SubJeff on 10/12/2007 at 20:03

---

So what language versions have you studied the bible in fett?

fett on 10/12/2007 at 20:27

---

The translation you guys are using is either the KJV or NIV which are notoriously noted and documented as the worst of all translations. Understanding of dead languages like ancient Hebrew and Aramaic increases with time due to archaeological discoveries, comparison of texts, and better understanding of the cultures in which those languages are used. This isn't just true for biblical languages, it's true for any language - the bible isn't special, nor does it beg special or unique allowances for these revisions and re-interpretations - these are issues common to texts written in any dead language. As an example, why would someone use the word 'gay' or 'dike' or 'nigger' as anything other than on offensive term? Because at the time those words were used in the English vernacular 100 years ago, they had absolutely nothing to do with the terminology in which we employ them today. Can you not see the relationship between the word 'beat' and 'punish' and then realize that common to that culture, servants were punished for crimes against employers or 'beaten' by withholding of wages, denial of certain benefits, etc? I'm not making some huge leap of language here, because that's EXACTLY what the biblical text is talking about in the culturally understood context of employers and employees or servants. Older biblele translations used the word 'slave' because a) the translation was advantageous to the powers that be at the time, and b) there was a very limited understanding of the original cultural context of the passages. Scholars both Christian and secular soundly condemn both the word 'beat' or 'slave' in older translations, and the newer ones are more reflective of the actual meaning of the early text copies. You do understand that we're talking about translations that are almost 300 years old in some cases? Language changes, and these aren't the only bizzare terms that have been thrown out of newer translations in favor of more accurate terms. Some of the newer terms are actually more controversial than that older ones in some cases, but nevertheless, modern translators have a sterling track record of translating as close to the original language and cultural context as possible. There is also much more accountability now than there was when King James was calling the shots. ;)

Listen guys, I'm not a christian - I don't give a fuck if you think god is evil and Jesus never existed, all I'm saying is that anyone that spends 5 minutes with a decent concordance will discover that the old translation of these passages in fact do not endorse slavery as we know it from our own recent history. Slavery of that type did exist at the time, but even the audience to which these passages are addressed make it clear that the authors were addressing employee/employer relationships, and little else.

So I'm not promoting MY translation over published translations. "MY" translation is the same translation that 99% of all biblical language scholars agree upon related to this issue. There are tons of published versions of the bible that are purposely mistranslated to serve the purposes of various groups (the New World Translation that the Jehovah Witnesses use for instance). There is a pretty universal agreement among scholars that the NKJV and the NASB currently give the most accurate translation into English. But even those aren't perfect because translations don't work on a 1:1 ratio - something is always lost, just as happens today between languages. Again - true for any language, not just biblical ones.

SE - I'm fluent in Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT -for the most part), and have a small grasp on Aramaic. Even at that, there are OT books that were translated from other Semetic languages over to ancient Hebrew long before the OT was codified, so you're dealing with a double loss of culture and context in those cases (Daniel, Esther, etc.).

phide on 10/12/2007 at 21:06

---

No, I see a strong relationship. A slave being beaten would be classified as punishment by most, but the issue is that the translation didn't hint at the concept of punishment, so it proposed no relationship at all. It merely presents that "slaves" were "beaten". To an individual that reads that translation, the meaning seems quite clear. To extrapolate more from that translation would be to err.

I can't quite see it the other way around: that a slave would be "beaten" by having wages withheld or denied certain benefits. To me, that's an impressive leap based on my understanding of the word "beat", but the translation isn't enough of a reference to make too many inferences about such things.


Fair enough. If it's common opinion that the translation SD quoted is a deliberate mistranslation (or an ignorant translation), and if SD was quite aware of that, then it seems I'm mistaken in my assumptions about who has an agenda and who doesn't. Perhaps it was just SD's mistake.

