John 10:17, why does the Father love Jesus?

My Mum came up with an interesting question yesterday about the following passage from John 10:17:

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.

It's a curious translation. It prompted my Mum to ask if Jesus had to earn God's love through his obedience, even though the Father and Jesus are "one"? What role does obedience have in obtaining or experiencing God's love? I don't know where NIV derived their definite article, "the". So firstly, the Greek does not say "only because of this one reason".

Further, I feel prompted to add that God is love, he can't not love us. Anything in us unlikable or unlovable is not fundamentally who we are. If you switch out "God" for "Perfect Love", we can't have "Perfect Love" who doesn't love you perfectly!

But my own perspective is moving away from some kind of spatial transmission from the outside in, but rather a deeper awakening of that already resident and divine perfection. As a "fundamentally" impatient person, I recently dared to dream and affirm myself that I had glimpsed patience there. And now I know that I was right! Underneath the impatience there really, really is patience, and I was able to practice it despite feelings of frustration (mindfulness practice helps me here a lot, seeing rather than living inside the feeling). The patience wasn't beamed in from somewhere else, but rather awakened according to releasing some more of that extraordinary and exquisite design we all share, that us spirituals call "divine" or "of God".

So the Father just loves Jesus, not because he specifically did A, B or C. The obedience is instrumental in the experience and awakening of the love and perfection already at work (or dormant) within.

Unlocking down, wisdom for decision makers and prioritising our own mental health

I was listening a few days ago to Sam Harris on his Making Sense podcast, where he discussed with Paul Bloom the ethical issues surrounding how we deal with our responses to the pandemic. What is the value of human life? Look how crazily dependent the context is. If we were to say only 800 people died worldwide of the virus today would seem like an amazingly positive thing to say or think, and yet we would be horrified to hear of the same number resulting from a fire in our town, right?

Flourishing is an important word in this debate, which also brings in economic concerns. People's lives are profoundly impacted in negative ways to increase worldwide suffering, by:
- lockdown raising one day early
- lockdown raising one day late
- lockdown raised in ways that are not perfectly defined, followed and enforced.

Clearly, our national and local authorities are faced with a daunting task.

In any case, the ethical dilemmas are complex and cannot hinge solely on short-term results. In our own personal circumstances, we pray particularly for wisdom for authorities governing the conditions under which French schools can return to some degree of operationality. The French education minister appears quite indecisive and limp. Many of the very important practical details appear overlooked. Home support from children's teachers for parents choosing not to return their children seems ready to be cut starting next week (I'm homeschooling the children in the mornings using these materials). 

What connection can we make with the task of making faith and scripture relevant or even useful? Much can be said of wisdom, of the peace and mental health that can be drawn through regular meditation/meditative prayer. We need to be concerned for and take care of our mental health more than ever - for Christians, like everyone else really, that means digging in deeper to their beliefs. What do I fundamentally believe about life? What are my priorities? What am I so thankful for? Who am I so thankful for? Just how extraordinarily beautiful is our natural habitat? Can we glimpse our own inner beauty and value? How aware and tolerant am I of my internal worries and fears? The Bible is a solid resource for grounding a good number of these questions and I'd encourage folks to seek some out, such as:

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Matthew 6:34).

Pain

Pain has its uses, we all know that. But largely, I think we should agree, and in its excessive and chronic forms, it's a pile of crap. Hurt that just keeps hurting without resolution and messes with your mental health, strips you of energy and pilfers the coffers of grace of your loved ones is not to be silver-lined. The only action I can think of for Christian human beings are the following:

- recall that pain and suffering, although not distributed equally among us, are part and parcel with every human experience. Therefore, any alleviation from specific pain via a healing or some medical breakthrough is likely to give way at some point to another form of suffering, as blissful as the relief may initially have felt.

- listen to our friends' suffering. I'm desperate to talk about my pain, but it is not a subject most people enjoy listening to - maybe it reminds them of another trauma of their own or its simply depressing. In our social interactions we seek out laughter, intrigue, news, stimulation. Depressing pain doesn't tick many of those boxes.

