Another egregious mistranslation in the NWT

by sir82 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  Actually gameô is used in the plural in vs. 36, gamizô in the singular in v. 38.

  But the argument from the Gospel parallels is considerably weakened by the fact that gamizô is always used there in the passive voice and in relation with the active voice of gameô, indicating a stereotyped (hence semantically weak) expression for marriage from both perspectives -- the man (actively) marries, the woman is (passively) given in marriage.

  This tells us next to nothing about the independent use of the active form. It is much more likely that both verbs were used interchangeably at this stage of the Greek language.

  One interesting explanation that avoids the conclusion of "virgin relationships" (but is not quite as likely imho) implies that parthenos is used in the common sense of fiancée, and that the problem is raised by the (anticipated!) application of the rule which Paul repeatedly states in this passage, "let everyone remain in the condition in which he or she was called". What if people converted while being engaged? Would that make their temporary status a permanent one? Then Paul's (surprising) answer would be: yes, if they can.
• 

  Leolaia

  Do think this has something to do with Paul's inauguriated eschatology, which looked forward to a heavenly citizenship and a condition where male-female distinctions dissolve in Christ? If Paul accepted the Jewish view that the angels of heaven "do not marry" and the expectation that the resurrected and the "changed" would become like the angels of heaven, then it would make sense that he would discourage physical relationships in the present, if the future conditions are partly realized already in the church.
• 

  Narkissos

  Certainly. And I would say that is a good example of how what has long been perceived as opposing trends, e.g. Jewish-Christian eschatology and proto-Gnostic realisation/enactment of eternal or heavenly "truth," could actually coexist and feed on each other at an early stage.

  Assuming the general integrity of the Pauline legomena, the impression I get is that Paul doesn't try to change much to the existing practices of the Hellenistic churches, but strives (often brilliantly) to make sense of them within his own developing theology. He may have found "virgin marriages" in the Corinthian church, just like he found baptism (even for the dead!) and the eucharistic meal, but instead of discussing the practices he theologises them into his own system (e.g. the body of Christ). He doesn't cringe from sexual metaphors in describing the union with Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15-17; 2 Corinthians 11:2, parthenos again; cf. Ephesians 5:32). The practice of "virgin marriages" could easily fit into his understanding, both as correlative and illustrative of the union of all believers with Christ beyond gender difference -- although that remains mostly implicit.

  In any case most NT texts (including the Gospels) are very far from the "traditional family values" that many think they can support by thumping the Bible...
• 

  Forscher

  I always thought the NWT rendering there was confusing to say the least.

  As I learned Greek, I got the impression that the confusion stems more from an imperfect understanding of Koine on everybody's part than anything else. I suspect that for all the data we have now our understanding of that curious merging of Semitic influences with Attic Greek which became the language the NT writers used to convey their thoughts leaves much to be desired.

  What are the chances that the writer was using some sort of Semitic construction or other influence we've not made any connection to as yet folks? Has that question been explored in academic literature?

  Forscher
• 

  Leolaia

  I think of Semitic interference in a writer's Greek as a somewhat different issue than the dialect leveling that is found in Koine. The former is more often at an individual level whereas the latter is at the level of community grammar (although there could have been regional varieties of Koine Greek, each showing local influences from native languages). Semitic languages were just one of many influences on Koine; my impression is that Koine Greek developed mainly by native speakers of different Greek dialects as a compromise, assimilated variety (but mainly based on Attic), which then subsequently was subject to interference by second-language speakers of Greek. As far as the search for evidence for interference is concerned, this was a popular pursuit in philology (e.g. Aramaisms in Matthew or John, etc.). I don't recall the Pauline works as showing especial evidence of interference. The most markedly distinct work in the NT is Revelation, which as Dionysius of Alexandria noted is rife with "barbarous idioms, producing solecisms" (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 7.26). A good survey of the solecisms of Revelation can be found in Aune's commentary, Vol. 1, pp. cxcix-cciii.
• 

  Narkissos

  As a side note, the Gospel use of gamizô in the sense of "to give in marriage" is confirmed by 2nd-century AD grammarian Apollonius (De Constructione, III, 153), but it is hardly found elsewhere (and it is not in the LXX). The "normal" verb for that meaning is gamiskô.

