Challenges of translation

For the most part translators of ancient texts – especially bible translators – are honest scholars who strive to the best of their ability to convey the meaning of the text before them.  Every translator begins his task with his own presuppositions and biases as well as personal limitations in linguistic skill and in personal knowledge of cultural and historical detail.  As a result, every translator's approach to a difficult passage will inevitably be different from one to another.  In the case of biblical texts, literally hundreds of English translations are available along with even more in European and other commonly spoken modern languages.  Readers who are not able to consult the original languages can readily identify a difficult passage simply by comparing several different translations that they can read.  Perhaps 80% to 90% of all biblical translations, ancient and modern, are essentially identical to one another.  The points of divergence between translations identify the passages that translators have found to be difficult for one reason or another.  Some of common sources of such problems are as follows:

·        The source text is corrupt.  This can be the result of a scribal error or a defect (e.g., a hole in the page or a blurred word) in the scribe's source text.  Similarly, a scribe may conflate, omit, or duplicate text.  All such errors render a translator's task more difficult.

·         Some scribe interpreted a side note as part of the text or left part of the text out as a side note.

·         An abbreviation in the text is misinterpreted either by a scribe or a later editor.

·         The translator misinterprets an inflected form in the text by either incorrectly parsing the form or deriving the observed form from the wrong root.

·    Words in every language change meaning over time, so a translator may misunderstand the author's intended meaning by using a meaning from the wrong time period.

·       Homonyms exist in every languages, and a translator may incorrectly identify the word intended by the author.

·    Most words in every language have a multiplicity of uses based on context and syntactical relations within a sentence.  A translator may incorrectly interpret either the overall context or the syntactical relationships within the sentence.  

·   Ancient texts were written without punctuation of any sort.  Greek was written without any separation between words; Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and other Semitic languages separated the words but had no representation for vowels.  All modern printed editions of the ancient texts include punctuation, verse divisions, vowels, etc., all of which were added by various editors centuries after the fact.  Change the division of clauses and verses within a text, and you inevitably change the meaning of the text.  Let me suggest that this aspect of interpretation is implied at least in part by "rightly dividing (lit., cutting straight) the true message" (2 Tim 2:15).    

Literally thousands of biblical manuscripts have been preserved that pre-date the invention of the printing press, and all of them differ from one another to some degree.  As the original autograph was copied by scribes, errors crept into the text, producing textual families based on geographic region.  So, for example, the New Testament manuscripts developed into four major text families – Roman, North African, Byzantine, and Egyptian.  The same thing happened with the Septuagint.  This, however, is not true of the Hebrew bible.  Prior to discoveries in the recent past there were just two known text types for the Hebrew bible, the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch.  In 1896, the contents of the Cairo Genizah first started to be examined by scholars.   This genizah contained literally thousands of Hebrew texts and fragments, many of which pre-dated the Masorites (c. 900 to 1000 CE).  These fragments indicated the kind of textual diversity present in the New Testament and Septuagint but notably missing from the Masoretic Text.  This diversity was confirmed by the discovery of the Qumran texts about 50 years later.  For those who are not aware of this history, the earliest of the Qumran manuscripts date from around 200 BCE, or roughly contemporaneous with the initial translation of the Septuagint.  The Masorites developed a detailed system for preserving the text that they approved, and they added vowel point vocalization, verse divisions, and cantillation accents.  All of this standardized the textual content and reading tradition, but the pre-Masoretic text types ceased to be used and were ultimately forgotten.  As a result, when one is confronted by an interpretive problem in the Hebrew text, the only available option is to consult secondary sources, the ancient translations. 

Does this make a difference?  Let me present an example based on Exodus 20:22, 23.  Both the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch have the same consonantal text at this point.

ויאמר יהוה אל משה כה תאמר אל בני ישראל אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם.  לא תעשון אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב לא תעשו לכם.

Then YHWH said to Moses, "Say this to the Israelites: 'You perceived that I spoke with you from heaven.  You shall not make with me gods of silver and gods of gold you shall not make.'"

