We find, however, that the Jews whom this double-dyed villain had consigned to extinction are no evildoers; on the contrary, they order their lives by the most just of laws and are children of the living God, the Most High and Most Mighty, who for us as for our ancestors has maintained the kingdom in excellent order. (REB: Esther 16:15-16)

In my recent reading of 1/2 Maccabees, I’ve run across the idiom again in the description of Nicanor, commander of Demetrius’ army and bitter enemy of Israel:

Thus Nicanor, that double-dyed villain who had brought along the thousand traders to buy the Jewish captives, was with the Lord’s help humiliated by the very people whom he had dismissed as of no consequence. (REB: 2 Maccabees 8:34-35)

And again:

The double-dyed villain retorted, “Is there some ruler in the sky who has ordered the sabbath-day observance?” (REB: 2 Maccabees 15:3)

Interestingly, the NEB also uses the “double-dyed” idiom variant in Maccabees rather than the more hyperbolic “triple-dyed villain” language that was used in Esther. So of the six instances found so far between the NEB and REB, only the NEB passage in Esther uses “triple-dyed”.

That said, while the Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible use “archscoundrel” in the passage from Esther, they *do* translate “triple-dyed scoundrel” in both passages from 2 Maccabees.

The complete Jerusalem Bible was first published in 1966; that of the NEB in 1970. It is well established that the initial work on the NEB Apocrypha was dissolved and the project restarted under the guidance of Professor W.D. McHardy, who also led the work on the NEB OT (cf. About the New English Bible by Geoffrey Hunt). Is it possible that there was literary influence from the Jerusalem Bible project into the later phase of the NEB Apocrypha?

I must also comment that I’ve just noticed one of the members of the NEB Apocrypha Panel under McHardy and a translator of such was William Barclay, one of my favorite theological writers - my affection for the NEB just went up another notch or two!

There’s really no conclusive point to this post other than noting a few more instances of this idiom, plus the Jerusalem Bible variant. I just like blowing the dust off literary phrases that we don’t hear today!

Ray McCalla noted some wordplay in one of the Apocrypha’s addition to the book of Daniel, Daniel and Susanna. This story of a young maiden unjustly accused by two lecherous elders concludes with a youthful Daniel separating the elders and producing two conflicting versions of their testimony. The issue at hand is the translation of the type of tree that the elders were hiding behind while they supposedly observed the maiden and her lover.

The following table compares the NEB/REB translation with the NRSV:

It is first important to note that both the NRSV and NEB/REB footnote the other approach. That is, the NEB/REB indicates the literal translation of the underlying Greek (”mastic” and “oak”, respectively), while the NRSB indicates that there is “an ironic wordplay” in the source language not reproduced in that translation.

Mike Sangrey asked the question, “To what extent should the observance of puns influence translation?” Clearly, in this instance, the NEB/REB translators put more importance on drawing out the wordplay through a dynamic translation rather than restricting the text to the literal meaning. It doesn’t hurt that there is evidently a yew tree that grows in northern Iran (Babylon, where the story takes place) and that it is a dense conifer that would presumably offer two elders some visual protection as they leered at a young woman. Another translation, the NJB, leans a bit to the dynamic as well with their choices of “acacia/cut” and “aspen/rend” for the respective examples above - perhaps emphasizing some phonetic similarities indicated in bold, though the aspen is perhaps a bit more geographically challenged.

* * * * *

The other example of wordplay that I wanted to consider was noted by Peter Lopez, who mentioned puns based on “almonds” from Jeremiah 1. An examination of a few translations revealed some interesting approaches:

In this case, the Hebrew for “almond tree” is shaked, while the Hebrew for “on the watch” is shoked. The NRSV and most other translations are similar to the REB.

The Jewish Study Bible contains a note on this passage that “the almond tree is one of the first trees to blossom in the spring, signifying God’s resolve to bring about the divine word concerning Jerusalem and Judah.” According to several other sources, the almond tree might be called the “watchful tree” (NJB) or “watching tree” (NAB) because it was the first sign of the new growing season. It’s unknown if this is a fanciful name in translation or a true idiomatic reference.

Interestingly, the REB edited out a related approach to this wordplay from the original NEB translation:

The word of the Lord came to me: ‘What is it that you see, Jeremiah?’ ‘An almond in early bloom‘, I answered. ‘You are right,’ said the Lord to me, ‘for I am early on the watch to carry out my purpose.’

In this case, the NEB has added words in an attempt to bring out a semantic meaning of the wordplay, that being the time element of God’s intent to fulfill his word, rather than the close spelling and pronunciation of the original Hebrew.

Previous posts: The winner’s wreath | A wilderness of words | Deeds of doom!

