If you don't read Mike Aubrey's blog, ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ, then you should. His post of this morning "Challenges for Literal Translation: Lessons from 4 Maccabees" is excellent. He's thinking through translation issues, but using a non-canonical text (4 Maccabees) as his springboard.

Even though quoting one's self can be self-serving (hey, it's a blog ... it's supposed to be self-serving!), here's what I wrote as a comment to his post:

I think working through these issues in non-canonical text from roughly the same era is a valuable thing. It causes us to start focusing on the text itself and what it communicates, not on what our presuppositions and heritage have already determined it should say.

I’ve found similar exercises with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers extremely valuable.

And I have. The most recent example is the post previous to this, on EpDiog 5.7.

Ran across this while reading EpDiog awhile back so I thought I'd blog it.

Here's the Greek, from Holmes' 2nd edition (matches his 3rd edition):

τράπεζαν κοινὴν παρατίθενται, ἀλλʼ οὐ κοίτην.

Here are all the English translations of EpDiog 5.7 I have to hand, in chronological order:

• They have their meals in common, but not their wives. (Lightfoot)
• They offer free hospitality, but guard their purity. (Lake)
• Free board they provide, but not their carnal bed. (Meecham)
• They share their food but not their wives. (Holmes, 2nd ed and 3rd ed)
• They share their meals but not their sexual partners. (Ehrman)

You can see how Holmes is influenced by Lightfoot, but that's OK because Holmes is a revision of Lightfoot. He's allowed to do that. Ehrman translates exactly the same, only giving "meals" and "sexual partners" instead of "food" and "wives". There seems to be a heritage here.

Lake is the one that mystifies me. Of course, the date is 1912, so Lake could be appealing to Victorian sensibilities, but he doesn't usually get that idiomatic in a translation. "Guard their purity"? The word is "bed" (κοίτην) and it is a reference to, at minimum, the marriage bed (cf. BDAG κοιτη 1b) and perhaps even "seminal emission" (cf. BDAG κοιτη 2b). Either way, the Greek is obvious as the balance of translations show. Lake makes it sound like the Christians are simply averting their eyes when they walk into the bath; if you didn't read the Greek you wouldn't know that it's really talking about adultery and fornication. But who knows. Maybe "guard their purity" was the completely obvious way to translate it for Lake's audience. But I doubt it; otherwise I'd guess Lightfoot would tend that direction as well.

I think Meecham does the best job as the word is in reference to the place of the act, not to the act itself (so Lake's "purity", I guess) or in reference to those involved in the act ("wives" Lightfoot and Holmes, "sexual partners" Ehrman). At least Ehrman's translation acknowledges it wasn't just females; it takes two to tango.

But while I like the second half of Meecham's translation, I don't like the first. It sounds like a bed & breakfast open for all. Free board? Really? Sounds like a great deal for college students! Somehow, I don't think that is what was happening either. Lightfoot seems better here too.

How would I translate it? I tend to try to stay literal and transparent at this point, even in word order where possible, largely so I can remember/guess at the Greek behind the translation, so I'd probably go for something like:

A common table they set, but not a [common] bed.

Whatever the case, and whatever the best translation, you really should read EpDiog 5 in any translation. When doing so, realize that these are the things that the author saw as distinguishing Christians from those around them.

The logical question for me at this point: How do Christians distinguish themselves from those around them these days? And is that distinguishing what it should be, or do we have more work to do in this area? I'd say we (yes, pointing fingers directly at myself here) have some work to do.

I'm reading through the Epistle to Diognetus in the Greek. Or, at least, I'm trying to. I'm in chapter 3, and was really scratching my head on the end of verse 5 in comparison with Lake's translation:

τῶν μὲν μὴ δυναμένοις τῆς τιμῆς μεταλαμβάνειν, τῶν δὲ δοκούντων παρέχειν τῷ· μηδενὸς προσδεομένῳ.
For it seems that the one offer to those who cannot partake of the honour, the others to him who is in need of nothing. (Lake)
the latter make offerings to things unable to receive the honor, while the former think they offer it to the One who is in need of nothing. (Holmes)
one group giving to gods who cannot receive the honor, the other thinking that it can provide something to the one who needs nothing. (Ehrman)
For the one class seem to offer sacrifices to things unable to partake of the honour, the other to Him who is in need of nothing. (Meecham, emphasis his)

