Blue Cord

Claude Mariottini has an excellent post critiquing the new so-called Ancient Roots Translinear Bible. It boils down to this: if you took everything that is wrong with someone who doesn’t know the biblical language using Strong’s Concordance and pushed it to the absolute limits, the results would be this translation.

The press release about the translation states, “Author and scientist A. Frances Werner has done her homework.” The problem is, she hasn’t.

I am a bit behind the curve on this one, but it doesn’t bother me much because my interests outside the OT are more Egyptological than Assyriological. Nevertheless, for those readers who have not heard about this, I wanted to offer a brief post on the Nabu-sharrussu-ukin tablet that has been making waves in the biblioblogosphere.  The news is reported in the London Times.

The story, in a rather simplified form, boils down to this. Michael Jursa, a researcher at the British Museum, has recently translated a Babylonian tablet from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the king who attacked Jerusalem in 597 and 587 BCE and deported the people of Judah to Babylon. The tablet is a receipt for a donation to the temple, presumably so Nabu-sharrusu-ukin could claim the deduction on his taxes.  (If you think filing taxes is hard now, just think of what it must have been like to fill out a 1040 form in clay.)  The tablet reads as follows:

(Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.¹

The excitement comes from the fact that Jursa identifies Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, with Nebo-sarsekim, the chief eunuch in Jeremiah 39:3.  In that verse, Nebo-sarsekim is one of the officials at the head of Nebuchadnezzars army when it besieges Jerusalem.  The name appears in the form Nebo-sarsekim in the NIV but not the NRSV.  For the reason for this and a discussion of why the NIV is probably correct in this case, I direct you to Chris Heard’s excellent post.

It would be easy to over-state the implications of this, as it is always exciting to find a biblical figure mentioned in a non-biblical text from the same time period.  There are reasons to be cautious about this identification, and Chris Heard deals with those in the post mentioned above. 

But even if the identification of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin with Nebo-sarsekim is correct, it does not add much to our knowledge of the period.  All it suggests is that whoever wrote this section of Jeremiah knew the names of the Babylonian officials who attacked Jerusalem. The historical accuracy of names like this in document concerning the fall of Jerusalem is not surprising.  Those sections in Jeremiah and 2 Kings were written very close to the events they narrate.  While they certainly give their own interpretation of the events, the accuracy of their knowledge of names and places has not often been questioned.  It is when these documents are writing about events centuries before that most historians begin to wonder about their accuracy.

1. The translation presented here is taken from the London Telegraph.  Presumably the translation is that of Jursa, the researcher who made the initial reading. [back]

Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Proper 9 (series reading)

I am scheduled to preach this Sunday at my home parish, All Saints’ Episcopal church in Stoneham, MA. Like many Episcopal churches, we are now using the Revised Common Lectionary. The RCL provides two Old Testament readings each week. One is a thematic reading that fits in with the epistle and gospel readings. The other is a reading that provides sequential readings in a particular book.

I am going to using the sequential reading for my preaching this week. It is taken from 2 Kings 5:1-14 (thanks to Duane for pointing out the typo). Having begun the exegesis for writing the sermon, I thought I would share some of my thoughts here. The passage in 2 Kings 5 is the story of Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army who comes to Elisha to be cured of his leprosy.

This passage contains some rather interesting features. First, it focuses on a foreigner and his act of faith in Yahweh. It is set in the middle of a number of stories focusing on Elisha, but Elisha is a secondary character in this story. Other than two short conversations with Naaman, he is a background character, though essential to the story.

Second, the story turns questions of power on their heads. The mighty leader of the army is striken with leprosy. The king of Israel is portrayed as fearing the king of Syria, who he thinks will attack if Naaman’s leprosy is not cured. He appears to forget that he has a prophet in his kingdom who can perform such wonders. The weak, on the other hand, are shown to be wise. The captive Israelite girl — a slave in a foreign land — is the one who has knowledge that can help Naaman. And when Naaman balks at washing in the Jordan, one of his servants has to point out his error.

There are several elements that I think provide rich possibilities for preaching:

• The faith of the foreigner contrasted with the lack of faith of those on the inside.
• The faith of the powerless contrasted with the lack of faith of the powerful.
• The simplicity of the act Naaman must do to be cured.
• The hospitality of Elisha, who cures the foreigner. In doing so, he provides comfort to the enemy.

Although it is not a part of the reading for this Sunday, the continuation of the story also has some interesting details. After being cured, Naaman says he will worship only Yahweh. In order to do so, he asks to be allowed to take two donkey-loads of Israelite soil back to Syria. Yahweh is the God of the land of Israel, so if you are going to worship Yahweh, you have to take some of that land with you.