* * * * *

This summer I’ve been reading through some of the later letters of the New Testament, namely those of James and Peter. One of my recent book acquisitions was a Library Edition of the New English Bible NT, which proved to be an upgrade in binding only, as the footnotes and annotations are identical to those in my NEB Oxford Study Edition (unlike in the OT, where the Library Edition reportedly does contain additional reference material). Nonetheless, I’ve been reading the NT in the NEB and enjoying it quite a bit, as you might expect.

The passages on the depravity of the tongue in James 3 caught my attention with their florid language and imagery. What follows is a short look at several verses, comparing the NEB to multiple modern translations.

NEB: James 3:1-2	REB
My brothers, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach shall ourselves be judged with greater strictness. All of us often go wrong; the man who never says a wrong thing is a perfect character, able to bridle his whole being.	My friends, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach will ourselves face greater judgement. All of us go wrong again and again; a man who never says anything wrong is perfect and is capable of controlling every part of his body.
I want to focus on the change in the latter part of verse 2 where the NEB follows the traditional KJV rendering (cf. RSV/ESV, NASB, NRSV) in using “bridle” as a translation for the Greek chalinagōgeō, while the REB updates this to “controlling”. Presumably the equestrian reference has been deemed too arcane for modern, idiomatic readers, as virtually every other functional translation includes a similar rendering as the REB. The bridle, of course, is the contraption that goes over the horse’s head, holding the bit in the horse’s mouth and attaching to the reins. Is this really too difficult for the modern reader to understand without it being painted over? By doing so, the functional translations sever a delightful connection between this verse and the following one (see next), where James uses the illustration of the controlling power of a horse’s bit. This transition seems too logical and natural to ignore through a semantic equivalent.
NEB: James 3:3-5a	NLTse
If we put bits into horses’ mouths to make them obey our will, we can direct their whole body. Or think of ships: large they may be, yet even when driven by strong gales they can be directed by a tiny rudder on whatever course the helmsman chooses. So with the tongue. It is a small member but it can make huge claims.	We can make a large horse go wherever we want by means of a small bit in its mouth. And a small rudder makes a huge ship turn wherever the pilot chooses to go, even though the winds are strong. In the same way, the tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches.
The NLT’s convention of breaking down the source texts into bite-size morsels conveys much the same general meaning as the NEB, but I can’t help but feel that the logic of the passage has been weakened. The NLT drops the “obey/will” in favor of “go wherever we want”, which feels somewhat more whimiscal or capricious than directed. The NEB admittedly is awkward here, especially in verse 4 - somewhat cleaned up in the REB revision: Or think of a ship: large though it may be and driven by gales, it can be steered by a very small rudder on whatever course the helmsman chooses. My preference for accurate nautical terminology has already been documented; needless to say, the use of “gales” and “helmsman” earns points in my book. The latter is perhaps a little more precise than “pilot” in that the helmsman is the one who actually steers the ship, while a pilot is more of a local guide with the authority of a ship’s captain, telling the helmsman where to go in order to navigate a particular passage of water. That said, often the roles are combined from a functional sense, especially where a local pilot is not required. But I suspect this is more than translators need to take into account - I simply prefer the traditional language and welcome it in the NEB. Finally, by translating the Greek melos as “thing” instead “member” or “part of the body”, the NLT loses the comparative aspect of the size of the tongue to the overall body.
NEB: James 3:5b-6	HCSB
What an immense stack of timber can be set ablaze by the tiniest spark! And the tongue is in effect a fire. It represents among our members the world with all its wickedness; it pollutes our whole being; it keeps the wheel of our existence red-hot, and its flames are fed by hell.	Consider how large a forest a small fire ignites. And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among the parts of our [bodies]; it pollutes the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is set on fire by hell
Compare the use of adjectives between the NEB and HCSB: “immense/tiniest” and “large/small”. How drab is the latter, while the former immediately conjures a more active illustration of a fire, crackling into a blazing roar that echoes the “huge claims” and “grand speeches” of verse 5a. The NEB noted “What a huge forest…” as a textual variant to “stack of timber” - though that would have created an awkward repetition of the adjective “huge” in 5a/b. I might humbly suggest “swath” instead of “stack” as a mediating translation between the two approaches, with “timber” as a literary image of a forest. The HCSB is one of the few translations to use “pollute” in verse 6 - most opt for a variant of “corrupt” or “defile”. The Greek is spiloō, which means “to make a stain or spot” in a moral sense. The study notes to the NEB Oxford Study Edition state that the translation “wheel of our existence” in verse 6 is a reference to Greek mystery thought meaning the whole of our existence, from beginning to end. Some take this as support for the idea of reincarnation, but that clearly is beyond the pale of Christianity and presumably beyond what James had in mind. Finally, the NEB’s literary quality shines through again with the alliterative “flames are fed”, drawing out the all-consuming quality of sin and wickedness, just as fire consumes every inch of a forest unless checked.
NEB: James 3:7-8	TNIV
Beasts and birds of every kind, creatures that crawl on the ground or swim in the sea, can be subdued and have been subdued by mankind; but no man can subdue the tongue. It is an intractable evil, charged with deadly venom.	All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by human beings, but no one can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison
First, I want to briefly comment on the rolling alliteration in the NEB: beasts/birds, creatures/crawl, swim/seas. This type of poetic prose, continued from the previous verse (”flames are fed”), elevates the English language beyond the pedestrian list of beasts illustrated by the TNIV. The literary characteristics of the word choices make them seem deliberate and my memory naturally finds in them an allusion to the Creation accounts in Genesis 1: Genesis 1:26-28 (NEB) — Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ The question then begs: did the TNIV translations fail to underscore an allusion to Genesis 1 in James 3:7 or did the NEB translators take liberties with the Greek text to draw out this connection? The two phrases that stick out in the NEB are “creatures that crawl on the ground” and “swim in the sea”, translated as “reptiles” and “sea creatures”, respectively, by the TNIV. The former is translated from the Greek herpeton, which generally describes “a creeping animal, reptile”; the equivalent Hebrew seems to be remes, which permeates the Genesis creation account as “creeping thing” in traditional translations. The latter is from the Greek adjective enalios, which means “that which is in the sea, marine”. In these cases, the NEB’s choice of verbose nouns and verbs to translate what can be more simply described does seem to be deliberately creating an echo of Genesis 1. With that conclusion in mind, we look at the Greek damazō (NEB: “subdue”, TNIV: “tame”). The NEB’s rendering more definitely recalls the Creation language of Genesis 1 quoted above, while the TNIV (and many other translations) anticipate perhaps Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew”. Strong’s defines damazō as “to tame” or “curb, restrain”, which certainly would seem to lean toward the TNIV as a more literal translation, though “subdue” as a synonym for “restrain” is well within the scope of possibility, and fits with a Creation motif. Finally, the NEB’s translation of thanatephoros ios as “deadly venom” is a striking allusion to the serpent of Genesis 3, unifying a theme across these two verses that seemingly ties the evil of the tongue to the fall of Creation. And indeed, unifying this entire passage in James with the contrast of the serpent’s deadly venom with the perfect character of a man who never says a wrong thing (3:2).