Thankfully I've got Meecham's edition (from 1949, the last available critical edition in English) where he includes the note:

The text is corrupt. See Otto's full note. Stephanus reads τα μη δυναμενα. So Gildersleeve. Geffcken follows Wilamowitz' rdg. των μεν τοισ η δυναμενοις. For further emendations, see Blakeney (p. 42). We adopt the text printed by Funk, Lightfoot, and Lake, following Gebhardt. For the grammatical construction of the sentence see p. 13. (Meecham, 103).

Here's p. 13:

In general, the author's syntax is correct and careful. Some laxity, however, is seen in iii.5, where the sentence των μεν κτλ. is isolated, being either an irregular genit. abs. or a clause loosely attached to the preceding genit. των ... ενδεικνυμενων.

So that helps, somewhat. Recorded here so I don't have to look it up in Meecham again.

Any ideas as to what this might be?

Hint: It has to do with my BibleTech:2009 paper. (If you're using a feed reader like Bloglines, you'll need to see the post on ricoblog for the details)

Any ideas?

Ok, I'll give. The above is a representation of parts of speech in the first five books of the LXX (so, the pentateuch). Yes, lots of refining to do, but you get the gist. The order is:

(particularly if you're in the Pacific Northwest / British Columbia region)

Because cool people are doing cool things. Mike Aubrey, a very smart and very motivated guy, is playing around with automated morphological tagging using some of SIL's existing tools. And he's giving a paper on it. (Go here for more info, then go here to register for BibleTech:2009)

If this sort of thing floats your boat, not only will you be able to hear the paper—you'll be able to sit down at a meal with Mike and talk with him more about it.

And that's what I like about BibleTech. Sure, there is learning new stuff from folks doing cool things. But there is also a sense of community where you can actually talk further (outside of a formal Q&A session) about stuff and get to know someone.

So consider attending, and please do register!

Sound interesting? Then you should come to BibleTech:2009, which is to be held in Seattle on March 27 and 28. Logos just pushed a press release with more info.

If you're in the Seattle area or the Northwest, then you should register for BibleTech:2009, come on down and hang out with us. Note that registration includes sessions and catered meals. The meals were one of the best parts of last year's conference. Too often at conferences there is too much hustle-and-bustle and not enough time actually interacting with the interesting and smart folks there. The meal times allow for that, and it's pretty cool.

Here's the text of the press release, for more information.

BELLINGHAM, WA–January 2, 2009–Scholars, publishers and technologists will be in attendance at the second-annual BibleTech conference in Seattle, WA on March 27 and 28.

BibleTech:2009 will feature more than twenty-five presentations from leading publishers, software developers, and web developers. Topics include data standards, the semantic web, mobile computing, ancient languages, and integrating technology into the Bible classroom.

“BibleTech is a place for everyone interested in the Bible and technology. There is no other conference where publishers, academics, ministry leaders, and technologists can find so much common ground,” said Bob Pritchett, President of Logos Bible Software.

BibleTech:2009 will feature two tracks. The first will address the technical aspects of programming, designing, and publishing software for Bible study and ministerial applications. The second track will focus on the application and implementation of Bible-based technologies including sermon preparation and advanced computer-based research strategies.

Featured presenters include: Mark Stephenson, Director of Web-Empowered Church; Lance Ford, Co-founder of Shapevine.com and WebChurchMedia; and Ellen Frankel, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of the Jewish Publication Society. A complete list of 2009 conference speakers is available at www.bibletechconference.com/speakers.htm.

More information is available at www.bibletechconference.com

What are you waiting for? Sign up, and come see us!

