Gathering some translation principles from Kyrios in Mark's gospel, I have been working hard at a coherent set of solutions for Kyrios equivalents in English throughout the rest of the New Testament. It's a lot of work (Acts, in particular, was a slog) but I am making good progress, now nearing the end of 1 Corinthians (I also did most of the prep work already for Jude and Revelation on the blog over here, Obstacle 4).
Of course, the process speeds up as decisions for certain contexts are made. Take for instance how we have developed our methodology through the five obstacles faced by the GOD solution to Yahweh, adopted by Peterson and myself. We started with the apparently awkward "GOD, our god," and justified the usage of the little "g". Since this same Yahweh is specifically cited throughout the New Testament, it makes good sense to carry the same translation through too. Hereby, all citations of the LXX by New Testament authors that include explicit references to a translation of Yahweh ("KYRIOS") can receive GOD instead of the confusing "the Lord", most frequently attributed to Jesus.
HOWEVER, the Jesus attribution may be slightly less frequent than you think. I have often referred back to a passage in 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 where the 2 key criteria line up for identifying Yahweh references outside direct citation:
Of course, the process speeds up as decisions for certain contexts are made. Take for instance how we have developed our methodology through the five obstacles faced by the GOD solution to Yahweh, adopted by Peterson and myself. We started with the apparently awkward "GOD, our god," and justified the usage of the little "g". Since this same Yahweh is specifically cited throughout the New Testament, it makes good sense to carry the same translation through too. Hereby, all citations of the LXX by New Testament authors that include explicit references to a translation of Yahweh ("KYRIOS") can receive GOD instead of the confusing "the Lord", most frequently attributed to Jesus.
HOWEVER, the Jesus attribution may be slightly less frequent than you think. I have often referred back to a passage in 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 where the 2 key criteria line up for identifying Yahweh references outside direct citation:
- Israelite/historical context
- Primarily anarthrous Kyrios (nom.) or Kyriou (gen.)
I now note that Peterson's The Message translation picked up on this and throughout that passage in 2 Corinthians, he uses "God", not the more widely known "The Lord".
Today we are going to zoom in on another similar passage that I suspect we Christians may experience greater reticence to relinquish as referring to one other than the Lord Jesus: 1 Corinthians 10:21-22. Maybe that is why Peterson stuck with "the Master", who knows. Anyway, let's look at the text in its wider context v14-33:
14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
18 Consider the people of Israel: do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
23 ‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’– but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.’[f]
27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
Based on Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version® (Anglicised), NIV®
How then do I propose we translate this passage? Thankfully, my "call" is not to retranslate everything but to focus on bringing the early distinctions on KYRIOS back to light and to make the language of "lordship" more understandable again for today's readers. So I'm only focussing on verses 21-22 and 26.
You cannot drink the God’s cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the LordGod’s table and the table of demons.
Are we trying to arouse the Lord God’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
for, ‘The earth is the Lordbelongs to God’s, and everything in it.’
It must first be conceded, perhaps, that neither God's cup, table or jealousy are established LXX lexical units. This has no incidence on the power of the passage to fulfil the criteria asserted above. Some reasons for believing so:
Paul is certainly aware of the anarthrous tradition in the version he cites from. This is provable from the multiple times he refers to the Israelite divine Name for their god in explicit citations from the LXX, such as in verse 26 of the present passage. Paul is also arguably not bound to the anarthrous rule in citation alone, as demonstrated in the 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 passage, but also I'd now argue Romans 14:8-9 and maybe a couple of other Pauline places too, not to mention scores of such occurrences in the writings of his colleagues, such as Luke.
Secondly, while an LXX lexical unit (such as "before the LORD") would have added still greater weight to the argument for the Yahweh reference, it is hardly representative or necessary in the Old Testament to always place Yahweh in some pre-agreed lexical formation - most, indeed, are not. Sometimes, the translators of the LXX may even have inserted references to Yahweh, perhaps for clarification. Lamentations 4:21 in the LXX either inserts or is a witness to a Hebrew version that had the cup of Kyriou.
Thirdly, Kyrios fulfils both the criteria above in 1 Corinthians 10:21-22. As already stated, Paul is aware of the anarthrous tradition in the version he cites from. His repetition is conspicuous and free from contextual constraint to Jesus via Paul’s invitation in v18 to “Consider the people of Israel”.
The indication here, as confirmed in verse 26, is that in verse 21-22 the referent is Yahweh, God the Father of our Kyrios (Master, King, Leader, Captain, Boss, Ruler,...), Jesus Christ.
So can you see whose cup Paul is probably describing now? :)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks very much for your feedback, really appreciate the interaction.