Concluding thoughts

James’ descent from simply cautioning teachers regarding judgment to perhaps finding an image of the Fall in the deadly venom of the tongue is sudden and vicious. The images, metaphors and hyperbole are mixed together in a literary brew that demands language as artful and colorful as the jumble of images conjured up in our imaginations. The NEB navigates this passage with aplomb, weaving words together with suggestive allusions that revel in semantic meaning. The arc from the perfect teacher to the relentless evil of the tongue is captured in the images of the bridle, bit, rudder, blazing hellfire and fiery course of our lives, all set in relief against the glory of our God-given mandate to subdue creation as its sovereign masters.

A glory, of course, that we have all fallen short of. All, but Christ that is; He who now reigns over Creation as Lord and Master is the only one who has mastered the tongue and doused the flames of the curse with living water. Praise God!

Previous posts: The winner’s wreath | A wilderness of words

* * * * *

The primary text under consideration today is 2 Corinthians 11:12-15. In order to provide the proper context, I will first provide a modern literal translation, then look at how the “literary” translations render the target text.

12 And what I do I will also continue to do, in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about. 13 For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds. (NRSV)

The “literary” translations considered in this post are the REB and NJB, as well as Richmond Lattimore’s translation and a little-referenced translation on this blog, the International Standard Version (ISV). The latter came to my attention in a review by Andy Cheung (HT: sunestauromai), where a particular phrasing jumped out at me from this passage. But more on that later…

This passage overall is notable for a number of words that are repeated in the original Greek: aphormē (NRSV: opportunity), metaschēmatizō (NRSV: disguise) and diakonos (NRSV: ministers). While most of the translations maintain consistency in the repetition, there is definitely variance in how those words are translated.

Verse 12:

The ISV tracks quite closely to the NRSV, but reads more naturally, especially in the opening phrase. I’ve noted that the ISV is far more likely to use contractions to smooth the spoken aspects of a verse, which may not necessarily be “literary”, but lends itself well to spoken English.

The Greek aphormē (NRSV: opportunity) literally means “a base of operations” from which to attack or move, or the resources found therein. As such, the NRSV’s translation, “opportunity”, could be understood as “[...] to close the door on those who want an opportunity to be recognized [...]“, leveraging the “door of opportunity” idiom. Lattimore’s use of “pretext” stands apart when comparatively reading the English versions; his version begins weaving the thread of false deceit that will become more apparent in subsequent verses.

