Beduhn's "Truth in Translation" quotes Part 1: proskuneo

by M.J. 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  M.J.

  As you may know, a relatively new book by Assoc. Professor Jason Beduhn rates the NWT among the most accurate of the available translations, based on selected NT passages. Here are a few quotes on his treatment of one of them, on the subject of translating proskuneo as obeisance vs. worship:

  The verb proskuneo is used fifty-eight times in the New Testament. When the King James translation was made, the word picked to best convey the meaning of the Greek word was "worship." At that time, the English word "worship" had a range of meaning close to what I have suggested for the Greek word proskuneo. It could be used for the attitude of reverence given to God, but also for the act of prostration. The word was also used as a form of address to people of high status, in the form "your worship." So the King James translation committee made a pretty good choice.

  But modern English is not King James English, and the range of the meaning for the word "worship" has narrowed considerably. Today, we use it only for religious veneration of God, so it no longer covers all of the uses for the Greek verb proskuneo, or of the English word in the day of King James. For this reason, it is necessary that modern translations find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is implied by the use of proskuneo in the various passages where it appears. If they fail to do this, and cling to the old English word "worship" without acknowledging its shift of meaning since the days of King James, they mislead their readers into thinking that every greeting, kiss, or prostration in the Bible is an act of worship directed to a god. (p. 42)

  Then it goes on to say :

  Rendering a single Greek word into more than one English alternative is not necessarily inaccurate in and of itself. Since Greek words such as proskuneo have a range of possible meanings, it is not practical to insist that a Greek word always be translated the same way. . . . But in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NWT. There are passages where many translators have interpreted the gesture referred to by the Greek term proskuneo as implying "worship." They then have substituted that interpretation in place of a translation.

  I am not going to enter into a debate over interpretation. It is always possible that the interpretation of the significance of the gesture may be correct. But the simple translation "prostrate," or "do homage," or "do obeisance" is certainly correct. So the question is raised, why depart from a certain, accurate translation to a questionable, possibly inaccurate one?

  The answer is that, when this occurs, the translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God. But the presence of such an idea cannot be supported by selectively translating a word one way when it refers to Jesus and another way when it refers to someone else. . . . They might argue that the context of belief surrounding Jesus implies that the gesture is more than "obeisance" or "homage." It's not a very good argument, because in most of the passages the people who make the gesture know next to nothing about Jesus, other than that it is obvious or rumored that he has power to help them. (pp. 47-48)

  I bring this up to get some of your thoughts on the matter. This is only one of several biblical passages he covers. More to come.
• 

  Narkissos

  I agree in principle that a minimalist (e.g. "obeisance") translation would be correct, provided it is used consistently.

  If you use one verb for "proskuneô to the king" and another for "proskuneô to God," which verb you will choose for "proskuneô to Jesus" will necessarily reflect your theological bias in one direction or the other. So the only safe path for the translator on such an issue is consistency.

  But the NWT is not consistent!

  Just from the first instances:
  Matthew 2:2,8,11 obeisance to Jesus.
  Matthew 4:9f worship to the devil / God

  Moreover, BeDuhn's naive argument "people didn't know who Jesus was" completely misses the point that the author knows (or pretends to), and when he uses a term susceptible of both human and divine interpretation (e.g. kurios, "Sir" or "Lord") he is very often deliberately playing on the ambiguity: what might seem unremarkable for the outsider who reads the story at ground level is an obvious hint to the believer.

  Cf. also http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/90625/1.ashx
• 

  M.J.

  One criticism I have read with regard to what Beduhn writes here is that if one must translate proskuneo as "bowing before" or "doing obeisance" when used in reference to Christ, then it is a source of bias to not remain consistant and use the same term when used in reference to God (in such cases the NWT translates the word as "worship"). This is introducing a difference in status between Christ and God which the gospel writers did not make: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

  Another observation of mine is that proskuneo was not considered something that was properly given to humans as per Acts 10:25,26

  And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [proskuneo]. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

  Although I'm no scholar in any sense of the word, I would guess this could imply that the Biblical usage of prokusneo may be closer to our understanding of the word worship than perhaps Beduhn is letting on.

