"T.L.:D.R." The Genesis Question Part one

Hi, Everybody!

Auctions:

Dave Sim (Cerebus) IDW X-FILES ANNUAL 2014 comics & art print prototype #1/1

Aardvark-Vanaheim STRANGE CEREBUS by Dave Sim EARLY PROOF COPY

CEREBUS IN HELL? PACKAGE: Love and Aardvarks, World's Finesse Cerebi, more

And bonecrusher86 is the name to know...

So Dave sent this in:

1 April 18

Hi Matt!

You must be running out of my Biblical commentaries along about now. So…

courtesy of CerebusDownloads.com

2 February 14
Groundhog Day
SuperBowl Sunday


Hi Troy and Mia:

Okay, while you were watching the SuperBowl:

Commentary on
"The Genesis Question"  Chapter One 

As is usually the case with my reading Christians writing on Christian Scripture (or, to me, "Scripture" in the case of those writings external to the Gospels, Acts and John's Apocalypse), I think it sensible to go back to the Koine Greek to see what was actually said and compare that to what has come to be popularly believed to have been said.

Mr. Ross' notes for this chapter cite 2 Timothy 3:16 (as The Bible making for itself the claim that it is divinely inspired). I'm naturally suspicious of texts which I consider non-canonical vouching for canonical texts.  The King James Version of 3:16 reads

All Scripture given by inspiration of God & profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction for instruction in righteousness Even with the word "is" interpolated between "Scripture" and "given by inspiration of God"; and between "&" and "profitable" 3:16 seems to me pretty much an incomplete thought -- and intended as such even in the KJV where the translation of that verse ends in a comma.  The tendency of Christians to use individual verses like fortune cookies whereas I see 3:16 as  continuing the thought begun in 3:14 and concluding in 3:17:

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned.  And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture given by inspiration of God & profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (marginal suggested alternative: perfected) thoroughly furnished unto all good works
 The Interlinear translation from the Koine Greek has it as:

You, however, be  remaining in what you learned and you were persuaded to believe
 "You were persuaded to believe" -- evidently a single compound Greek term! Amazing language that Greek! -- has a very different sense to it from "hast been assured of".  The Greek philosophers and semanticists in particular would be appalled at translating the one as the other since they revered so highly the ability to persuade through argument. Add to that that Paul is addressing a student with a Greek mother and I think it's even more important to keep what is being said "coherently Greek".

having known beside of whom you learned "of whom" and "beside of whom" are differently nuanced.  The compelled inference of "of whom" directly suggests a single teacher whereas "beside of whom" could imply the teacher while also suggesting a companion student or an invisible presence assisting you:  Jesus himself or an angel or God being a distinct possibility.

Hair-splitting?  Well, yes, but where else are you going to split hairs?  We're talking about the Word of God (if, as a Christian, you believe that Paul's commentaries ARE the word of God).  It seems to me a bad place for a "close enough for government work" translation. And, this being addressed to Paul's own student/apprentice I would be especially careful about excluding a specific forensic accuracy -- and a fellow student/apprentice we are not specifically aware of  (Titus, maybe?) is definitely a potential forensic accuracy.

and that from infant sacred writings you have known the ____s being able you to make wise into salvation through faith the in Christ Jesus Sacred writings can be "holy Scriptures" depending on what category in which the writer puts those writings.  Unless you know, specifically, what parts of the Torah Paul thought to be sacred -- and what besides the Torah he thought to be sacred -- I'd be cautious in translating this as "holy Scriptures".  Particularly for Christians who have evolved away from a wide-ranging inclusiveness over the centuries, while indulging in canonical peculiarities like the elevation of Ruth and Esther to prophethood.  If you're going to evolve away from a perception, then you should make sure that your translation evolves in the same direction and have Paul saying "that from infant writings perceived to be sacred you have known…" so you can remain non-specific about what those writings are while acknowledging that you quite possibly differ from Paul in your modern perceptions of what is sacred and what isn't.

I also wouldn't translate "THE in Christ Jesus" as "in Christ Jesus".  "THE in Christ Jesus" suggests it as a species of faith whereas "faith in Christ Jesus" limits the idea to suggesting that there is ONLY faith in Christ Jesus and that that's what Paul is saying -- that all other faith is false.

Idiosyncratic to Koine Greek, evidently, is the plural form of "the" and I always see a problem there.  The safest translation always seems to me to be "these" because it's the only non-specific plural pronoun available to us in English.  Or, better yet, "the (plural)".  Or, better yet (in my view), "the ____s" because it more clearly establishes that there is a specific term or concept missing which shouldn't be inferred without specific evidence:  in this case, what Paul thought of and didn't think of as "sacred writings".

all Scripture God-breathed and beneficial toward teaching, toward reproving, toward straightening up upon toward discipline the in righteousness This is translated in the KJV as
 All Scripture given by inspiration of God & profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness This seems to me to confirm my point, "God-breathed" -- invoking as it does the animating of Adam in Genesis 2:7 --  a rather higher level of divine inspiration than the merely sacred -- suggesting that it would be incautious to decide "after the fact" and without evidence what Paul did and didn't consider to be "God-breathed" sacred writings.

"Beneficial for teaching" being translated as "profitable for doctrine" seems to me, again, to "de-Greek" the meaning.  Which, to me, is sad because I'm pretty sure that Koine Greek was selected by God -- and created by God -- for its specificity and its simplicity as THE Mediterranean lingua franca.  The fact that the Romans had adopted Greek teaching methods and expressions confirms this.  Compound nouns which convey a very specific meaning, coupled with the most advanced philosophical concepts (which the Greeks were miles ahead of anyone on at the time) are "beneficial for teaching" and so resonate with what Paul is saying.