Both the REB and the NJB use an expression “cut the ground from under those” as a substitute for the first instance of aphormē. This seems to be a likely British idiom unfamiliar on this side of the pond, whereas an American equivalent might be to “to pull the rug from under those…” Both translations use variants of “chance” for the second instance of aphormē, and are the exceptions to the general rule of maintaining concordance.

The REB’s individual choice of “vaunted” for the Greek kauchaomai (”boasting”) introduces a certain “is it praise or boasting” ambiguity that isn’t apparent in the other translations. Furthermore, “apostleship” is a clarifying addition to the text, though one that definitely changes the grammatical construction of the phrase.

Verse 13:

Here we consider the variety of language used for the phrases “pseudapostolos” and “dolios ergates“. The former is translated as “false apostles” (NRSV, Lattimore, ISV), “counterfeit apostles (NJB) and “sham apostles” (REB). The latter translation continues the “con game” theme with “confidence tricksters” for dolios ergates, which is more literally translated as “deceitful workers” (NRSV), “dishonest workers” (NJB, ISV) or “treacherous workers” (Lattimore).

A more natural rendition of the REB might be “con men” instead of “confidence tricksters”, which is the formal phrasing of a common slang term, albeit perhaps more natural in British English?

Verse 14:

There is little variance in identifying Satan’s deceitful appearance as “an angel of light” - all the considered translations use this phrase. I want to look, therefore, at the verb metaschēmatizō (verses 13, 14 and 15), which is derived from schēma (defined in Strong’s as “comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc.”). The full verb means to change or transform the figure of (one’s self).

The NRSV, NJB and Lattimore choose forms of the verb “disguise” to describe these passages, while the REB and ISV choose the more elegant “masquerade”, which certainly fits the billing of a literary translation. Both renderings accomplish metaschēmatizō through concealing the true nature of something by way of deceit.

However, as much as I like masquerade, I wonder if it is too suggestive of a costume ball, where the participants are just tantalizingly hidden behind ornate decorations. It not so much the player who has been transformed, as the costume has given them a new appearance. The focus is on the costume, not the player. A disguise, while not as adventuresome, seems to be more in line with changing the appearance of someone such that they become someone or something else. We want to see an angel of light, so Satan becomes one; not merely hiding behind a feathery mask, but indistinguishable to our sinful inclinations from a true angel or Christ.

Verse 15:

The word choice for diakonos is equally varied: the NRSV and Lattimore translate it as “ministers”, the NJB and ISV as “servants”, and the REB as “agents”. My hesitancy on “ministers” is that we perhaps read that today with too narrow of a viewpoint - is Paul referring to spiritually corrupted pastors and teachers of the Church? Ironically, diakonos is the original of our word, deacon. Or is it a political reference such that C.S. Lewis can imagine a host of letters written to the young demon Wormwood from his bureaucratic uncle, Under Secretary Screwtape? Similarly, the REB perhaps has too much of “secret agent” feel to it - Satan’s minions as the field office of the CIA (or MI6 for our British friends).

The last part of this verse provides another opportunity for a literary turn, with Paul essentially writing that “they’ll get what’s coming to them!”. The ISV turns out the phrase that caught my eye in Andy Cheung’s review: “Their doom will match their deeds!”

The critic may protest against the overt interpretation or even cartoon-ish reading of “doom” versus the literal “end” (NRSV, NJB, Lattimore), but the alliteration is irresistible, as is the exclamation. Unlike “doom”, both “end” and the REB’s “fate” are somewhat ambiguous in an explicit positive/negative sense, but the context makes it clear that the latter is in play here.

* * * * *

Concluding thoughts: Highlights from this passage include the REB and NJB’s “cut the ground” idiom in verse 12, the “con game” language of the REB in verse 13, the suggestive imagery of “masquerade” (REB, ISV) in verse 14, and the ISV’s “deeds of doom” in verse 15. The REB continues its pattern of modifying grammatical structures to smooth the resulting translation, while the ISV has an oral smoothness all of its own.

* * * * *

I have mentioned Calvin Seerveld’s translation and study of The Song of Songs several times on this blog, as well as in the comments on many others. I was introduced to Seerveld’s work five years ago in the midst of a two-year Bible study and found it utterly fascinating. His approach blows the cobwebs off the doors of traditional allegorical interpretation, restoring the positive and negative characteristics of physical love and relationship in a completely Biblical context.

In the sections to follow, I will attempt to summarize the key approaches that Seerveld takes. I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I will steer clear of his extensive discussion of the structure of the underlying Masoretic text and leave it to others to discuss his application from a textual viewpoint.

