Comments on: The Curious Case of the Withered Hand: A Translation Dilemma

By: Kate Gladstone

Kate Gladstone — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:18:27 +0000

/9/ He went on from there and entered a synagogue. /10/ There was someone inside with a withered hand. The Pharisees in the synagogue pestered Jesus and asked him if it’s allowed to make someone well on the Sabbath. /11/ Jesus asked them: “If some one of you had a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn’t you rescue it? /12/ A person is worth much more than a sheep. So it is allowed to make someone well on the Sabbath.” /13/ The man stretched out his hand and Jesus made it well. /13/ The Pharisees left and plotted Jesus’ death.

By: The Value of a Paraphrase instead of a Translation « God Didn't Say That

The Value of a Paraphrase instead of a Translation « God Didn't Say That — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:36:59 +0000

[...] concrete example will demonstrate. In describing Matthew 12:9-14 (“The Curious Case of the Withered Hand: A Translation Dilemma“), I wrote that a good [...]

By: Gender in the Updated NIV « God Didn't Say That

Gender in the Updated NIV « God Didn't Say That — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:32:37 +0000

[...] Matthew 12:10-13 (which is tricky, as I describe here), we find “person” in verse 12 for anthropos, (the TNIV had “human being”; [...]

By: Bob MacDonald

Bob MacDonald — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:06:22 +0000

Joel – thanks for framing these problems and tensions –
Peter – I cannot put morality first as if it could be insisted on. Grace precedes law and so gives rise to walk. Spirit transforms flesh and so gives life to body. I do not decide what is right and then translate. The prejudged moral priority is not to be trusted.

By: Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » The value of women, oxen and cows

Gentle Wisdom» Blog Archive » The value of women, oxen and cows — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:19:30 +0000

[...] 12:12, generated quite a lot of discussion on this blog and elsewhere. Suzanne, in a comment on one of Joel Hoffman’s posts, raised the issue of the rather similar passage in Luke [...]

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:29:50 +0000

I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion about Matthew’s Greek.

You certainly chose a cute title for the post.

By: J. K. Gayle

J. K. Gayle — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:57:40 +0000

I’ve just tried my withered hand at a translation into English which, like Matthew’s Greek, doesn’t really “explain” the gender of the one with the withered hand:

http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-sheep-dont-need-sex-more-wordplay.html

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:50:55 +0000

(How) would beginning your review of the text be any different if you started in v8? Isn't Matthew having Jesus make claims about himself with a particular idiomatic title (with the word anthropos in the title?

It's an interesting question. (To be clear: verse 8 includes the well-known title "the Son of Man," the Son of the anthropos.) The correct translation of verse 8 depends on what we do with "the Son of Man," which is surely a topic unto itself. You're right that in the context of "Son of Man," the translation of anthropos becomes even more difficult. And as Jason point out, even if the two passages (the one ending in verse 8 and the other beginning with 9) are distinct, they are still part of the same text and therefore part of the same context.

And what would change in your review if you knew that Matthew's referent was not a man but a woman? Does his text really specify the gender of this healed individual?

I think it does, yes. (Others disagree.) I think that for a woman the text would have another word, probably gune.

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:47:40 +0000

Compare with Luke 13, It seems that women were present in the synagogue. I think that thw word anthropos has been misunderstood.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:17:04 +0000

If indeed … the crowd were men …

Very unlikely, Bob. The scene is a sabbath meeting at a synagogue. Women may have sat separately in synagogues, but they were present.

Anyway, no one is talking about a politically correct translation. But what I insist on is a translation which correctly reflects the “moral” i.e. the ethical teaching of Jesus. It is quite wrong to misrepresent the content of his teaching for the sake of rhetoric.