I found it interesting that pered in v.17 is translated as ‘mule’ in every translation I could check. While it is clear that there were mules in the ancient world, it is not entirely certain that pered indicates a mule. A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and female horse, but interbreeding of animals was forbidden in Israel (Leviticus 19:19), although this does not mean it was not practiced. I wish I had my Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon out of storage right now to see what they have to say about pered.

On the other hand, it is clear why translators would want to avoid talking about Naaman taking an ass-load of dirt back to Syria. A mule-load definitely sounds better.

The OT reading from the Revised Common Lectionary for today included 1 Kings 19:19-21, which reads:

So [Elijah] set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him. He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” Then Elijah?? said to him, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?” He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant. (NRSV)

As I was listening to the reading, a question occurred to me: Why did Elisha kill the oxen? Was it a sacrifice or not?

When I got home, I checked the different translations. The ESV and NASB say that Elisha sacrificed the oxen, while the NRSV and NIV both say that Elisha slaughtered them.  The Hebrew does not provide much help here.  The verb used is zabakh.  This generally indicates a sacrifice, but also could be used for common slaughter of animals.

If this passage were from the priestly layers of the OT, it would be a moot point.  All slaughter of animals was considered a sacrifice in the priestly schema.  But Deuteronomy allows for the non-sacrificial slaughter of animals (Deut. 12:13-27).  Since the 1 Kings passage is part of the DtrH, this could be either.

But Deuteronomy also states that all sacrifice must be done in Jerusalem.  Elisha is from Abel-Meholah.  Although 1 Kings 19 does not state it explicitly, it is likely that the call of Elisha took place in or near his home town, not in Jerusalem.  If Elisha is being pictured following the Deuteronomic law, then what he is doing should not be considered a sacrifice.  I would say the NRSV and NIV have the better translation in this case.

But that leaves us with out original question: Why did Elisha kill the oxen?  If it was not a sacrifice, why did he do it?  Although the passage is not explicit, I think the clue to interpretation needs to come from Elisha’s request to kiss his father and mother before following Elijah.  The slaughter of the oxen and ensuing feast seem to be the fulfillment of that wish.

Now, if I really wanted to go out on a limb, I might argue that his request to kiss his father and mother and the feast that followed were part of paying homage to his departed ancestors, since his new life would be one that took place outside of his family.  I am not feeling that brave today, so I will offer that suggestion only as a possibility.

As everyone who reads the Bible in translation knows, there are variations among the different versions. No two translations ever produce the exact same English rendering of a particular passage. I am well aware of this, but found myself flummoxed by it the other day.

I was looking for the verse in the Bible that says, “Love keeps no record of wrongs.” I was fairly certain that it was in 1 Corinthians 13, so I pulled out the ESV that I had next to me. The phrase I sought was no where to be found. So, I reached for the NRSV on my shelf. It was still not there. Figuring I must have misremembered the reference, I started up my Logos software to find the passage. I searched for “record” in the NRSV, but got no hits. I searched for “wrongs,” but none of those passages was remotely similar to the passage for which I was looking.

It wasn’t until I pulled up 1 Corinthians 13 in all versions that I found the problem. I was right: the verse I was seeking is in 1 Corinthians 13. But only the NIV translates this particular phrase as “Love keeps no record of wrong.” Here is how the last phrase in v.5 is rendered in different translations:

“It is not irritable or resentful” - ESV

“[It] thinketh no evil” - KJV

“[It] does not take into account a wrong suffered” - NASB

“It keeps no record of wrongs” - NIV

“It is not irritable or resentful” - RSV and NRSV

I found it interesting that the version I remembered is the NIV. That is the translation I used in high school and college. I switched to the RSV in seminary, and then to the NRSV when that came out. The NRSV is my primary text now, although I have a small ESV next to my bed. Apparently all the memorization I had done in high school took precedence in my memory over the academic work I have done since then.

A quick look at the Greek text I have on hand suggests that the NIV and NASB come the closest to the Greek. I suspect that there may be a textual variant here that the ESV and NRSV are following, because I don’t see how they can get “irritable or resentful” from the Greek, but then again NT is not my specialty. I don’t have the tools here in my apartment to check out any textual variants, but perhaps some other biblioblogger who reads this blog can explain where the ESV and NRSV get their reading.

Follow up: Rick Brannan at PastoralEpistles.com and Rico Blog sent me an e-mail to let me know that “resentful” is merely a one-word translation of the longer phrase that the NIV translates as “It keeps no record of wrongs.” The NRSV usually doesn’t do things like that, so it hadn’t occurred to me (though it should have). “Resentful” seems a fairly poor way of rendering what the Greek says. I suppose that someone who pays attention to how they have been wronged would be resentful, but that is not the first word that would have come to mind. Thanks for the solution, Rick!  Thanks also to Doug Chaplin, who left the same info in a comment while I was updating the post with the information Rick sent.