- don't let the fatigue that accompanies the pain stop you from taking alleviating measures. I have just boiled the kettle for my hot water bottle which alleviates my gut pain, but I've slept badly and the kettle is well, literally metres away! And I'm typing an important blog post about suffering.

- The Christian bit: God's story as exposed in the bible includes occasional, non-permanent release from suffering, except of Jesus' resurrection of course, which still bears the marks of his suffering. So apparently we are never to forget these great trials. The key question, perhaps not sufficiently developed to my mind in the Bible, is how we can walk alongside one another in our physical and psychological trials, not just pushing for the miraculous breakthrough but accepting simple companionship in the harsh brutality of this part of life?

Thanks for listening in! If you'd like to write in with your suffering I promise to read through it and acknowledge it, probably nothing more than that.

More evidence that Kyrios is pre-Christian

Kyrios was pre-Christian, used by Greek-speaking JEWS before the Christian era, and periodically I stumble over yet more evidence for this assertion. Here's another one:

When we see that the LXX translators were working from a Hebrew Vorlage different to the one survived to us via the Masoretic textual route, we notice that the anarthrous practice (=KYRIOS not HO KYRIOS) is as frequently applied as when the two traditions are in harmony. Here's an example of what I mean from Psalms 98:1, where the LXX translator seems most likely faced with 2 x Yahweh to translate:

NASB:
A Psalm.
O sing to the LORD a new song,
For He has done wonderful things,
His right hand and His holy arm have [fn]gained the victory for Him.

LXX:
ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ ᾄσατε τῷ κυρίῳ ᾆσμα καινόν ὅτι θαυμαστὰ ἐποίησεν κύριος ἔσωσεν αὐτῷ ἡ δεξιὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ βραχίων ὁ ἅγιος αὐτοῦ

NETS:
A Psalm. Pertaining to Dauid.
Sing to the Lord a new song,
  because the Lord did marvelous things.
His right hand saved for him,
  and his holy arm.

Other examples exist, such as what we find with Judith, which Perkins mentions as including the distinction between human and divine rulers (ho kyrios=human ruler; kyrios=God).

We are not just saying that Kyrios predates the Christian era, we are noticing that anarthrous (non-articulated) Kyrios predates the Christian era.

Dallas... and back

I guess I should feed back on Dallas a bit: last month I had the privilege of heading over to Dallas, Texas to take part in the biennial conference on Bible translation. Very cool venue, which somehow combined excellence of facility and service with a sense of family and inclusiveness. While I was there I also got to serve coffee and translate as a volunteer, which really helped given that I knew pretty much no-one and I was the only guy wearing my badge of affiliation to Eglise Pierres Vivantes, Marseille.

Of course, I had my talk in my mind a lot and had some other distractions in the form of my food intolerances kicking off to a food intake I had less control over (even in November at home I only get about half my days suffering-free). But there was some real solid friendship, prayer and hosting support there (my hosts Doug and Joy were extraordinarily good to me), and thanks to some last-minute changes and rehearsals things went fairly well on the day of my presentation. I really believe it made some people think and start to rethink their allegiance to some of the inadequate "lordship" vocab we are clinging to within English Christendom. Not only did I get a fair bit of feedback after, but I was even made aware of others discussing the content of this review and call for reassessment. Dave S., himself a seasoned Bible translator and professional technical translator, also absolutely merits a word of thanks for all his critical appraisal of my preparation, I remain indebted to him. Thank you, Dave.

After everything quietened down, I got to the best bit: visiting my sister and her family in SLC, and meeting my nephew at last, Levi, barely 20 months. We had some fantastic adventures thanks to Sarah and made it over to Utah for some extraordinary experiences in the beautiful deserts of Canyonland, the arches and so on. I'd love to go back and hire some off-road vehicles there!

On my return, sadly, I won't hide I was disappointed that despite all the prayers and support from my local church, I discovered this was not shared by the elders who strangely barred me from holding a feedback meeting on the church premises. Quite a few more people would have attended this meeting, including from another church in the city with whom I have some good relationships, but I was only permitted to hold it in my own home. So one evening I attempted that. However, after my request for a church notice was largely forgotten and folks were already dismissed at the end of a service, we had 2 people in attendance at my less-accessible location. We still had a good time, we looked at the progress of Bible translation over the last few years, the religiosity of some of our language, looked at some photos, drank tea...

