tabernacle vs tent
The discussion around how to translate John 1:14 is complicated by the fact that the Greek word σκηνη and the Latin tabernaculum were used to translate two different Hebrew words. In English 'tabernacle' and 'tent' have come down to us as two separate words, when in Hebrew there was more or less, 'dwelling' and 'tent . 'Tabernacle' is strictly speaking the Latin for 'tent' but these appear as two separate words now in English translations. It is all a bit muddled in my view. John 1:14 in Greek is,
Here is a brief outline of the problem.
- καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας
- et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam eius gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre plenum gratiae et veritatis
- The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only [Son], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Here is a brief outline of the problem.
- הַמִּשְׁכָּן Ex. 26:1 dwelling or habitation
ἡ σκηνη LXX
tabernaculum Vulgate
- tabernacle JKV
- tabernacle TNIV
אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד Ex. 27:21 tent of meeting
ἡ σκηνη τοῦ μαρτυρίου
- tabernaculum testimonii
- tabernacle of the congregation KJV
- tent of meeting TNIV
- Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κέκραγεν λέγων οὗτος ἦν ὃν εἶπον ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 8:46 PM
12 Comments:
I've always liked hearing this verse quoted with "tabernacled" as a verb. For me it highlights the co-text connections, the bringing of the Shekinah glory into the inter-testamental period which so very much needed that glory.
I'm rather a fan of verbing nouns. The other day on the T.V. news I heard a journalist speak of something needing to be "truth squaded". Hmm, interesting new usage. I understood it well.
Granted, "tabernacle" is a word not well known among the hoi polloi. I'm not suggesting that this is the best term to use in John 1:14, but it does work well for me. Perhaps this is a place where an uncommon term could be used in the text but have an explanatory footnote.
Beyond Words, I take your point, but is "the richness of the indwelling presence of God in those words" in the original Greek? I suspect not, the concept has been introduced by preachers and commentators. Now there may be nothing wrong with their sermons and comments if intended to be an exposition of the overall biblical teaching on "how Jesus was the living presence of God with us". But it is wrong to read their theological conclusions back into a Greek word which probably just meant "pitched his tent" or "lived in a tent".
Wayne, your point that "tabernacled" "highlights the co-text connections" seems to me like a more sophisticated way of saying the same as Beyond Words, and the same objection to it applies. Elsewhere you have criticised the way in which rare and poorly understood words like "propitiation" are used in Bible translations as pegs on which to hang theological constructions. Can't you see that the same applies here?
Peter asked:
Wayne, your point that "tabernacled" "highlights the co-text connections" seems to me like a more sophisticated way of saying the same as Beyond Words, and the same objection to it applies. Elsewhere you have criticised the way in which rare and poorly understood words like "propitiation" are used in Bible translations as pegs on which to hang theological constructions. Can't you see that the same applies here?
Yes, I sure can. I tried to identify with this part of the issue in the final paragraph of my comment, but I probably didn't state it clearly enuf.
Suzanne,
I remain a bit confused as to why so much discussion has revolved around nouns when what we find in Jn 1:14 is a verb. The question should not be "what does skene mean?" but rather "what does skenow mean?" Greek experienced as many shifts in meaning with verbalized nouns as any other language.
IMHO, the discussion needs to revolve around the verb found in John, not the noun from which it is derived.
Damian
Beyond Words wrote:
Wayne, you are one of my translation heroes,
Oh, I do like words of affirmation. Thanks a lot.
so I don't know how to respond to your comment. Does it have to be "either or"?
Could I ask what "it" is? (I did write "it" not "is"!)
Are you asking if the translation needs to be either "tabernacled" or something different? Are you asking if somehow we can get translation readers to see more than one translation option? If so, I think the answer is yes. We can footnote, or even present alternatives within the text (as the Amplified Bible does), to focus on clarity, perhaps, with one word, and Jewish worship/tabernacle connections with another word.
With computer technology we are not bound to single option texts. We can even click and get translation options that give us language in a higher register. We can click and get the Biblical Hebrew or Greek.
Click, click, click!!
:-)
Beyond Words wrote: So I'm wrestling with understanding which is more important, the plain meaning of the words in the orginal Greek or the concordant meaning they might have had to John's first readers.
