use a biblical quote. I chose Proverbs 3.3. In the King James Version it goes like this:

“Let not mercy and truth forsake thee . . . “

But I picked up my JPS Tanakh, since it also has the Hebrew original, and read this:

“Let fidelity and steadfastness not leave you . . . “

So I checked the Hebrew:

חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת אַל-יַעַזְבֻךָ

It clearly says, “chesed v’emet,” which means “mercy and truth.” I’ve known these Hebrew words for more than fifty years. Why are they now being changed to “fidelity and steadfastness?” When I studied Kabbalah, some fifty years ago, I learned that “Chesed,” the fourth of the ten sephiroth, means “Mercy.” I started to do a little digging.

I found that this change doesn’t only affect Proverbs, but also the Psalms, and in fact the whole Tanakh (what is called the “Old Testament” in Christianity). I’ve previously written about this problem in the Psalms: see my Facebook Note “The Book of Psalms and its Various Translations,” published July 6 2011 (and republished in this blog on 19 April 2017). Psalm 136 uses the word “chesed” twenty-six times. In every case, it was translated as “ELEOS,” “mercy” in the Septuagint (LXX), made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria in about 200 BCE; in the Vulgate (St. Jerome, ca. 400 CE) as “misericordia,” “mercy;” and in the King James Version (1608 CE) as “mercy.” But now my JPS Tanakh gives it as “steadfastness” and has also changed “truth” to “fidelity.” The Revised Standard Version gives us “loyalty and faithfulness;” NIV: "love and faithfulness;" The Jerusalem Bible (Koren Publishers): "loyal love and truth;" NASB (1971): "kindness and truth;" Robert Alter's new translation (2018): "kindness and truth." What’s wrong with “mercy and truth?”

So I dug a little further, this time in my dictionaries. My dictionary of classical Greek (we don’t have the Hebrew text on which the Septuagint was based) defines “ELEOS” as “pity, mercy.” My dictionary of New Testament Greek defines it as “compassion, mercy.” My Hebrew dictionary (which largely reflects modern usage) gives “grace, favor: righteousness; charity.” In modern Hebrew it is frequently used to mean “charity.” All of this is also consonant with “mercy.” So, if the cream of Jewish scholarship in Alexandria, ca. 200 BCE, took “chesed” to mean “mercy” rather than “steadfastness” and “emet” to mean “truth,” rather than “fidelity,” who are we to change these translations? Is it required by any findings of modern scholarship? I don’t think so.

What is really happening here? At first I thought it was a conspiracy to mistranslate, and in some cases there may be an element of that. But lately I'm becoming more aware of other possibilities.For example: Robert Alter is an honest and honorable man, and he would not intentionally mislead us. And yet, he has "kindness" where the ancients translated "mercy." But "chesed" is often used in Modern Hebrew to mean "charity," which is a form of kindness. Perhaps Alter is being influenced by Modern Hebrew, which didn't exist when the Book of Proverbs was written. Semantic drift over time is clearly at work here. Robert Alter had the benefit of the NASB (completed in 1971), which may also have been influenced by Modern Hebrew, but is considered to be the most literal of contemporary translations (it underwent a revision, though, in 1995, which made it somewhat less literal). The fact is that the meanings of words are fluid over time. This means that the best translator for an ancient text is likely to be an ancient translator.

Here is just one more example, another quote I had occasion to use the other day, Isaiah 59.8:

“. . . they have made their roads crooked, no one who goes in them knows peace.” (Vulgate, KJV, et al are similar.) But my JPS Tanakh says, “They make their courses crooked, no one who walks in them cares for integrity.” I submit that the latter is willful, tendentious mistranslation. the Hebrew clearly says “will not know peace.” I don’t see how it could be any clearer. I know what “shalom” means, and so do you. The Hebrew word for “integrity” is not “shalom,” it’s “shlemut.” They are related words, to be sure, and “shalem” does mean “whole.” But the pointing has been available since about 600 CE and the word was already understood correctly in 200 BCE and 400 CE. Why should we make a ridiculous stretch and try to change it now? It is interesting, though, that in this case and in the previous one, the JPS Tanakh is out in left field, against all the others. I believe that the Jerusalem Bible (Koren Oublishers, Jerusalem, my edition is 1997) is far superior to the JPS publication.

I submit that some of these are cases of willful, tendentious mistranslation. I believe that this is a trend in modern biblical translations. I believe that this scriptural spinning is done to assuage modern consciences and to avoid offending those in power. If you’d like to see more evidence of this, please refer to my earlier Note, referenced above. God help us if we are in a world where mercy, truth, and peace are out of favor.

ᎠᏥᎸᏍᎩᏔᏱ / Florida

ᎠᏥᎸᏍᎩᏔᏱ ᎤᎭᏎ ᎤᎪᏗᏗ ᏘᏲᎭᎵ. ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎡᎶᎯ ᏘᏲᎭᎵᏗ ᎥᎿᎢ. ᎤᏍᏗᎨᏍᏙᏗ, ᎤᏯᏅᏗᏔ "ᎨᎪ" ᏲᏁᎦ ᎬᏙᏗ, ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏂᎬᎾᏛ. ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏰᎵ-ᏂᎨᏒᎾ ᎠᏓᏅᏍᏗ ᎦᎵᏦᏕᏁ ᎪᏩᏘ ᏄᏠᏯᏍᏛᎾ. ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎾᏍᏋ ᎡᏆ ᏘᏲᎭᎵ ᎤᏯᏅᏗᏔ "ᎢᏆᎾ", ᎠᏎᏃ ᎠᏯ Ꮭ ᎪᏩᏘᏎ. ᎡᏆᎨᏍᏙᏗ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᏧᎳᏍᎩ. ᎾᏍᎩᏛ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎦᏂᏰᎬ, ᎠᏎᏃ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎾᏍᏋ ᎤᎾᏤᎵ ᎣᏪᏅᏒ.

Florida has many lizards. It is the land of lizards. The smallest, called "gecko" by the whites, are everywhere. It is impossible to leave the house without seeing them. There are also big lizards called "iguana," but I have not seen one. The biggest is the alligator. They are dangerous, but it is also their home.

Text and image © 2019 by Donald C. Traxler ꮨᏺꭽꮅ.