Part of me wants to thrash it out with my elders, who have placed my work in entirely the wrong box (it's still just my personal journey and potentially harmful to others). They can't really see the necessity for the church to break free from religious language or untangle my current work from my earlier Trinity questions and the terrible way our previous church leader dealt with that (yep, you can be left in a negative shadow years after you think its passed!). Like others, but not all, they can't engage fully with the call I'm giving to equip ourselves pastorally and evangelically with more meaningful words that connect us and secure us with greater clarity in our intentions, our commitment, our guidance, our vulnerability, our love, our support. But I just don't have the time - and perhaps part of me just thinks that this path is too confrontational, for despite the injustice I have been shown, it is not necessarily fruitful to address head-on. And you know, when I was really low and church was hard for me, most of them were there for me. I was loved while having so little to offer in return. I'll never forget that. And I'm actually blessed with pretty good relationships with them individually - it's the collective that seems tough. Our pastor invited me to discuss with the elders some time to sort it out. Maybe. I don't want to put myself under more pressure for little change, and it's hard to see what else I can say.

So the other part of me is absolutely focussed with continuing this work. I think it's precious. Speaking at the ILC was significant, but like anything, you have to keep the momentum going if you're going to see it through to its potential, wherever and whatever that may be. Because of a meeting at the conference I was able to connect to a coordinator of the United Bible Societies who was interested in a French article for their peer-reviewed journal, Le Sycomore. We're now a couple of drafts in and I'm up to my ears correcting, proofing and so on. I also have a first draft of the article into The Bible Translator. My third follow-on is a submission of my Abstract to present at another conference next Spring in Belgium. My rough appraisal on where things stand between those three are that the Le Sycomore is likely to go ahead, which is really great; the BT journal, which is as prestigious as it gets in this world I think, well I guess I have an outside chance of being selected for review. The conference I expect to be selected. Unfortunately, again this will be another all-expenses-for-me affair, but we managed to make it work last time (literally within about 20 bucks! Amazing!) so I don't see why we wouldn't go for it.

If I find the energy and time I'd love to feed back more soon about some of the fascinating new things I have been discovering (and correcting) as I have been fine-tuning my research for publication and integrating my analysis of "le Seigneur" into that of "the Lord". I also would like to reserve a future post or two for response to some sociolinguistic works that I have in my pipeline to read and review.

Thank you for your interest! I leave you with a photo of me next to the "grassy knoll" from which Kennedy was sadly assassinated back in 1963.

Eugene Peterson's use of "GOD" for Yahweh and introducing the notion of a deferential attitude

Hi, sorry it's been a while, things have been busy! I'm almost ready for my exciting trip to the biennial translation conference hosted by Wycliffe, 6 days until I fly, and I'll confess it's exciting (not least because I still don't know where I'll be staying).

Anyway, one thing I've been thinking about doing for a while is getting a bit more deeply rooted into Peterson's method and approach, rather than simply analysing how he translated Yahweh and kyrios. So I have invested in his full translation in the devotional edition, which is brilliantly done frankly. You can see why it took him a decade, such a gift. In my reading today I was guided to Jeremiah 5 where I read the following:

Why did our GOD do all this to us? (MSG, Jer 5:18)

Compare this to ESV: Why has the LORD our God done all these things to us?

Something similar is afoot in verse 24 of the same chapter:
MSG: How can we honor our GOD?
ESV: Let us fear the LORD our God

So you can see what he's doing here. Peterson is solving one of the hurdles I described as "divine combos", which I assessed in a post last year here. The conclusion there was that "GOD" is sufficient to render most divine title combinations involving Yahweh, Adonai, El and Sabaoth. Jeremiah 5:18, 24, however poses the problem of a possessive, namely the LORD our God. I am keen to condense where possible to GOD, since like anarthrous kyrios, the Greek translation of Yahweh, it preserves both name and title characteristics. Unfortunately, however, our GOD might legitimately be accusable of failing to meet this demand. As we have pointed out on more than one occasion, the concept of "our Yahweh" (and therefore "our LORD") is not a Biblical one (I challenge you to find one outside of the Message!)