Just received an email from Review of Biblical Literature (RBL), among other things it mentions the joyous news:

RBL now has its own blog, where the reviews published each month will be listed for easy reference: http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/. Following the pattern of Bryn Mawr Classical Review (http://www.bmcreview.org/), each book reviewed will be listed in a separate blog entry. Note also that the comments function is currently enabled. We invite authors, reviewers, and RBL readers to comment on reviews, understanding that we will adhere strictly to the following guidelines: (a) all comments will be moderated by the RBL managing editor; (b) anonymous comments will not be allowed; anyone submitting a comment must provide his or her full name; (c) only comments that advance discussion of a book or review will be posted; (d) comments that contain personal or ad hominem attacks of any kind, that disparage any individual or group, or that do not relate directly to the book or its review will be declined. We trust that the RBL blog will enable readers to engage in positive interaction concerning the books we review or the reviews we publish. However, the comments function may be disabled at any time, should experience teach us that it is not achieving its purpose.

Very cool; and the comment feature sounds great. Make sure to subscribe and get reviews piped down your feed reader!

I just finished working through EpBarn 10. There is some strange stuff in there as regards basic understanding of anatomy (of rabbits) and reproductive systems (of hyenas and weasels).

Why bring this up? It makes me wonder how much stuff we miss in our reading of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament because, simply, we view such things differently than they did. Here is EpBarn 10.6-8, with some comments interspersed:

(6) Furthermore, “You shall not eat the hare.” Why? Do not become, he means, one who corrupts boys, or even resemble such people, because the hare grows another opening every year, and thus has as many orifices as it is years old. (EpBarn 10.6, Holmes)

First, note that two different words for "hare" are used in the same verse. Basically (caution, this may not be family-friendly) Barnabas says that for each year the rabbit lives, it grows a new anus. The Greek word is ἀφόδευσις, BDAG "anus of hares", this being the only citation in BDAG's source corpora. On the word, BDAG provides the helpful parenthetical note "Pliny, NH 8, 81, 218 Archelaus auctor est, quot sint corporis cavernae ad excrementa lepori, totidem annos esse aetatis=according to Archelaus the number of apertures for a hare’s excrements equals the years of its lifespan." I'll let you guess what "one who corrupts boys" might be meaning (hint: BDAG glosses the word as "pederast"). Barnabas draws a parallel between the uncleanliness of the rabbit and pederasts. In the same way you don't eat rabbits, avoid pederasts (associating the hare's defecational peculiarities with its uncleanliness as some justification for the statement). But how much of that would make any sense without a good lexicon? I don't know. I don't even know what Kirsopp Lake was thinking when he translated the latter portion of the verse "Because thou shalt not, he means, become a corruptor of the young, or become like such men; for the rabbit multiplies during every year its retirements by the way; for it has as many burrow-holes as it lives years" unless he was just trying to be diplomatic and appeal to the Victorian sensibilities of the era. Lake is less convoluted, but some portion of the analogy is lost.

(7) Again, “Neither shall you eat the hyena.” Do not become, he means, an adulterer or a seducer, or even resemble such people. Why? Because this animal changes its nature from year to year, and becomes male one time and female another. (8) But he also hated the weasel, and with good reason. Do not become, he means, like those men who, we hear, with immoral intent do things with the mouth that are forbidden, nor associate with those immoral women who do things with the mouth that are forbidden. For this animal conceives through its mouth. (EpBarn 10.7-8, Holmes, emphasis mine)

So, hyena are unclean because they actually change sex (φύσις) from male to female each year (καὶ ποτὲ μὲν ἄρρεν, ποτὲ δὲ θῆλυ γίνεται)? I've seen hyena in the wild (and took some pictures, one is below, more here) when I was in South Africa. They seem pretty normal to me:

My point in writing all of this isn't to berate the anatomical and biological understanding of the author of EpBarn. These sorts of understandings seem to be foundational for him, and assumed to be understood by his initial readership. But they are clearly not the way we today look at such things.

What sorts of things are we missing because our understanding in such areas is much different than that of the ancients? One potential item may be the discussion in 1Co 11. See an older post on Michael Heiser's blog, scroll down to the last item in the "required reading" portion of the post; you may be interested in some of the subsequent posts (here and here) discussing this sort of thing.

Apart from simply investing oneself in the primary and secondary (and tertiary) source material ("read, read, read"), what are some other ways that we today can become more aware of such blind spots that have a propensity to affect our understanding and therefore interpretation of these texts we hold so dear?