I want mercy not sacrifice

by peacefulpete 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  I stumbled across an interesting example of the role translating played in developing theology. The words at Matt 9:13 and 12:7 have Jesus quoting Hosea 6:6 as saying, "I want mercy and not sacrifice". A lofty concept indeed, elevating human needs over cultic ritual. However the words at Hosea in Hebrew mean something entirely different than the application being forced upon them by the author of Matthew.

  The actual original meaning of the word found in Hosea (hesed) is not mercy but loyalty. Interestingly the WT is aware of this point and has in some passages, including Hosea 6:4 , translated the word as ?loving kindness? with a footnote that explains what they should have rendered was ?loyal love?, love in this case meaning attachment. (eg 1 Sam 20:8 ref) However they mask the meaning by inconsistent translating folowing tradition and possibly to conceal that the famous Matthew application is spurious.

  A careful reading of Hosea reveals the recipient of the hesed (loyalty) is Yahweh not fellow humans. Additionally the following phrase, " I want...knowledge of Elohim not burnt offerings" also has been misunderstood. Knowledge (daath) is from the Hebrew verb yada ?to know? and carries sexual intimacy connotations. These two statements then meant to the author that Yahweh was desiring intimacy and loyalty rather than perfunctory ritual. This was a radical concept at the time in Yahwehism but a very different message than that of Matthew 9 and 12. It is true that Hosea was revolutionizing the cult by defining worship of Yahweh by social consciousness but the statement in discussion is specifically about relationship with Yahweh not humans.

  At any rate the point of this thread is to demonstrate how translating reflects and effects theology. The translators of the LXX chose a Greek word (eleos, mercy) that really was not a good parallel to the Hebrew (hesed, loyalty) As a result of the popularity of the LXX in later years Christian writers ancient and modern have imitated the LXX and the new theology that was created thru this change in meaning. Even the NT writer of Matthew preferred the theological message in the LXX wording over the Hebrew original. We know he was aware of the Hebrew as he used it in other passages when it served his purpose better than the Greek. As a result today the definition of hesed in lexicons reflects the common translation and modern usage rather than the contextual original meaning.
• 

  avishai

  Thanks. pete!
• 

  Leolaia

  Might this have something to with the lingering role of sacrifice in latent Canaanite polytheism and the many condemnations and disparagements of sacrifice/holocausts/etc. in the OT (in contradiction with Leviticus and Exodus)?
• 

  Yerusalyim

  This was a radical concept at the time in Yahwehism but a very different message than that of Matthew 9 and 12. It is true that Hosea was revolutionizing the cult by defining worship of Yahweh by social consciousness but the statement in discussion is specifically about relationship with Yahweh not humans.

  Words evolve over time. Terrible doesn't mean today what it did 200 years ago.

  Theologically, the readers of the scriptures might have come to understand this passage of Hosea as shared in Matt.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Leolaia, a couple of works I've been reading desribe the period (800-200 BC) called the Axiel Age. The developments in Yahwehism reflect a wider transformation in religion throughout the middle east and Asia. A sense of moral transendence spawned new movements away from ritual and devotion to temple rite and tward self development and inner meaning. Monotheism was taking root in Judah during this time and montheism while breeding intolerance also necessitated the ideal of deity become more than just powerful, he had to be model in every respect. This included the finer human emotions like compassion and high ethics. Yahweh suddenly had to be someone worthy and deserving of love. Naturally the new messengers of Yahweh like Amos and Hosea depicted Yahweh as demanding this love or turning upon his people in anger if they failed to receive the new and improved Yahweh. Quite funny actually.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Yeru....That's possible. However every commentary on this passage I found attributed the change in meaning to poor translating by the LXX. Either way it makes the same point that theology evolves along with the culture, sacred texts are clay in the hands of skillful exegetes.
• 

  Narkissos

  I guess the (mis-)translation of chesed by eleos in Hosea is not so much the result of an ideological or sentimentalistic twist as of a translational trend I could term "keyword stereotype". The translator usually feels free to translate sentences rather than words in order to convey the global meaning he understands, until he stumbles across some supposed "keyword". At this moment the usual process freezes because of the need for using THE predefinite equivalent for the keyword.

  What determines the stereotyped translation of chesed is, of course, the dominant theological use in Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic literature. Since this refers to Yhwh (or even God) as a natural superior, the basically relative, mutual meaning of chesed (loyalty, as may be formalized by the berith or covenant) fades into the background. In a liturgical phrase like "his chesed is forever and ever" the semantic constraint of the context is near to zero and almost any "good quality" could make it : mercy, love, grace, kindness --even justice, wisdom or others would in this very case.

  When the habit of translating chesed by eleos is entrenched, it naturally applies even to texts such as Hosea where the subject is not divine. And there it changes the meaning a lot. I guess, if the Hellenistic translator only noticed the difference (I'm not so sure because the equivalence chesed-eleos was probably very mechanical) he could have been happily surprised by the result, as "I want mercy" would sound better to him than "I want loyalty"...
• 

  gumby

  At any rate the point of this thread is to demonstrate how translating reflects and effects theology

  Ray Franz in his book COC, uses the scripture to show as one reason why the Blood Transfusion policy is false. He showed how Jesus picked and ate food with his diciples on the sabbath, and how David fed his men with the showbread from the tabernacle which only the priest could do then quoted Jesus words....."I want mercy, not sacrifice". Evidently he wasn't familiar with your findings.....and if your findings are correct, then others shouldn't use that argumentation anymore.

  Gumby
• 

  Narkissos

  Gumby: If the JWs accept the Greek NT as authoritative this has to include any (mis-)translation of the Hebrew OT that came to constitute an integral part of the NT. So IMO Ray Franz' argument stands, at least by another NT standard "I judge you from your own mouth"...

  Call it chance or providence, that's the way "Holy Scriptures" go over time and languages.
• 

  Kenneson

  If Matthew is written between 80 and 90 A.D. as some scholars maintain, why would the Hosea passage be important? If the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., would there be anymore sacrifices? Would it not have necessitated substitutes like deeds of loving kindness, even as synagogues replaced the Temple?