"Profitable for doctrine" is certainly the direction in which the Christian church evolved (or, in my opinion, DEvolved), but it's an entirely contrary view to "beneficial for teaching".  It's institutional in form, looking at increasing the number of followers as a "profit-based" proposition.  The more persuasive your "doctrine" the more "profitable" it becomes:  you get more followers.

Unfortunately, this "philosophy" also leads to misapprehensions like The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition which were certainly "profitable" in the sense intended by "profitable for doctrine" but were entirely wrong-headed (and wrong-hearted) and, over the long term, far more detrimental to the good of the Christian church in seeking that which is "beneficial for teaching".  The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were not, to say the least, "beneficial for teaching" the ministry of Jesus.

"for reproof" is also differently nuanced than "toward reproving", the latter suggesting that "reproving" is a direction you want to move "toward" rather than just outright "reproving" everyone who disagrees with you ("reproving" definitely having been the dominant characteristic of Christian teachings as they have evolved since the time of Paul).  Again, "toward reproving" is more aligned with the Greek method of "teaching through persuasion" rather than just overtly denouncing people. If you believe in persuasion you can always yourself be persuaded by a superior argument.  If you just "reprove" the odds are small of your accepting reproof.

"toward straightening up upon".  Again, conveyed through a single compound Greek term. Again, a far more benign way of expressing an idea as a means of teaching and persuasion than the KJV's "correction".  "Toward straightening up upon" suggests moving towards a more preferable structure through basic "organization out of disorganization", something that will benefit the listener personally, while not directly impugning the listener's own philosophical foundation, implicitly.  Quite the contrary.  It suggests that the listener's foundation is solid but that there is required a "straightening up" -- like forming a disorganized pile of cards back into a deck of cards -- "upon" the listener's own foundation.

 "Correction" -- and I see this as a Christian vice -- can only be inferred one way:  you are "incorrect" and my doctrine will "correct" you.

"for instruction in righteousness" seems to me to partake of the same vice, having only one compelled inference:  "you are NOT righteous. I AM righteous, so I need to instruct you in how to become righteous AS I AM".  It also seems to me to be a poor substitute for the original:  "toward discipline the in righteousness".  "Discipline" can be "instruction" but "instruction" is not always the same as "discipline".  It seems to me particularly true that SELF-discipline is a central component of righteousness.  And in the case of SELF-discipline, instruction is a raw material, not the finished product.  And the original sense conveys that:  "TOWARD discipline".  The sacred writings point TOWARD discipline, but they don't IMPOSE discipline.  I also think the translation misses the central "flavour" of "the in righteousness" because there is no direct English analogue.  To the English-biased mind, it looks like "pick one": "the righteousness" or "in righteousness".  Okay, we'll pick "the righteousness".

But, I don't think you can get too far, successfully, with "translation by omission" -- dropping out inconvenient words that don't reflect your own views.  I think you have to look at it in terms of "how do I have to change my perceptions of what is being said so that all of the words can be included in my perceptions?"  ("straightening up upon" my own views, in a sense).

To do that, I think you have to have "toward discipline" as one concept and then look at what "the in righteousness" does to amplify that concept.  The inclusion of the definite article "the" suggests to me, immediately, that what we are discussing is a very specific, individual species of discipline.   "Discipline THE [insert 'kind of discipline' here]".  And I think what Paul is specifically referring to is a species of discipline which exists as an inherent component not only OF righteousness but WITHIN righteousness, inextricable from righteousness.  "Toward discipline: the discipline IN righteousness".  That is, not SELF-righteousness, the idea conveyed by "instruction in righteousness" -- I am righteous and you aren't so I'm going to instruct you in how to be righteous like me -- but rather another form of "toward".  The sacred writings are TOWARD teaching, TOWARD reproving, TOWARD straightening up upon, TOWARD discipline (qualified by: the discipline found in righteousness). Go TOWARD the direction the sacred writings are pointing and see what you find there.

in order that fit may be the of the God man, toward every work good having been fitted out completes the thought nicely.  You align yourself TOWARD all of the TOWARDS indicated and you become fit (more I think, in the sense of appropriateness than physical strength -- in the same sense that "survival of the fittest" is more about appropriateness to the environment than who is stronger.  Many species that aren't strong are still fit.).  This seems a world away from the KJV's:
 that the man of God may be perfect  (marginal suggested alternative:  perfected) thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
 I think Paul would have found this appalling to suggest that what he was teaching was that the man of God, by following his teachings could become perfect.  If for no other reason than it suggests that Paul thought himself to be perfect and that his mission was to go out into the world in instruct people how to become perfect like him.  It seems to me another example of Church excess:  to take a very explicit roadmap of what sacred writings point you TOWARD and suggesting going TOWARD those things (ultimately concluding that this will lead you TOWARD every good work) and changing that into a de facto declaration of perfection -- a perfection "thoroughly furnished" -- by belief in God.

Now, to be fair, Mr. Ross is using THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION of the Bible and only mentions the KJV as a secondary source, so I don't know what THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION says, specifically, because he only cites the verse and doesn't quote it.  My experience has been that each updated version of the Bible tends to modify each successive one in the direction of "what we want The Bible to say" instead of "how close can we get in English to what the original Koine Greek texts say?"  And I have to admit that my conclusion is always to stick with the word-for-word translation since -- when I analyze what is being said, specifically, I find no way to translate the passage differently without losing the specific flavour of what is being said.  At least not without stretching every phrase into a paragraph.

Okay, well that's as far as I got this week.

Next week 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Hook 'em, Horns!
 

Dave