What is really strange, and I am afraid a little inconsistent on the part of Peterson, is that we also have assessed what to do in this instance, right here. Thanks to Peterson, we saw how important the placement of the commas was around "GOD, our God,". So why doesn't he do it here? The only reason I can imagine is that he felt that Deuteronomy 5:27 represented his fuller version, but that this might be too heavy to repeat systematically. We are now a year after he sadly left this world, so we can't ask him, but I would love to know if he was aware of the compromise to his own method he seems to make in doing this.

OK, so what if "GOD, our God," and the other possessives are overburdensome? Remember I estimated these at around 420 (approximately 6% of the Yahweh instances), so I would not automatically assume that to be true, but what if I did? How could we "mix it up a bit" and when would we do that?

Well this actually reminds me of another idea I have regarding the kyrios drumbeat around Jesus, particularly in Acts. The Lord this, the Lord that. How would we actually express that idea of deference to authority in English today to a superior? Would we call them by their hierarchical title all the time? It depends on the culture, right? In the USA, I hear that first name terms is almost par for the course, even for a CEO. But deference is alive and kicking in English-speaking cultures, so how would we consistently refer to that authority? Director this? The boss said that? Sir...

In fact, we would maybe do some of these things, but we would appeal to a wider range of signals to affirm that we are on-board with the pecking order. Sociolinguists point to a variety of signals that can come into play for politeness for example, such as tone of voice, regret, modesty, hesitancy, eye-contact... to be honest (and I think this may be the first time I'm saying this), I think we need to start thinking more in terms of a deferential attitude. Sometimes that attitude needs authenticating via a "so" or a "really", which is why we see increasingly that "I'm sorry" is no longer as authentic as "I'm so sorry".

With this problem of possessive on the "God" and the name GOD, if we do accept that it may be too much to go for the full Deuteronomy 5 option on every occurrence, then why not consider the full option—GOD, our God,—for the first instance in the passage, and a simple "our God" on the second? I think that's what I might do. Or express the deference in the second instance in the Jeremiah 5 passage via a "really", maybe with no reference needed in the following line to "God" at all:
Since he's our God, how can we really honor him, he's the one who gives us rain in both spring and autumn...

Just some ideas I deferentially submit to you ;)

Tired of Praising The LORD? Marre de louer Le SEIGNEUR?

My friend Barney Aspray has kindly hosted a post we have worked on together on the question of Praising "The LORD" in English. Unfortunately the site is experiencing an issue at the moment, but I will post up the link as soon as possible. Today I will post just the opening part and also provide my entire French adaptation, which I am also trying to share with

Mon ami Barney Aspray a gentillement publié un article que nous avons travaillé ensemble sur la question de Louer "Le SEIGNEUR" en anglais. Malheureusement, le site a un problème technique en ce moment, mais je donnerai le lien dès que possible. Aujroud'hui je partage la première partie mais aussi mon adaptation intégrale en français. Cette dernière fait l'objet d'une demande de partage que j'effectue auprès de l'Alliance Biblique, mais ce sera mis en stand-by pour un petit temps.

One of the most famous and sung anthems from the Psalms is the beautiful sentiment of αλληλουια, Hallelujah, rendered ‘Praise the Lord’ in many of our modern English Bibles and hymn sheets.

Unfortunately, since ‘the LORD’ was suggested by John Wycliffe—way, way back in the late 1300s—it has become a poor translation of the Hebrew Name for God, Yahweh.

In the English spoken and written today, ‘Lord’ usage has really slumped, and the little that remains is scarily dark! Whether it is a warlord or drug lord, or a science-fiction / fantasy genre bad guy (e.g. Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter, the Dark Lords of the Sith in Star Wars and even the Lord of the Rings), the connotations are not good. Even landlords can be pretty dark and shady characters you might be thinking!

In addition to the usage problems, there are some rather striking grammatical issues with ‘the Lord’, in part arising from the fact that Wycliffe and other medieval translators were translating directly from the Latin Vulgate.[1] Finally, we continue to see young people leaving the church in their droves, seemingly still in search of good, stable and accessible forms of authority, purpose and spirituality in their lives.