You are wrestling here with important issues! The concordant meaning is indeed important for theologians and perhaps for preachers. But I'm not sure that it is for translators - and this is a blog on translation.
Translators need to work primarily with the plain meaning of the original words. As far as it makes good sense in the target language, it is good to be concordant in the sense of translating the same original word group into the same target language word group. But often this simply cannot be done without violence to the target language or introducing all kinds of misunderstandings. In such cases translators need to translate the plain meaning, and leave commentators and preachers to find the wider links.
John is the master at using ambiguity to clarify meaning. Saying that in that way sounds odd to us, doesn't it? But, it's only odd to us since the word ambiguity is .... ummmmm ... ambiguous. It can mean: more than one meaning which confuses the real intention. However, ambiguity can also refer to a quite intentional double meaning--the pun is a good example. John does this. And he is a master at doing it.
What about a translation like:
The Message became flesh and took up residence among us like the Shekinah glory in a tent.
Is that a translation or a commentary? Good question, IMO. It depends on whether or not you believe John is purposely using ambiguity to clarify the intent of his words. If you do, then you need to bring both meanings across in as precise way as possible. You need to clarify the meanings as John clarifies the meanings, but use a different form. That's what translation does. That's what it's suppose to do. Thankfully, this suggested translation doesn't empty the text of it's beauty; though it's awfully hard to beat the terse beauty of a good pun.
I really like what beyond words said: When I read "dwell" or "live" in English, I don't get the richness of the indwelling presence of God in those words. I agree. The pun forces on the reader both the clarity and the complexity of the meaning--complexity embodied in one form. Wonderful. Really wonderful. The form itself expresses the meaning. It's like it's ... well ... beyond beyond words.
Sorry. I couldn't refuse. :-)
Damian,
IMHO, the discussion needs to revolve around the verb found in John, not the noun from which it is derived.
σκηνοω is not used elsewhere for live or dwell in John's gospel. In chap.1 verse 38 the verb is μενω.
οικεω or κατοικεω would also be common choices. σκηνοω is a marked usage.
On the other hand, John does use σκηνοω in Rev. 7:15, 12:12, 13:6, 21:3.
But on balance, σκηνοω is less common than other words for live/dwell and therefore must be looked at carefully. Why was this word used?
Suzanne,
Thanks for your response. It is interesting that John does not use here the verb menw, which appears so frequently throughout the Gospel. It is more interesting (to me) that he does not use kataskenew, which is the very common form for "to tabernacle" / "to dwell" in the LXX.
skanow is a marked usage - but not in terms of menew, rather in terms of kataskenow. Jn is either clearly ambiguous here, deliberatley avoiding the most common verb in the LXX tradition to refer to God's dwelling/tabernacling among his people, or he is using a verb which in common parlance meant simply "to pitch a tent"/ "to dwell." I thing the latter holds.
σκηνοω is still a fairly uncommon verb in comparison with οικεω, for example, less than 10% frequency.
But you imply that you do not think that an allusion to the Hebrew tabernacle is intended by John here and there is no need to allude to it in the English translation.
I see that the major translations do not make the connection - the majority decision is to go with dwell. However, I am just trying to understand this better and feel confident that allusion to the tabernacle is not important.
I am not, so far, convinced. But I don't feel strongly about this either way.
Suzanne,
I'm not saying that there is no allusion. That would be presumptuous on my behalf. I also believe that there is the "vaguest" of allusions.
What is significant, to repeat myself, is that John chose a very rare verb - not used with reference to the tent of meeting (!) - instead of the much more common verb kataskenow.
Either way, for the point of translation I sway between "pitch a tent" (so wonderfully concrete) and "dwell."
Damian
Beyond Words, thanks for calling me your hero. I appreciate that! I have only just got round to reading these comments. But your follow-up question is indeed a difficult one. I suppose I would say that things are so complicated that in a translation we can't hope to capture all the Hebrew and other Jewish nuances as well as all the Greek ones, so the best thing we can do is use a plain and simple English word like "tent", and let the commentators and preachers take things further.
Damian, thank you for your comments, which seem to me to put this allusion to the tabernacle into its proper perspective, an allusion rather than the central meaning of the word which must be brought out in translation.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home