Synopsis. The subtitle of Seerveld’s book is “In Critique of Solomon” and the title character fares poorly in this translation. Rather than Solomon the Lover as most interpretations have it, Seerveld casts Solomon as a lascivious old lecher, more enamored with the lusts of physical flesh than the beauty of love.

“A beautiful virgin in love with a shepherd is brought away from home to the king’s court against her will in order to become another one of Solomon’s wives. Despite Solomon’s declarations of affection, his royal promises, and even the harem women’s exhortations to join herself to the blood line of David, the Shulammite maiden remains true to her betrothed lover [who] searches for her far away. The mighty potentate finally leaves the scene rebuffed, and the lover and Shu come back home to renew their vows near the sweet-smelling mountains.” (p.19)

Obviously the greatest difference between Seerveld and mainstream translations is the recasting of the relationship between the Shulammite and Solomon from lover/beloved to faithful maiden/lecher. The separation of the traditional male voice into the virtuous shepherd lover and the lustful old king is dramatic and utterly natural the more one becomes acquainted with the translation.

Translation. Seerveld states that his approach to the text is literal, perhaps even hyper-literal. He writes that:

The translation presented here is so literal, in fact, that when the Hebrew verb is feminine a woman says it, and when the verb has a masculine ending it is spoken by a man; when the verb is a plural form, several voices say it. [....]

Literal translation is more than substituting brute American English letters for untouched Semitic vowels and consonants. Literal translation means getting across exactly, in one’s native tongue, what is literally there in the strange, original text. This translation tries to do that, as no official one does, by tenaciously showing the constant shift in speakers’ gender and number, and by pointing up in passing the rich variety of song, poetry, dream, dialogue and action embedded so effortlessly in this artistically composed biblical text. (p.10)

In essence, Seerveld has cleverly adopted “literal translation” as a byword for dynamic translation, using the idioms of the receiver langauge to show what was meant in the original text. However, Seerveld goes beyond just a textual translation, however, and employs a variety of literary-dramatic devices to present the text, including song, verse and stage cues. Seerveld’s translation is noted as an arrangement for “oratorio performance”, placing more import on the work as a song than as literature.

Excerpt. Any discussion of Seerveld’s work would be meaningless without presenting the translation itself. In many ways, this is almost impossible, since as a drama, it forms a cohesive whole not easily broken apart to be studied verse by verse. That said, I will take Seerveld’s dramatic organization and present here the fifth movement, or rhapsody, which corresponds to Song of Songs 6:4-8:4. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to compare these verses with the traditional translation of their choice.

Obviously I am not able to reproduce the actual musical settings presented in the book; you will have to be satisfied with my annotations of what is sung vs. spoken.

Implications. Either as a hymn of praise and love for God’s people Israel, a history of God’s redemptive dealings with Israel, or the mutual love of God and Church, “Song of Songs” has been largely interpreted as allegory by both Christian and Jewish interpreters. According to Seerveld, modern scholarship mainly sees Song of Songs as a collection of ancient Near Eastern erotic and profane love lyrics, which casts doubts on the suitability of the book’s inclusion in the divine canon, which leads back to the need for allegorical explanations.

Instead, Seerveld boils down the Song of Songs to this wisdom statement: “you cannot buy love”.

It must come naturally, like buds blossoming on an apple tree, or it had better not come at all. Love can be waked, but not manufactured. Love can be tantalizingly enjoyed, but not professionally practiced. Love is not a prize to be somehow won, but is a gift possibly to be received. Built into love is an unstudied, unable to be compelled spontaneity. (p.71)

Song of Songs becomes God’s revelation of the beauty of fidelity in the face of compulsion. It is breathlessly about physical love, not an antiseptic allegorical theological tale. It is divinely profane without apology for our modern sensibilities. It is painstakingly honest in its presentation of passion and perversity.

God is love and the image of our Creator is found in the beauty of love, not the perversion of lust. Song of Songs is God’s song of love to us, a song of the natural beauty of physical love between His created lovers.

* * * * *

Final thoughts. Lest you think that Seerveld is some crackpot without depth behind his dramatic work, I want to assure you that I’ve only scratched the surface of his book. The translation and notes that I’ve referenced make up only half of the book. I will perhaps return with another post on the supporting material, including Seerveld’s notes on unity and structure of the Hebrew, oratorios, dating and authorship, difficult phrases and textural variants. Even better would be someone with knowledge of Hebrew to examine this same material.

P.S. For those interested in more from Seerveld, I am waiting for his recent volume on Psalms to arrive. It contains translations of three dozen psalms and several passages from elsewhere in the Bible, including this take on the Beatitudes (audio link).