Verse 22 presents no difficulty for translation, but it provides the essential context for understanding the next verse, which presents several interpretive problems.

·         Verse 23 contains two independent verbs, both of which are transitive and require a direct object. 

·         The fact that there are two independent verbs means that there are two clauses present.  The text as it stands provides no clear point of separation between the two clauses.

·         The word אתי has two homonyms.  The Masoretic vowel points present the word as 'iti meaning with me; the other possibility is 'oti identifying a direct object me.

·         The words אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב could be a reference to idols made of silver and gold or it could be a reference to a a material representation of the true God made from silver and/or gold.  

So, what did the author actually intend to say???

Apart from the Masoretic and Samaritan texts, the only Semitic language sources for this text are the Aramaic targums and the Syriac Peshitta.  Separate Aramaic targums were created for every book of the Hebrew bible starting from about 200 BCE, or roughly contemporaneous with the initial translation of the LXX version of the Torah.  Both the LXX and the targums were translated from some version of the Hebrew text, but the relation between these source texts and the Masoretic text cannot be determined with any certainty.  The date for the initial translation of the Syriac Peshitta cannot be determined with any certainty, but it probably dated from the second or third century of the common era.  Also, the source text for the Peshitta is uncertain; however, it frequently agrees with LXX readings.  The Vulgate was translated by Jerome during the fourth century of the common era (completed in 405 CE), and he also used some Hebrew text for his source document.

The LXX and Vulgate omit any translation for אתי and render the verse thus:

You shall not make for yourselves gods of silver, and gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.

The Peshita retains a form for אתי but inserts changes in word order and content:

You shall not make for yourselves a god of fine gold, and a god of silver you shall not make for yourselves.

Targum Onkelos, which is generally the most literal of the various targums, has קדמי (before me) instead of אתי (יתי in Aramaic), and it changes אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב to דחלן דכסף ודחלן דדהב.  The verbal root דחל does occur in the Aramaic sections of the bible, and the nominal form may refer either to fear or to a worshipper.  In the present context it would refer to a worshipper of silver and gold idols in preference to (before) YHWH.  The difficulty here is that it is impossible to determine if these differences are based on the translator's interpretation or a Hebrew source text.

English translations fall into one of two groups:

A.   You shall not make gods of silver with me, yea gods of gold you shall not make for yourself.

B.   You shall not make gods of silver before me, yea gods of gold you shall not make for yourself.

Problems with these translations:

·    The LXX and Vulgate leave out any representation for אתי, indicating that it is in the translator's opinion a scribal error.  The translation divides the clause after gods of silver, thereby supplying both verbs with a direct object.

·       Both the targum and the Peshitta deviate from the Hebrew text we have. They could have been based on alternate Hebrew texts or the result of the translator's interpretation.

·     The first English translation renders אתי as with me, which is the meaning indicated by the Masoretic vowels, and it divides the verse after gods of silver.

• The second common English translation renders אתי with before me.  This duplicates the force of the command in verse 20:4, and it corresponds to the targumic reading.

The Masoretic text divides the two clauses at אתי, but the meaning with me leaves the first verb without a direct object.  If we consider that the Masoretic vowel pointing may be in error, we end up with You shall not make me as the first clause.  It is understandable that the Masorites, and the Jews in general, would have a problem with this reading.

As previously mentioned, the phrase אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב could be a reference to idols or to a material representation of the true God.  There are three Hebrew words that are used specifically for idols: פסל, מסכה, and משכית, all referring to something that is formed or shaped.  The term פסל occurs in Exodus 20:4, which is the specific commandment against making or worshipping any image, and all three terms are commonly used to describe the idols of the people surrounding them.  However, the phrases אלהי כסף and אלהי זהב occur nowhere else in the Hebrew text of the bible, but the equivalent terms do occur twice in the Aramaic section of Daniel (Dan 5:4, 23), where they are clearly a reference to idols.  

