I was really curious when I read about the Etymological New Testament: An Ultra-Literal Translation. This is a translation which is based on the American Standard Version. It proposes to translate the new testament with an emphasis on the etymology of key words. According to the translator, John Michael Wine, the purpose of the translation is “that you slow down as you read. And as you meditate on the text, new openings of the Wind may inspire you” (“Wind” here refers to the Spirit). Here are some sample verses:
Matthew 3:1,2: “And in those days cometh John the Dippist, proclaiming in the desolate of Judea, saying, After-mind; for the realm of upward-vision is near.”
Matthew 4:18-22: “And walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two same-uteruses, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his same-uterus, casting a net into the sea; for they were salters. And he saith unto them, Come after me and I will make you salters of humans. And they immediately from-let their nets, and followed him. And going on from there he same two other same-uteruses, James the son of Zebedee, and John his same-uterus, in the boat with Zebedee their abba, mending their nets; and he called them. And they immediately from-let the boat and their abba, and followed him.” (Wine explains “same-uterus”: “Yes, the meaning of the Greek word ADELPHOS is brother. But its etymology stems from its two component parts: ‘same’ and ‘uterus’. Brothers (or sisters) in Greek etymology are those who come from the ‘same-uterus.’”)
Matthew 5:8: “Happy are the pure in heart: for they shall see Placer.”
John 4:24: “Placer is Wind: and those who toward-teem the same must toward-teem in wind and truth.” Wine explains this: Normally translated as “worship”, PROSKUNEO has had a long usage in Greek literature. Its semantic range has varied from cringing like a dog to kissing an idol to the worship of Almighty God. But, its etymology has not changed: to teem toward something or someone. In this case, since Placer is wind, we must
flow and teem toward the same in wind ourselves…and in truth, in reality! Let’s keep flowing!
John 3:16: “For Placer so loved the system, that he gave his uniquely-becoming son that whosoever is trusting into the same, should not be from-whole-loosed, but have life of unconditional-being.”
Luke 9:28: “And it became about eight days after these words, that he took with him Peter and John and James, and up-stepped into the mountain to toward-good-have.” (Wine explains: “Luke intentionally connects this verse with the previous one by noting that it’s just been eight days since Jesus’ statement about perceiving the realm. So the four of them proceed (ultra literally “up-step”) to ascend the mountain for one purpose: to toward-good-have. Typically translated as “prayer”, the Greek PROSEUCHE is a three part word that is always rendered into English, by the Etymological New Testament, very literally. Prayer is directional, “toward”, it is toward goodness or, just as literally, it could be translated “well-being”, and it is something we “have” or hold. Etymologically, prayer is to have or hold ourselves or others toward well being/goodness. Jesus and his close associates went up into the mountain to hold-toward-well being, themselves and others…and so should we.”)
John 3:3 “Except one be-becoming up-place, he cannot be perceiving the realm of Placer.” (Wine explains: “Nicodemus came toward Jesus by night, intrigued by the signs, or symbols, that he saw in Jesus. It is in this context that Jesus says one must be becoming “up-place”. Some versions translate the Greek word ANOTHEN as “again” while others have “from above”. Ultra literally, it is a two part word in Greek. So, the Etymological New Testament hyphenates the two roots as up-place. It would appear that John intentionally uses a double entendre, conveying both the idea of again or newness as well as the sense of upwardness. To be able to perceive this realm that Jesus experienced, we must be becoming into an upward place…an entirely new and higher vision of life.”)
On translating “God” as “Placer” Wine says, “THEOS is part of the family of Greek words stemming from the root sense of ‘to place.’ And, as a noun, THEOS is, as to its etymology, ‘placer.’ God is literally the One, or that which, ‘places’ us.”
You can find Wine’s blog here with multiple other examples. With all due respect to Wine I can’t help but feel that this kind of effort will simply reinforce some really bad habits in some pastors, students and laymen that seminary professors everywhere are trying desperately to correct. Three books that are good reading on this topic (though they cover more than just etymology) are Biblical Words and Their Meaning by Moisés Silva (chapter 1), Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson (pp 26-32) and Semantics of New Testament Greek by J. P. Louw (chapter 4).
HT: New and Interesting Bible Translations
Phil Miller
November 12, 2011 at 9:59 am
I agree with you, Louis, that it might reinforce some bad habits, for words are rarely static in their meaning. But look at the example above, where Simon and Andrew are called “salters.” How apparent the Semitic origin of or influence on the text. For the Hebrew word for sailor is מלח (pronounced mallaaH), which is based on the word [spelled the same] melaH, which means salt. I do admit, English can call sailors “salts” [usually coupled with "old" = "oil salts"] This is but one example, but I fear this ultra-reading of this next – no, all texts – can lead to disaster.