On a separate note, I seem to recall a couple of these verses from an editing job I did on a Christian audiobook. I can't really remember whether or not the term "servant" was used or not, but given who the writer was, I'd assume the least offensive translation was used (probably cherry-picked, in fact).

fett on 10/12/2007 at 21:26

---

phide, one of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the bible is that they read it without any understanding of it's cultural context or the intended audience. The thinking behind this is that 'it's God's Word, so it's for everybody.' Well, yes and no. While many of the principals are arguably applicable to all people (though I would disagree with that idea in part), each book within the collection was written to a real audience at a real place in time, and therefore has specific application to that audience. In the case of these disputed passages, Jewish and Roman audiences at that point in time had some very different and specific concepts regarding employment and forced labor that are largely foreign to our social constructs. That being said, to really understand the intent of the author, you have to read the passage through the eyes of it's original intended audience, for whom assault in most any form was punishable by law. Given that, they would know, even if the author used the exact phrase 'beat your slaves' that it is a figure of speech, and not intended literally. The same goes today - if I said, "I'm going to kill my wife," do you take me to mean that I'm literally going to murder her? Of course not - why? Because we have a mutual understanding that murder is illegal, 'kill' is not intended literally and can be used figuratively to describe a broad range of actions, and we agree that such a phrase is often used humorously because of our shared cultural experience. You have to apply this same thinking to any ancient text, not just the bible, if you're going to get at what the author intended.

It's always odd to me that people read the bible unlike they read any other piece of literature. Take a common newspaper. Because of our experience with this medium of communication, we understand that editorials are not fact, horoscopes are not actually predictive, and opinion pieces are just that. But we come to the bible - a collection of 66 different books, and expect that they should all be literal, currently applicable, and culturally clear to anyone, anywhere, without any additional knowledge of the original context. It's ridiculous to expect that, especially when we don't expect it of texts that were written even 100 years ago. Admittedly, the bible carries a stigma of being 'The Word Of God' but that doesn't exempt it from being a piece of ancient literature, especially when we're taking social cues from it (for some reason...). Again, look at Shakespeare. Specifics escape me at the moment, but he often uses phrases or words that obscure the meaning of his intent to modern readers. He didn't stop and give a detailed explanation of what the passage might mean, because the intended audience didn't need the explanation. There's no way writers even 200 years ago could predict that the word 'gay' 'faggot' or 'nigger' would mean something entirely different in the near future. Neither could Paul or Moses. If Paul says to a Roman citizen, "Don't beat your slaves," they understand him to mean "don't punish your servants too harshly" because the intended audience knew it was illegal to assault an employee. There was nothing more to explain at the time, and Paul certainly can't be expected to explain it predictively so that it didn't read strangely to post-civil rights Americans.

jtr7 on 10/12/2007 at 22:26

---

First off, the word tupto does contain the figurative:

tupto, toop'-to

a primary verb (in a strengthened form); to "thump", i.e. cudgel or pummel (properly, with a stick or bastinado), but in any case by repeated blows; thus differing from a single blow with the hand or any instrument, or with the fist (or a hammer), or with the palm; as well as an accidental collision; by implication, to punish; figuratively, to offend (the conscience):--beat, smite, strike, wound.

And doulos, again:

doulos, doo'-los

a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary; frequently, therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency):--bond(-man), servant.


Of interest, this chapter contains a reflection of the eunuch from Ethiopia who had been put in charge of Candace's possessions:
Lu 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

But I digress.

NUMBER ONE: He's speaking in PARABLE, as an addendum to a parable! He's speaking in terms his listeners would understand, wrapped in symbology of the Day of Christ's Return. He speaks of the standard practices of the day, the laws, the policies.

Continuing right off from above:

Lu 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. {cut...: or, cut him off}

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

If you knew better and did nothing, the consequences to come are far worse, therefore, the punishment is worse, to end the problem.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

If you screw up, you'll be sent to the Principal's office and get swats. If you knew better, but screwed up anyway, your lesson is harsher, in an attempt to drive out any further inclination to screw up again. If you didn't know better, you get the benefit of the doubt, and are punished less, and hopefully that's all it takes for your conscience to remind you you shouldn't screw up, again.


If you don't want to be punished for the actions you choose to do, then all you have to do is eliminate the possibility of consequences, especially those involving other people.