* * * * *

The primary text under consideration today is 1 Timothy 1:6. In order to provide the proper context, I will first provide a modern translation of 1:3-7, then look at how the “literary” translations render the target text.

3 I urge you, as I did when I was on my way to Macedonia, to remain in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine, 4 and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith. 5 But the aim of such instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. 6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions. (1 Timothy 1:3-7, NRSV)

The original Greek of verse 6 is hos tis astocheo ektrepo eis mataiologia. The NRSV is quite literal with its translation of astocheo (”to deviate from, to miss the mark”) and ektrepo ( “to turn aside, to turn away from”). Strong’s defines mataiologia as “vain talking, empty talk”. The root word is mataiologos (cf. Titus 1:10), defined as “an idle talker, one who utters empty senseless things”, of which the root adjective mataios means “devoid of force, truth, success, result” and “useless, of no purpose”.

William Barclay notes that mataios “applied to heathen worship. The main idea was of a worship which produced no goodness in life.” The NASB captures the literal sense of this with “fruitless discussion”, which seems to carry a little more semantic weight than the NRSV’s “meaningless talk”. To these ears, the use of “fruitless” versus “meaningless” more literally conveys the “useless result” idea of mataios.

The translations being considered for this comparison render this verse as follows:

1. Through falling short of these, some people have gone astray into a wilderness of words. (NEB)
2. Through lack of these some people have gone astray into a wilderness of words. (REB)
3. There are some people who have gone off the straight course and taken a road that leads to empty speculation (JB)
4. From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling (KJV)

The diversity of translation is significant. Some phrases are recognizable from the NRSV, but others have, quite possibly, missed the mark (Gk. astocheo)! The first thing to identify is whether there are any textual variants that might account for the differences, however, I’ve not been able to find any differences for this passage.

With regards to the opening phrase, the NEB and REB should be scrutinized most closely. The NEB’s “falling short” may be within reasonable bounds of astocheo, especially if the “missed the mark” definition is taken; however, the REB’s rendition, “through lack of these”, is a head-scratcher. A secondary translation of astocheo is “erred”, but even this doesn’t account for the REB’s questionable revision of the NEB.

Like the NRSV and KJV, the JB assigns a sense of purpose to the translation of astocheo. The translations “have gone off” and “have deviated from” and “swerve” are deliberate actions, compared to the passive phrasing of the NEB and REB.

In terms of literary phrasing, the JB succeeds beautifully in tying astocheo and ektrepo together. Using the same imagery of “the straight course” and “a road” is a wonderful choice and one’s thoughts perhaps drift to Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken“, though Paul is certainly not writing in the positive here with respect to the road that leads to “empty speculation”. That said, as strong as the “road” phrasings are, the JB’s translation of mataiologia seems weak; while “empty” is certainly fine, “speculation” just doesn’t seem to capture the root legos adequately. Moffatt’s “empty arguments” would be preferable.

The question for the KJV is whether we read “jangling” in today’s context of “making a harsh or discordant, often ringing, sound” (e.g. he jangled his keys), or whether there is a different meaning, more in line with the literal definition of mataiologia. And indeed, the first two entries in Webster are “to talk idly” and “to quarrel verbally“, producing “intense irritation”. A reference to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary defined “jangling” as “chatter”. Finally, when the text is read out loud, there is a sounding alliteration between “vain” and “jangling” that should be commended.

Similarly the alliteration of the NEB/REB is excellent; “a wilderness of words” is a vivid portrait of this phrase. “Wilderness” quite captures the barren, fruitless aspect of mataios; however, I wonder if, in our modern interpretation, “words” leans too much toward a written connotation and not the verbal “discussion for the sake of discussion” that Paul is writing about and that the root legos suggests. That caveat aside, it’s a masterful phrase and one can also derive some pleasure from the REB’s related choice for mataiologos in Titus 1:10 of “There are many [...] who talk wildly and lead others astray.”

Final thoughts — Anyone who has read this blog for even a short while will know the affection I have for the NEB/REB’s translation of this verse, at least the second half. If you are new here, well, just look to the tagline in my header graphic. The JB continues to impress with its translational choices - I’m looking forward to receiving my copy of the NJB to see if they’re improved the translation of mataiologia since the trend with most revisions has been to become more literal. I still can’t connect with the KJV text and I’m looking forward to receiving my copy of the Lattimore New Testament, which has been highly recommended.

Finally, I want take note of another commentary, which drew a parallel between mataiologos and Shakespeare’s classic “sound and fury” line from Macbeth. And indeed, wouldn’t that be a beautiful literary translation:

Some people have turned away from these and tell tales like idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

* * * * *

** Update ** My copy of the New Jerusalem Bible came just as I was finishing writing this post. Regrettably, but perhaps as expected, the freedom of the JB has been replaced by a considerably more literal “Some people have missed the way to these things and turned to empty speculation“.

