DRAFT
OF A CHAPTER
Charles
P. Poole, Jr.
written 1995; rewritten Feb. 2004;
revised
CONTENTS
1.
Introduction
2.
Old Testament Examples
3.
Slavery
4.
Women
5.
Hearts and Kidneys
6.
Do You Love Me, Peter?
7.
Adding a Cubit to Life
8.
Inclusive Language
9.
Justifiable Expurgations
1. INTRODUCTION
Down
through the ages individuals have been disturbed by some of the content of Holy
Scripture, and numerous attempts have been made to modify the original
text. This can be carried out by
expurgation, i.e. by omitting the objectionable passages, by revising (redacting) or rewording
them in a manner that makes them acceptable, or by adding an explanatory
phrase. We will make a few observations
on various rationales for editing the scriptures. In recent years feminists have campaigned for
an inclusive language redaction of the scriptures, and we will comment on this
toward the end of the chapter.
2. OLD TESTAMENT EXAMPLES
When
we read the first five books of the Old Testament, which we call the
Pentateuch, and which the Jewish people call the Torah or the Law, we encounter
many passages which offend our sensibilities.
For example, we read how Abraham’s wife Sarai
had born him no child so she gave him her slave girl Hagar who gave birth to
his firstborn son Ishmael. Eventually Sarai, renamed Sarah, bore Abraham’s second son Isaac. Years later Isaac’s wife Rebekah
conspired with their second-born son Jacob (later renamed
In
our generation there is a strong Peace Movement which calls all forms of war
intrinsically evil. The scriptural
accounts of the conquest of the
The Old
Testament book Song of Songs never mentions God, and is judged by many as
having pornographic passages. It
survived the most puritanical ages of the Church’s history and remained in the
canon. The objectionable passages,
however, are not included in the liturgy.
3. SLAVERY
Until
the 19th century some slave holders quoted passages from scripture
to defend their practice. Paul wrote a
letter to Philemon saying “I am sending him back to you,” meaning the slave Onesimus who had run away from Philemon. When the centurion asked Jesus to cure his
slave Jesus did so, but never commented on the immorality of slavery (Luke
7:2ff). More pointed is the phrase
“Slaves obey your masters with fear and trembling” (Eph 6:5). Slavery has been outlawed in all the
civilized countries of the world, and these slavery comments in the scriptures
are no longer proposed as an issue for expurgation.
4. WOMEN
Some
passages make direct reference to women as inferior to men: “(A man) reflects
God’s glory, but a woman is the reflection of man’s glory” (1 Cor 11:7), and “Wives be subject to your husbands . . .
husbands love your wives” (
5. HEARTS
There
are some passages of scripture which are never translated literally into
particular languages. An example of this
is the phrase “hearts and kidneys” which appears, for example, in psalms 7, 16,
and 73. Virtually all English language
translations render this “hearts and minds,” claiming to capture the sense of
the original Hebrew. Greek, Latin and
German translate it literally (6"D*4" 6"4 <,ND@4, corda
et renes, Herz und Nieren), while French and Spanish read hearts and entrails
(coeur et entrailles, corazones y entrañas) since in
these languages entrails can be used figuratively to mean mind. These are selective redactions which most
people would consider reasonable.
6. DO YOU LOVE ME PETER?
Another
interesting example of the difficulties involved in literal translations is the
interchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21:15-17. We read in the original Greek that twice in
succession Jesus asked Peter “Do you love me” using the word for love derived
from agape, the highest level of love, and Peter answered “You know that I love
you” using the word derived from philia, the lesser
type of love. Then when Jesus asked the question the third time he switched to
the lesser word for love that Peter was using, and
Peter again answered the same as before.
Most English translations use the same word love all the way through the
entire dialog between Jesus and Peter because English does not have the
distinction between the agape and philia types of
love that Greek has. Two exceptions to
this are the Living Bible in which Jesus’ third question is rendered “Are you
even my friend?,” and Phillip’s Modern English
translation which reads for this third question “Are you my friend?.” French, German, and Russian bibles do not
differentiate the two types of love.
Other languages handle the agape/philia
distinction much better; thus for Jesus’ first (second) and third questions we
have in Latin diligis me?/amas me?, and in Spanish ¿me amas?/¿me
quieres?, which conform very closely to the sense of
the Greek original.
7. ADDING A CUBIT TO
Verse
King James: “Which of you by taking thought can add one
cubit unto his stature?.”
New
English: “Is there a man of you who by
anxious thought can add a foot to his height?.”
Phillips
Modern: “Can any of you, however much he
worries, make himself even a few inches taller?.”
Latin
Vulgate: “Quis
autem vestrum cogitans potest adiicere ad staturam suam cubitum unum?.”
and six renditions change cubit
to various lengths of time
Living
Bible: “Will all your worries add a
single moment to your life?.”
New
American: “Can any of you by worrying
add a single moment to your life span?.”
New
International: “Which of you by worrying
can add a single hour to your life?.”
New
Revised Standard: “Can any of you by
worrying add a single hour to your span of life?.”
Revised
English: “Can anxious thought add a
single day to your life?.”
Today’s
English: “Which of you can live a few
more years by worrying about it?.”
For reference purposes the original Greek is as
follows:
Greek:
J4H *, ¦> ß:ä< :gD4:<ä< *L<"J"4 BD@F2g4<"4 ¦B4 J0< º8464"< "ØJ@Û B±PL< ©<".
How would you, reader, have translated this
passage? I would have rendered it
literally and added a comment in a footnote.
8. INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE
The
feminist community is very anxious to substitute inclusive language for every
instance in which, in their opinion, sexist language is employed. In the scriptures there are frequent
occurrences of expressions such as he,
him, and brothers when their
counterparts he and she or they, him and her or them, and brothers and sisters or siblings
are what is meant in accordance with the custom and the language usage of the
time. Thus one can argue that the latter phrases are more appropriate for
rendering the meaning in modern English.
In some instances the word men is used when men and women seems intended.
For example, when Paul writes “I appeal to you brothers” [1 Cor 1:10] he clearly means “brothers and sisters”, but when
he says “Men of Judea” [Acts 2:5] he could well mean men because there may not
have been any women present. In my opinion some
inclusive language editing should be acceptable in the liturgy and other
religious services, but not in editions of the bible where conformity to the
original phraseology should be the criterion of choice.
9. JUSTIFIABLE EXPURGATIONS
The
Lectionary and the Liturgy of the Hours generally refrain from including
passages from the scriptures that are considered by many as unsuitable for
meditation, or unconducive to devotion. Examples of these are portions of the Song of
Songs, and the warlike passages from Joshua that were mentioned above. The present Liturgy of the Hours omits the
three psalms numbered 58, 83 and 109 that are labeled as ‘imprecatoria’ due to excessive
violence (Gen. Inst. Lit. Hours # 131). The three imprecatorial
psalms were included in pre-Vatican II breviaries where maintaining the
completeness of the psalter was considered of
paramount importance. When part of a
scripture reading in the liturgy is judged offensive to some listeners, then
the Lectionary often provides a choice of the longer complete reading and a
shorter expurgated reading. There are
also cases in which a shorter reading option is offered because of the unusual
length of the standard one.