The ultimate answer to the intended meaning of the text depends on the original reading of the verse.  Evidence of Targum Onkelos suggests that a Hebrew text with the variant reading of  קדמי for אתי may once have existed, but the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with that of the Masoretic text.  The source text of the Samaritan Pentateuch potentially dates back to the sixth century BCE or earlier, implying that אתי was the original reading.  (In both instances the text of Daniel reads gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.)

Now in the overall context of chapter 20, the Israelites had just heard the ten words spoken from heaven.  As Moses said later, you heard his voice but saw no form.  Several days later Moses wrote down the commandments spoken by God in a scroll and presided over a covenant ceremony between God and the people (Ex 24), and then Moses led 70 leaders of the people part way up the mountain where they ate a communal meal in God's presence.  There the leaders all saw God at a distance (Ex 25).  The text of Exodus gives little detail about the appearance of God that they saw, but the little detail there corresponds to the descriptions in Ezekiel 1.  After the communal meal Moses went up the mountain for his first stent of 40 days.  During that time Aaron made the golden calf, and he clearly intended it to be a representation of YHWH (Ex 32:5).  

Based on this context of the narrative, let me suggest that Exodus 20:23 is not a repetition of Exodus 20:4 but a prohibition against making any material representation of YHWH.  After the event with the golden calf, the Israelites continued to have problems with idols, but they never again attempted to make a material image of YHWH.

Three difficult passages from Hebrews

As a person who has worked as a translator, I can attest that surmounting cultural, linguistic, and stylistic peculiarities are a major challenge when attempting to grasp an ancient author's message.  Even when one is capable of studying an ancient text in its original language, these factors constitute barriers between a modern reader's understanding and an ancient author's intended meaning.  This problem is compounded when a reader is not capable of reading the original author's language.  In such a case, the reader is dependent on the capabilities of a translator, who always brings his own biases, presuppositions, and expectations to the task of translation.  Regardless of a particular translator's skill, he inevitably will be confronted by a text that is ambiguous or just does not make sense to him.  If the translator is dealing with an onstracon that nobody else has ever seen, he can write a learned article with conjectures about problematic phrases or words.  However, if he is translating a book from the bible, which has been translated literally thousands of times over the past 2000 years, this is not an option unless he is writing a commentary.  He is constrained to produce flowing text with at most a short footnote for a problematic passage.   The average reader may be confused by such a passage but is limited to the translator's considered opinion.  If the translator has misunderstood the original author's intent due to a textual, grammatical, or structural problem, then a third party reader will have even greater difficulty in understanding the intended message of the book.  All of my previous posts have addressed translation or interpretive problems I have encountered over the past 40 years.  The book of Hebrews has more than its share of such problems, but I will limit this post to three passages that I have found to be mistranslated in every modern translation I have ever examined: Heb 2:2, 4:13, and 5:11.

Hebrews 2:2, 2:3

ει γαρ ο δι αγγελων λαληθείς λογος εγενετο βεβαιος, και πασα παράβασις και παρακοη ελαβεν ενδικον μισθαποδοσιαν πως ημεις εκφευξομεθα τηλικαυτης αμελησαντες σωτηριας;

For if the message received through angels was certain, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

For a period of 20 years every time I read this passage in either Greek or English, I always responded 'What angels?'  From Exodus to Deuteronomy the only angel ever mentioned is  the Angel of YHWH – hwhy 9alm.  I asked numerous Christian leaders that I respected about this, and the most common response was: There is a Jewish tradition that angels were the mediators of the Torah.  Well, not that I know of, and there is nothing in any part of the Hebrew bible to justify this view.  Though I am no expert in the Talmud after 20 years of searching I had never found anything to substantiate this view.

Now from a linguistic basis, the Hebrew term 9alm and the Koine Greek term αγγελος mean exactly the same thing – messenger – and the same term is used for a human messenger or for a supernatural spirit messenger.  In Numbers 22 the Angel of YHWH is juxtaposed with the messengers of Balak in the same context, and only context distinguishes one from the other.  Interestingly, by the time the Vulgate was produced the term angelus had come to be a reference only to spirit beings, and the idea of a human messenger had been completely lost.  As a result, modern translators render the Greek and Hebrew terms by messenger when they think the text is referring to a human and by angel when they think it is referring to a spirit being.   Ordinary readers are captives of the translator's point of view, right or wrong.