1. The Authorized Version (KJV)
2. The New English Bible (NEB) and/or Revised English Bible (REB)
3. The Jerusalem Bible and/or New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)

Other translations will be used throughout the series as a point of comparison.

Note: As I’ve alluded to in the post title, this is actually a reworking of a preview post I had blogged in April. In that effort, I eventually succumbed to the temptation of personally rewriting the verse under consideration, which led to interesting but ultimately wayward results. I hope that this mulligan better stays the course and lets the translations speak for themselves.

* * * * *

The text under consideration today is 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. I will first provide a modern translation, in this case the NRSV, then look at how the target “literary” translations render the text.

New Revised Standard Version:

24 Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. 25 Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable garland, but we an imperishable one. 26 So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; 27 but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.

Revised English Bible:

24 At the games, as you know, all the runners take part, though only one wins the prize. You also must run to win. 25 Every athlete goes into strict training. They do it to win a fading garland; we, to win a garland that never fades. 26 For my part, I am no aimless runner; I am not a boxer who beats the air. 27 I do not spare my body, but bring it under strict control, for fear that after preaching to others I should find myself disqualified.

New Jerusalem Bible:

24 Do you not realize that, though all the runners in the stadium take part in the race, only one of them gets the prize? Run like that – to win. 25 Every athlete concentrates completely on training, and this is to win a wreath that will wither, whereas ours will never wither. 26 So that is how I run, not without a clear goal; and how I box, not wasting blows on air. 27 I punish my body and bring it under my control, to avoid any risk that, having acted as a herald to others, I myself may be disqualified.

King James Version:

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they [do it] to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27 But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

9:24 — Is it a race, a stadium or the games? The underlying Greek is stadion, which Strong’s defines as a race course, a “place in which contests in running were held, the one who outstripped the rest and reached the goal first, receiving the prize. Courses of this description were found in most of the larger Greek cities, and were like that at Olympia, 600 Greek feet in length.” The description seems to be on the place, not the race itself; the NJB is to be preferred here with the explicit mention of stadium.

However, perhaps in consideration of the spiritual “crown that will last forever” (v.25), we might allow ourselves to refer specifically to the Olympic Games as the ultimate place of physical athletic competition, and not just any race track. The REB makes possible reference to the Olympics with its definite “the games”; the NRSV and KJV refer only to “a race”. I must point out that I do like the NRSV’s choice to use the verb “compete” here; that does capture the situation nicely.

There seems to be two possible thoughts in the last part of this verse: “Run in such a way that you may win it.” (NRSV) The interpretations seems to be (1) run well enough to win, or (2) you have to run in order to have a chance at winning. The NRSV, NJB and KJV emphasize the former, running well enough to win; the REB’s choice of “you must run” seems to shift the focus to the second interpretation, putting obligation on Paul’s audience to “get in the game” and not sit on the sidelines.

9:25 — Paul is demanding that his readers approach their spiritual training with the same strictness and focus that physical athletes apply in their training. I’m reading a slight air of sarcasm in Paul’s description of the prize of athletic training in comparison to that of our spiritual training. The KJV is the most inclusive rendering of both physical and spiritual training, with “every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things”, then contrasting “they” and “we” in next sentence, the former referring back to the runners in verse 24.

The translation choices in this particular verse are quite varied. It seems that the flavor of the English word chosen as the translation of phthartos (corruptible, withered, fading) will depend in large part on how you translate stephanos (crown, wreath, garland). All three of the options used here are listed as viable possibilities in Strongs and Vines, and I can only pass along the argument that if Paul meant a royal crown, he might have used diadema instead. But here, athletic competition is the context, and a woven garland of botanicals seems to be a more appropriate cultural choice.

The NJB, REB and NRSV make this choice and have suitably expressive translations of phthartos. In terms of pure word play, the NJB is commended for its alliterative choice of “a wreath that will wither”, as well as the stronger cultural reference to the winner’s wreath (ha!). The REB and NRSV also pick up the botanical angle with “a fading garland” and “a perishable garland”, respectively. The KJV translates stephanos as “crown”, but at least with the literary effect of an alliteration, “a corruptible crown.”

9:26 — The theme of verses 26-27 is the “strict training” or “mastery” from verse 25. In verse 26, Paul emphasizes that, like the physical athlete, his work is focused with a goal in mind; there is no wasted effort. In verse 27, he repeats this thought, bringing his body, i.e. his disciplined spiritual life, under control so that no one may be able to accuse him of carelessly leading his disciples astray.