Despite these apparently legit concerns, ‘the Lord’ is somehow managing to dodge reassessment in nearly all of our most modern and dynamic translations into English. And so ‘the Lord’ limps on. Why is that? The reasons are multiple. Shaking the earth clear from each root we progressively loosen history’s firm hold on this inadequate expression. Could praising the Lord be one of these roots? (.... read the full article soon on the EveryDayTheology blog

ARTICLE COMPLET EN FRANCAIS!

Une des belles expressions de culte la plus connue des écritures Bibliques et chantée le dimanche matin se retrouve dans les Psaumes, vous la connaissez sûrement bien : « Louez l’Éternel », ou «Louez le SEIGNEUR», rendue en Grec αλληλουια (c’est d’où vient « Alléluia »). 

Malheureusement, depuis que « le Seigneur » a été donné comme traduction en français par Guyart des Moulins—il y a long, longtemps en 1297—elle est devenue une traduction insuffisante pour porter le nom Hébreu de Dieu, Yahvé (ou Yahweh).

Extrait de traduction réalisée par Guyart des Moulins en 1297, première traduction biblique en français (Proverbes 9:10)

Dans la langue française telle qu’elle soit parlée et écrite aujourd’hui, l’emploi de « Seigneur » s’est vraiment effondré, et le peu qui demeure n’est pas très gai ! Surtout maintenu dans les histoires fantastiques, comme Le Seigneur des Ténèbres, Voldemort, de Harry Potter, Les Seigneurs Noirs des Sith, de Star wars, et Le Seigneur des Anneaux, on pourrait se poser la question si de manière générale le titre de « Seigneur » s’est approprié des connotations bien moins positives.

Dark Vader, Seigneur Noir des Sith de Star Wars

S’ajoutant aux problèmes d’emploi sont des questions grammaticales marquantes. Celles-ci peuvent s’expliquer par le fait que Guyard des Moulins, John Wycliffe et les autres traducteurs médiévaux se servaient en partie ou même en totalité de la Vulgate (version en latin de la Bible de l’église Catholique) comme langue de source pour réaliser leurs traductions respectives.[1] Enfin, nous continuons à constater que les jeunes quittent l’église en masse, pourtant toujours en quête de formes positives, stables et accèssibles d’autorité, de sens et de vie spirituelle. 

Malgré ces inquiétudes légitimes, « le Seigneur » a réussit à s’échapper presque toute remise en question dans la plupart de nos traductions françaises dîtes modernes ou dynamiques d’aujourd’hui. Pourquoi?

Les raisons sont multiples. En libérant chaque racine de la terre qui l’obscure, nous nous permettons un lâcher-prise sur cette traduction insuffisante. Est-ce que « louer le Seigneur » pourrait être l’une de ces racines ?

Je contemplais cette notion, donc, de αλληλουια (Alléluia, Louez le SEIGNEUR, Louez l’Eternel). Je me suis arrêté, paisiblement. Malgré les problèmes que j’essayais de rendre visibles, il y avait et il y a quelque chose de si bon ici. Pourquoi l’appellerais-je même « beau » ? Puisque valoriser tout ce qui est bon est beau. Cela me fait sourire en profondeur lorsque le fond de la phrase transcende mes inquiétudes sur sa forme et je suis donc bien reconnaissant de cette perspective supérieure !

Cependant, je me retrouve face à une idée intéressante. Est-ce qu’il serait possible que notre adoration francophone « du Seigneur » aurait depuis des siècles fortifié ce langage ? Relisez avec moi très doucement les paroles en question (la ponctuation est là pour nous ralentir un peu).

L O U E Z :   

   

« L E.       S E I G N E U R. » [2]

Qu’est-ce que cette instruction opère à notre inconscient chrétien collectif ? Gardons en tête que ce soit une pratique spirituelle très ancienne, belle, bonne et sacrée. Néanmoins, dans la façon que c’est formulé, elle pourrait conduire à figer ces vieux mots français à ce niveau profond et intime à cause d’une confusion en traduction : Louez celui dont le nom est ‘Le SEIGNEUR’, plutôt que louez celui dont le nom a été traduit par ‘Le SEIGNEUR’, et investissez ce titre français de valeur, de sainteté et d’amour. Faites de ce titre français médiéval le véritable nom de Dieu, et préservez-le donc à tout prix.