John Michael Wine
November 12, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Thanks, Louis, for your review of the Etymological New Testament. I think that your concern (about ultra literal translation and its limits) is well founded. I’ve owned Carson’s little book and enjoyed quoting Exegetical Fallacies to others for years. That’s one of the reasons that you find on page 3 of the ENT, last paragraph, this info: “This brings us to a very key point about this method and the ENT in particular: etymology must not be confused with meaning. One cannot repeat this caution too often.” That’s how the last paragraph on page 3 begins. Then follows the discussion about PROSKUNEO. Then the paragraph concludes with, “Fun information. Root words. But meaning is determined by usage, not by etymology.” I also agree with Phil’s comment concerning his fear about ultra-reading of the text. That’s also why I have written prominently on the back cover of the ENT, “The Etymological New Testament reflects the literal Greek linguistic elements of the text. Etymology is not meaning. But it does provide fascinating insight inot the origins of many New Testament words!” The ENT is simply a supplementary tool to easily see etymological connections between words within the text. In Romans 12, Paul “beside-calls” the saints to “beside-stand” their bodies to God. At a glance, one can see this linguistic connection. It is assumed (and encouraged) in the introduction to the ENT that the reader has open their standard, literal translation.
If someone pauses and reflects on the Biblical text a little longer due to using the ENT, then “mission accomplished”. But, as you’ve clearly shown, and as I’ve clearly stated a number of times, etymology is not how the meaning of words is determined. Sometime, it would be fun to discuss the all too prevalent error encountered in many traditional translations in the overuse of transliteration. But that’s another topic.
Thanks again for your post! John Michael Wine
Louis
November 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm
You’re welcome John and thank you for your comment. I do think you added some important caveats. I have two questions if you don’t mind. 1) How can we be sure the connections that we see with an etymological study was also understood by the writer? 2) How far back should an eytmological study go? A hundred years? Two hundred? This is especially important since words change over time as new meanings gain dominance. When I was a kid “gay” had none of the connotations it does today. And today I know of no one who would call someone gay and simply mean they were “happy.” Perhaps you’ve addressed these questions in the preface of the ENT or maybe elsewhere that I am unaware of. I only saw portions of it from Amazon and your blog. Oh, I just thought of a third question: How long did it take you to do this translation and what resources did you find most helpful?
John Michael Wine
November 13, 2011 at 10:34 am
Good questions. 1) I don’t think that we “can be sure” about the linguistic connections we see in in the original (or an etymological translation) were understood by the author to be significant. It may be coincidental to Paul that he used “beside-call” and “beside-stand” in the same sentence. It might not be disimilar to me using “underneath” and “understand” in the same sentence. That said, it is nevertheless very helpful and occasionally instructive to see passages, like Gal 2, where the verb and noun for placing and Placer are used together, “I do not un-place the grace of Placer.” But, even here, the primary effect is to cause one to linger a little longer with the text. How many Bible readers even know that THEOS is part of a family of words that all stem from the etymological sense of “to place”? Our English word “God” does not come from the same root. It’s not that something earth shaking happens when one find out more about the origins of these words and their connections. But, our meditation on the text is certainly enriched. 2) As far as possible! You provided an excerpt from my blog on John 4:24. This was itself a condensed version of a paragraph found in the Introduction to the ENT. PROSKUNEO is a good illustration of what we agree on: its meaning has changed quite a bit over the centuries (and I ref The Dictionary of New Testament Theology by Colin Brown in the intro), but its etymology has not changed: “to teem toward”. How one might teem toward someone or something, clearly has changed over time, from licking like a dog to worshiping Almighty God, but its etymological origins are the same. GAY: most standard works say that this word first shows up in English in the 14th century. And that it comes from French. It is more murky after that. Almost from it first appearance in our English tongue, it conveyed two senses: joyful, merry…AND lewed, lascivious. Not our contemporary usage, but there was often an element of the off color implied in some uses. From this begining the word evolves. But, once again, the etymology would remain constant, from the French for joyful, pleasant, or forward. And, some etymologists would say that the French word comes from the Old High German for “pretty”. One “goes as far back” as is possible. 3) Here’s how the Introduction to the ENT begins: “The Etymological New Testament (ENT) is a Greek based translation that uses the original American Standard Version (1901) as its English framework. The English etymologies are derived from various lexicons, (e.g. Bauer, Kittel, Friberg, Barclay-Neuman, Dictionary of NT Theology, and Louw-Nida), but often from the Concordant Publishing Concern’s Lexicon and Concordance. This particular Lexicon is a wonderful source of etymologies.” I notice that, in the Introduction and in the Notes on Matthew, I refer most often in the illustration passages, to Kittel and Brown. By using these works, I don’t endorse Kittel’s high church ecclesiology nor the Concordant Concern’s hyper dispensationalism. It took a number of years to publish this translation. I am tentatively working on a revision in modern English which would also be thoroughly updated from the original. After working on this revision for a year and still working in Matthew, I don’t know that I’ll ever publish it. But, like the merchant in Matthew 13, the sheer joy of it makes it worthwhile!
Scripture Zealot
November 13, 2011 at 11:48 pm
For some reason I really like this. I’m a literal thinker and this stuff makes sense to me! If I were a teacher I wouldn’t ever use it, just like I wouldn’t use Greek after learning it for a year, but it would make me think and reflect on some things and I think I would use it as the author intends. Later on I may or may not still agree with it, but I doubt it would get me in any trouble. Maybe etymological isn’t literally literal, but for those who want literal Bibles, here you go. Good luck.
I think I’d understand some of this better than some of the ESV.
Jeff