  Edited to add: Nark you beat me to the point about consistency! Didn't see it!
• 

  Narkissos

  Another observation of mine is that proskuneo was not considered something that was properly given to humans as per Acts 10:25,26

  And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [proskuneo]. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

  Although I'm no scholar in any sense of the word, I would guess this could imply that the Biblical usage of prokusneo may be closer to our understanding of the word worship than perhaps Beduhn is letting on.

  I don't think this necessarily implies the meaning "worship" -- why would Cornelius "worship" Peter in the first place? And how would he do it? The narrative only implies a gesture (bowing down, prosternation). Peter's response may simply mean: I am not an important person for you to treat me as a superior, I am a man like you.

  As a side note, in the French Bible revision I have worked on I suggested a minimalist and thoroughly consistent translation of proskuneô, with a concrete verb (se prosterner) susceptible of figurative and metaphorical overtones. This was accepted by the Protestant revision Committee and I really think, looking back, that it was a good move. Only the footnotes indicate the possible alternate rendering "adorer" (to worship) and thus far nobody complained about it afaik (although most readers of this version are Trinitarian).
• 

  M.J.

  Good points. I guess what I was getting at is that bowing down in itself could be considered something reserved for God exclusively. But I agree that consistency in translation lets the reader decide on the matter, without obscuring the issue.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Given that Acts also depicts Gentiles as so superstitious they assume the missionaries were Greek gods, I think the author may in fact have intended his readers to understand Cormelius was intending to worship Peter. Peter's objection here could easily be understood as denying godship, not just and metaphor.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I will also say once again that translating is not the real problem, the book itself breeds cult thinking. The JWs were socially unhealthful and individually repressive long before the NWT.
• 

  Faraon

  I do think that BeDuhn has a valid point, but he forgets that the concept of worshipping has evolved through the ages. We now think of worshipping as something that emanates from the mind in a loving way. However, the way that I read the bible (mostly in the Hebrew Scriptures, but also to a lesser quantity in the Greek translations), the act of worshipping seems to me to have started as a gesture of submission. This gesture basically comes out of fear, not out of love.

  From there, we see the idea of giving honors being developed, which basically, again, is a recognition of having a higher form of status in the chain of command but it now implies a group.

  Finally we end with the modern English definition of to worship as: giving love and devotion to a deity. This, of course, is not all-inclusive, as we still see British magistrates being called "Your Worship", and as we well know, not all Britons worship their magistrates. Yet this understanding of the word is a far cry from the primitive Hebrews who functioned, not out of love, but out of fear of an angry god.

  In Spanish the word "adorar" (to worship) has a wider range of meanings. As I see it, it was probably what Jason BeDuhn had in mind when he suggested that a word that covers a meaning closer to the original Greek should be uniformly used. In Spanish, for instance, is not uncommon for someone to say something like "adoro tus pantalones" (It literally would mean: I worship your pants) when someone is trying to say that they love your pants.

  I do agree that he seems too naïve. On his examination of Matt. 28:16-17, for example, he states: "This contradiction seems to be missed by all translators except those who prepared the NW".

  Right! Like they did not look at the bible with a fine toothcomb to back up their doctrine! (p.48)

  I do strongly concur with him that the "debate of interpretation is the right of the readers, and should not be decided for them by the translators" and also that "Modern translators undermine that cause when they publish interpretations rather than translations, still trying to direct readers to the understanding acceptable to the beliefs and biases of the translators themselves." (p.49)

  Curiously enough, BeDuhn has backed my position that the NWT should be called an interpretation, and not a translation. Why? Because it is not uniform. When it comes to be neutral about its doctrine all rules change in their favor. And I have been saying for years, even before BeDuhn´s book came out. But to be fair, most bibles do deserve to be acknowledged as biased, although they don?t call themselves a "translation".

  I have actually recommended this book to JWs. I think that they will get a few surprises when they read it. I have seen in it some things that I know that the WT will definitely not like.

  Faraon
• 

  Narkissos

  Very good points PP and Faraon.

  I completely agree that the special use of proskuneô in the NT suggests divine worship, but this is a result of the text itself, not the prealable definition of the word. From the practical standpoint of translation this effect of the text is better rendered with a verb expressing a concrete, yet highly symbolical gesture, especially in a cultural context in which the gesture is still understood but not practiced. If you choose an abstract and theologically loaded word such as "worship" you just spoil the textual game.
• 

  Honesty

  Would he would translate the veneration given the WT organisation by its followers if it was written in Greek as 'doing obeisance to' or as 'worshipping'?