Malgré les apparences, il s’agit d’une transition signifiante de perspective. Le nom d’une personne est relativement intemporel et il est conçu pour désigner la personne même, de telle sorte que le nommé et le nom ne font qu’Un. 

Nous pouvons constater ce phénomène déjà à l’œuvre dans l’ancien testament : 

 « Tous les peuples de la terre verront que tu es appelé du nom de « l'Eternel » et ils auront peur de toi » (Deutéronome 28.10, Segond 21)

Donc, si nous apercevons qu’on nous exhorte à « louer le Seigneur », réfléchissons à la fois à la puissance de l’idée de ce psaume et à l’incapacité de « l’Eternel » ou de « le Seigneur » à continuer à nommer celui que nous appelons également « Dieu ».

Quant aux traducteurs, eux aussi sont des chrétiens. Ils ressentent aussi un fardeau de fidélité forte au passé, et ils aperçoivent aussi le statut privilégié inculqué par toute la louange et honneur associés à ce nom prétendu « du Seigneur ». Une remise en question sérieuse du vocabulaire autour de l’autorité divine est donc évitée, mais ce n’est pas obligé que c’en soit ainsi ! Une fois que nous réalisons tous que :

- ‘le Seigneur’ n’est pas sacré de son propre sort, 

- ‘le Seigneur’ n’était peut-être pas la meilleure traduction en français même au moyen âge, et que

- ‘le Seigneur’ est tout à fait incapable de représenter les divers niveaux d’autorités signifiés dans les langues d’origine, 

. . . alors nous les chrétiens de 2019 pouvons repenser comment exprimer l’autorité divine dans nos vies. 

Et nous le faisons déjà. Par exemple, Eugene Peterson a eu un succès éblouissant avec sa traduction, The Message en anglais qui a beaucoup remis en question l’expression sœur en anglais, « The LORD ». Au lieu de répéter de manière irréfléchie les 6894 instances de « l’Eternel » par « The LORD », il a opté pour « DIEU » (ou simplement, Hallelujah ! )[3] Dans d’autres lieux d’interface entre l’église et la société, il semble bien qu’il y ait une dépendance réduite en discours de « seigneurie ». Attention, je ne dis pas qu’il n’y a pas encore beaucoup d’attachement au mot ni que l’attachement n’a pas de très bonnes explications, mais que la manière que l’autorité de Dieu ou de Christ s’exprime, lorsqu’il s’exprime bien, évolue et doit évoluer.  Mais il reste beaucoup à faire ! Nous avons besoin de perspectives et ressources linguistiques nouvelles qui nous invitent à expérimenter et exprimer l’autorité divine comme quelque chose de vraiment digne de notre louange. Pour cela nous avons besoins d’outils en français courant parce que le Grecque c’était en Grecque courant, tout simplement !

En conclusion, « le Seigneur » a eu son moment utile, le grand attachement que ressent l’église au mot peut s’expliquer aussi, mais il faudrait rattraper le retard par réexaminer comment nous devrions expressimer cette—si importante à une vie chrétienne contextualisée. Je suis certain que Guyart des Moulins en serait ravi 😊.

---

[1] This problem concerns the adding of articles that the Hebrew authors and Greek translators were so careful to avoid in order to preserve the personal name of God. Since Latin does not have articles, translators may have been ignorant of this fact.
Ce problème concerne l’ajout des articles que les auteurs hébreux et traducteurs grecques avaient avec prudence évité dans les langues d’origine afin de préserve le caractère d’un vrai nom personnel de Dieu. « L’Eternel », malgré son assez grande originalité ne s’échappe pas non plus, donc, de ce piège posé par la traduction directe du Latin.

[2] Cet effet est également percutant ailleurs, tel que : Entrez, courbons-nous, inclinons-nous, mettons-nous à genoux devant « le SEIGNEUR » qui nous a faits (Psaume 95.6, PDV, guillemets ajoutés)

[3] Ce n’est pas une réflexion que ni la Bible en Français Courant ni la Parole de Vie ne semblent prêtes encore à entreprendre.