  One particularly remarkable solecism of Revelation is in the famous formula "he who is, who was and who is to come," ho ôn kai ho èn kai ho erkhomenos, where a 3rd-person indicative imperfect is substantivised as if it were a participle (like the two others). Literally, "the being and the was and the coming (one)".
• 

  Forscher

  Thank you both for your answers Nark and Leo.

  I guess the literature doesn't get much into the possibility I brought up. However, somethings going on in that passage that folks find a bit hard to figure. Daniel Kirk, of Sibboleth, states the problem about as succinctly as I've seen so far:

  Is there any way we can get away with a revisionist reading of 1 Cor 7:36-38? It would depend on two things: (1) being able to interpret "his virgin" as "his betrothed virgin" rather than "his virgin daughter"; (2) being able to translate gamizo as "marry." Both are probably a stretch. One problem with figuring out #2 is that the only other uses in Gk lit seem to be in the synoptic gospels. Is the way it's used there the only way the word was used in the ancient world?

  I humbly submit that the problem may also append in some way to #1 as well. The word used in the verse which Franz rendered "virginity" is parthenon, which generally refers to a virgin, or unmarried maiden (sort of the same thing.). I think part of the confusion also comes from Paul's use of the word gamizo, which only appears elsewhere in the synoptic Gospels with the meaning of "giving in marriage." The two taken together lends to an awkward problem for translators since the known meanings imply that it is the father, rather than the groom, who is taking indecent liberties with the virgin.

  The New International Version, or NIV, acknowledges the problem by placing the following alternative rendering in a footnote of the verse:

  If anyone thinks he is not treating his daughter properly, and if she is getting along in years, and he feels she ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. He should let her get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind to keep the virgin unmarried–this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who gives his virgin in marriage does right, but he who does not give her in marriage does even better.

  Franz's solution, to interpret parthenon in an adjectival sense, beggars the mind given that I cannot find any lexicon which he could call on to justify that rendering. Even his favorite Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words seems rather bare of anything which would support his rendering. It appears that Franz was engaging in a bit of paraphrasing on that one. So I'll simply chalk it up to an attempt to seem more learned than he really was.

  As for the unique phrasing of the passage by Paul, I guess he was using some sort of construction which relied on meanings of words we are as yet in the dark about. It could've been a localism, as implied by Leo, or some usage of words which are simply unknown to us today, as implied by Kirk's comment on his blog. So just about anybody will have to paraphrase that one if they don't want something which sounds a bit weird.

  Cheers everybody!

  Forscher
• 

  Narkissos

  I doubt that parthenos tinos would be naturally understood as "somebody's virgin daughter".

  An a contrario example from the LXX is Judges 11:24, where "my virgin daughter" is expressed by hè thugatèr mou hè parthenos.

  Otoh, as I tried to point out above, the Gospel uses of gamizô belong to a stereotyped expression (involving the symmetrical use of gamein and gamizesthai) and do not really inform us about the independent use of the active voice of gamizô.

  Until other examples are found out (which of course may never happen), we are bound to circular reasoning within the context of 1 Corinthians 7... and this rather points to the practical equivalence of gameô and gamizô.
• 

  cyberguy

  It is very interesting to read a number of translations of this passage. Each one is a little different and some stranger than the NWT. One thing we should keep in mind is that marriages (for young couples) were mostly prearranged. In addition, the culture was far different from ours, and women needed to marry for their own prosperity and welfare. In any case, we need to keep in mind that the whole subject matter is Paul’s “opinion” as he frequently states (see 1 Cor. 7:26, 7:40).