Translation of Scripture Debate - Windsor v. Hofstetter

Translation Debate

Round 4

Rebuttal

By Scott Windsor


Introduction/Thesis
Mr. Hofstetter begins with an “exegetical/contextual analysis of the verses in question.”  This is all well and good, but exegesis is interpretive, not translative - and thus not really applicable to the subject of this debate.  Certainly, if we were arguing interpretation - then all sorts of variables open up - including even stronger argumentation for the Catholic position, but we’re debating translation - and there’s a difference.  I will, therefore, stick to the subject at hand of translation matters.  The exegesis is interesting and all, and for the most part not much different than what I accept, it’s just not part of THIS debate and therefore must be dismissed.

As we have previously seen, Mr. Hofstetter has agreed that the DRB is a viable translation of the Old Latin Vulgate (OLV) which is, in his words, “itself an ancient translation from the original languages.”[1]  We’re really almost home with those statements alone!  With the DRB being viable to the OLV, then the heart of the debate lies with the OLV, which Hofstetter agrees is “itself an ancient translation from the original languages.”  Mr. Hofstetter argues that the OLV then is not a viable translation, at least in respect to the two verses chosen for the subject of this debate.  If the OLV can be demonstrated to be a viable translation from the original languages, then by default the DRB is viable because Hofstetter has already conceded it is a faithful/viable translation from the OLV.

Luke 1:28 Argumentation:
A manuscript which has not come up, as yet, in this debate is the Peshitta text in which we have the New Testament in the original language which Jesus and the Apostles actually spoke.  The Peshitta is and was, even prior to St. Jerome’s time, the official Scripture for the Eastern Church.  It is no surprize then that the Vulgate corresponds with this earlier Church document, which one can consider to be an “original language” since it dates back to biblical times and is in the language they spoke to one another.

Documentation and Comment:
The Peshitta for Luke 1:28[2] reads this way:


For those reading along who may not be familiar, Aramaic/Hebrew is read right to left, so this translation in English would read:

And came to her, the angel, and said to her, "Peace to you, Full of Grace, our Lord is with you blessed among women.  She. but when she saw [him] was disturbed at his saying and wondering was "What is this greeting" and the angel said to her "Do not be afraid, Maryam, for you have found grace with God.  Behold for you will receive this one..."


Demonstrating the translating of the pertinent part of this passage to “full of grace” as a viable translation of the Aramaic/Hebrew.  It also shows the text does not say that the Blessed Virgin was disturbed by the person (angel) but that when she saw him, she was disturbed at his saying and wondered, “What is this greeting?”  This is before the angel (Gabriel) reassures her, so as I have been stating all along, it is the greeting which disturbed her, and simply saying “Hey, lucky one” or “Hey, favored one” is not something to be disturbed over - but to be called, as in a name, “Hail, Full of Grace,” now that is a statement which would elicit puzzlement!  Certainly she is from and in a small town where most everyone would be known to each other and the angel is a stranger to her, but we must again not stray from the actual text - it is the greeting which disturbs her, not the stranger/angel.

As for a statement on the antiquity of the Peshitta, which we already know was in existence at the time of St. Jerome, here is some strong testimony:

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." [3] (Emphasis not mine)


Let me repeat, from Biblical times without any change or revision!” [added emphasis mine].  Mr. Hofstetter claims that no ancient text (that he is aware of) says “blessed (are you) among women.”  Evidently he was ignorant of the Peshitta text.  I would also assert that if the Peshitta text is the text of the Church of the East, and is in Aramaic, the language which Jesus and the Apostles actually spoke, then St. Jerome would surely have consulted it as well.

The Haydock Bible Commentary says this:

Ver. 28. Hail, full of grace: by the greatest share of divine graces granted to any creature. This translation, approved by the ancient Fathers, agrees with the ancient Syriac and Arabic versions. There was no need therefore to change it into gracious, with Erasmus; into freely beloved, with Beza; into highly favoured, with the Protestant translators. [4]

Again, pointing to ancient Syriac (the Peshitta) and Arabic versions.  