Paul uses two athletic comparisons, running and boxing. His literal formula is “This is how I run: not without a goal; this is how I fight: not by beating the air.” The question for the translations is how (or whether) to most clearly state the description of Paul’s efforts in the negative, as in the original text, or whether the phrase should be restated in the positive, e.g. “I run with a clear goal; I fight by landing strong blows.”

The KJV, NJB and NRSV all connect v.26 to v.25 through a variation of “therefore” - drawing a causal connection from the “strict training” of the runner to Paul’s description of his effort. The REB creates almost the opposite effect; by starting with “For my part”, the phrase draws itself in contrast to to the athlete. This seems ambiguous at best, and perhaps inaccurate. The NRSV has the most direct language in this passage, the result of avoiding the “I am” constructs of the REB and the literal negative clauses of the NJB and KJV.

For some additional discussion, I want to reference another translation, the New Living Translation (NLTse):

So I run with purpose in every step. I am not just shadowboxing.

I love “shadowboxing” - what a wonderfully descriptive word! However, I’m not sure whether it captures the right sense of “flailing in the air” (lit. beating the air). Is Paul saying that he’s landing blows to his opponent, not just going through the practice movements of boxing (shadowboxing), or is he saying that his boxing movement is efficient, that he is not wildly flailing his arms around in the ring?

Given the emphasis that Paul placed on winning and “getting in the game”, it seems unlikely that Paul would be satisfied with only practicing, so while “shadowboxing” is a particularly evocative word choice, it loses the bruising aspect of the fight, which requires efficiency and training to hit your opponent with maximum effect, while expending as little energy as possible or leaving yourself open to counterattack (as we will see in the last verse below).

9:27 — There are two aspects to this verse that should be considered. First, the phrase “I do not spare my body, but bring it under strict control” (REB) and second, the choice of translation of the Greek kerusso.

With regards to the first idiom, there has been a great deal of discussion of this phrase in blogdom and I would first point the reader to several of the many posts that have been made:

• Discipulus Scripturae (Nathan Stitt): here, here and here.
• MetaCatholic (Doug Chaplin): here, here and here.
• Gentle Wisdom (Peter Kirk): here.
• Ancient Hebrew Poetry (John Hobbins): here.

The discussion as a whole was sparked by comments on the TNIV’s particular rendering: “No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave…” I cannot say that the translations under consideration here add anything significant to the discussion. I think that the REB is the clearest, but all have the flavor of a literally translated idiom, rather than a literary equivalent. For the sake of not rehashing old conversation, I’m going to punt on any further digging on this one.

With regard to kerusso, there are two paths taken by the literary translations: “preach” and “herald”. Both are derived from the base meaning, “to proclaim”, used by the NRSV. The REB and KJV use a variant of “preach”; the NJB translates “having acted as a herald”. In a sense, to preach is to act as a herald, proclaiming the truth and gospel of Christ. The former translations are choosing an active verb that encompasses the meaning of the NJB.

One question is whether the verb “preach” adequately captures Paul’s apostolic role. 2000 years later, this verb conjures up images of a sitting congregation with a pastor on a stage, speaking from a pulpit. “Herald” really captures the proclamation or announcing function of the apostles in presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ. There’s something formal or official about “herald” because it’s not a word we use in contemporary speech - but perhaps that’s the definition of a “literary translation”…

The last phrase of this passage, “so that [...] I myself should not be disqualified”, evokes playing by the rules and making sure that every “t” is crossed and “i” is dotted. Paul’s training is complete so that he cannot be accused of glossing any detail or twisting facts in his proclamation of the gospel. We also think back to verse 26, where his fighting is both offensive and defensive, such that he lands blows with his arguments, but doesn’t leave himself open for counterattack.

The KJV’s choice of “a castaway” as a translation of adokimos is curious. The Greek word is an adjective meaning either “not standing the test, not approved” or “that which does not prove itself such as it ought”. The KJV makes this into a noun, along the lines of “something that is defective and thrown away.”

Final Thoughts – Overall, I like the New Jerusalem Bible’s translation. The word choices are distinctive and draw out shades of meaning not in the base NRSV or the other literary translations, while keeping the sentence structure fairly formal. The REB is much more aggressive about reordering words into fewer grammatical clauses to read more naturally in English. The base translation, the NRSV, proved to be clear and satisfactory in several passages.

It’s proving somewhat difficult for me to fairly evaluate the KJV on more than a word-by-word basis. The language is foreign and I’ve never spent any time with it before, other than scattered individual verse comparisons. In the process of writing this, I’ve tended to leave it to the side and focus on the other translations as I’ve been writing - of course, I don’t have a physical copy, so “leaving it to side” really just means an inactive browser tab.