Genesis 3:15 Argumentation:
Dr. Art Sippo argues almost identically to what I have written previously in this debate, let us look:

While I agree that we should be very careful about using the Vulgate for textual criticism, it is the only official Catholic translation and so it has great authority for the interpretation of the text.  For this reason, the use of "ipsum" in Genesis 3:15 is very significant and cannot be ignored.  It allows both interpretations (he or she) as being acceptable by Catholics.  But IMHO, "she" is still the only logical choice.

Re: the JPS (Jewish Publications Society) has it in verse form as follows:

I will put enmity

Between you and the woman

And between your offspring and hers;

They shall strike at your head

And you shall strike at their heel.

See what JPS does here?  To make this work they are ignoring the SINGULAR number of the verb "she shall strike" and the noun "her heel" in bar 3.  They recognize (I have pointed out) that the respective "seeds" in bar two represent collective nouns, not individual persons.  Despite the obvious grammar of the 3rd bar, they make the same mistake that everyone modern exegete makes: they CHANGE the enmity in bar 3 to enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman even though in bar 2 it is CLEARLY enmity between their respective seeds.

I looked at this at this in depth about 15 years ago and I realized that most people are swayed on it by their prejudices and by the Masorete marks.  I am not surprised the "expert" sides with the Protestant interpretation because to him he is following the literal text.  But I submit that a more dynamic interpretation is necessary based on literary form, not on the text itself which IMHO is either corrupted (i.e., LXX & Masoretic Text) or unclear (Hebrew sans nikud).

Look, this is what the Protestants want the verse to read like:

I will put enmity

between you (A) and the woman (B)

between your (A') seed (C) and her (B') seed (D)

he (E) will strike at your (A') head

and you (A) will strike at his (E') heel.

(E) is a singular masculine pronoun in the 3rd bar which comes out of nowhere and has no referent in the earlier text.  It cannot refer to the woman's seed (D) because (as the JPS Version and Revelation 12:17 clearly show) that is a "they" not a "he".  The only single person mentioned in the first 2 bars who is opposed to the serpent is the woman.

If the author of Genesis intended there to be a "he" in the third bar who was the enemy of the serpent, this is what he should have written:

I will put enmity

between you and the woman

between YOU and her seed

he will crush your head

and you will lie in wait for his heel.

In this version, "seed" could represent a single individual and it would make sense to have bar 3 as you prefer it.  In this version, bar 2 bridges into bar 3 and justifies the currently preferred reading by switching the enmity to one between the serpent and the woman's seed.  If that were the text in Hebrew, I would support to the currently preferred interpretation of the "experts".  BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE TEXT OF BAR 2 SAYS!

The critical point is that bar 2 does not allow us to infer a direct enmity between the serpent and the seed of the woman.  Bar 2 only re-states the enmity between the serpent and the woman.  It does not introduce a new protagonist against the serpent.  As such there is no justification for introducing a new antagonism in bar 3.  Bar 3 is merely reiterating the same antagonism between the serpent and the woman from bars 1 & 2.

Frankly, this is so obvious to me that I fail to understand how anyone can possibly justify another interpretation.  St. Jerome and I are agreed on this and I am satisfied that we will be vindicated on THAT DAY when God will reveal everything to us. [5]


The Haydock Bible Commentary has this to say about Genesis 3:15:

Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head. (Challoner) --- The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus... The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin Mary. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure." [6]


Conclusion:
I reiterate the premise of this debate.  It is not our purpose to say there are not OTHER viable translations, only that the traditional Catholic translation is viable, or from Mr. Hofstetter's perspective, not viable.  I agree with Dr. Sippo, while “he” can be a viable translation in Genesis 3:15 - it makes much more sense the way St. Jerome translated it - as “she.”  Likewise, with Luke 1:28, is “highly favored” a viable translation of the word?  Yes, but in context, “Full of Grace” makes much more sense. The Vulgate, and by default - the DRB, is a viable translation.

Footnotes:
[1] http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/translation_debate/04_Hofstetter.htm
[2] http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/3_Luke/Luqach1.pdf
[3] Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the East, April 5, 1957, qtd. on: http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/peshitta.htm
[4] Haydock Bible Commentary on Luke 1:28: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1731.html
[5] Sippo, Dr. Art, qtd. on: http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/QandA/WhoWillCrushHeadOfSerpent.aspx
[6] Haydock Bible Commentary on Genesis 3:15: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html


Word Count: 1965

Back to Translation of Scripture Debate Page

Back to ACTS Homepage