If the common answer is wrong, what is correct?  My answer is this: Open any concordance and look for the phrase, "And YHWH spoke to Moses saying, 'Speak to…'"  You will find literally hundreds of instances.  In Ex 20:19 the people spoke to Moses and said, "You speak to us and we will listen, but do not let God speak to us again lest we die."  From that point to the end of his life Moses was almost exclusively the direct intermediary between YHWH and the people.  There are a few times that God addressed Aaron directly, but those did not include any public dictates.  The overall pattern was this: God spoke to Moses, and Moses conveyed the message to Aaron, Arron's remaining two sons, and the other principal leaders, and they communicated with the rest of the people.  This identifies the messengers associated with the Covenant made at Sinai.  To be fair, I must say this: I came to this view about 20 years ago, and I have found very few scholars who agree with me.

What is the point in Hebrews 2:2?  The Sinai covenant originated with YHWH as fulfillment of his promise to Abraham.  God had spoken directly to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but out of fear the people at Sinai had rejected so direct an interaction with God.  The leaders had seen YHWH from a distance, but Moses spoke with YHWH mouth to mouth.  As a result, the Sinai covenant was established with the people of Israel through the agency of a mortal human messenger, Moses.  Transgression of the provisions of this covenant carried penalties up to and including sudden death.  If that be the case, how much greater would be the severity of neglecting the covenant established by the eternal Son of God?  This is a typical argument from the lesser to the greater (a fortiori).

Hebrews 4:13, 4:14

ζων γαρ o λογος  του θεου και ενεργης, και τομωτερος υπερ πασαν μαχαιραν διστομον και διικνουμενος αχρι μερισμου ψυχης τε και πνευματος, αρμων τε  και μυελων, και κριτικος ενθυμησεων και εννοιων καρδιας:  και ουκ εστι κτισις αφανης ενωπιον αυτου, παντα δε γυμνα και τετραχηλισμενα τοις οφθαλμοις αυτου, προς  ον ημιν o λογος.

For the word of God is living, active, and sharper than any two-edged sword; dividing apart soul and spirit, joint and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  Nothing created is hidden before him, but everything is naked and laid open to his eyes προς  ον ημιν o λογος.   

Everything up to the last clause is relatively straight forward, and most translations generally agree with one another, but this is not so for the last clause.  A brief survey of translations comes up with the following variety for the final clause:

·         NASB - …'with whom we have to do.'

·         NIV and others - … 'to whom we must give account.'

·         Delitzsch - … to the eyes 'of the master of our message.'    בעל דברים שלנו

·         Modern Hebrew - …'he before whom we must give account.'  מי שלפניו עלינו לתת דין וחשבון

These are modern attempts to render the Greek text, but none of them even approximate the meaning of the Greek words that are present.  Grammatically, the words προς  ον ημιν o λογος constitute a verbless clause – that is, the clause does not include any verb form.  This is not a problem for Koine Greek, Latin, or any Semitic language, but it is a major problem for any modern European language.  (Note that the Vulgate ad quem nobis sermo is a word-for-word, form-for-form rendering of the Greek text.)  A translator would need to convert these words into a normal verbal clause to be sensible for modern readers.  The grammatical structure of the clause as it stands is as follows:

·       προς  ον  is a prepositional phrase with an accusative object that would have the general meaning concerning whom.  The antecedent is God before whom all things are naked and laid bare.

·         ημιν is a first person plural dative pronoun that could mean to us, for us, or against us.

·    o λογος is the subject of the clause.  Its literal meaning is the word, but it signifies a complete message.

My objection to the common translations is that they completely alter the syntactic relations within the clause.  Now, this is possible for an idiom, and every living language develops idioms.  An idiom is a string of words whose conveyed meaning differs from the combined literal meanings of the words that make it up.  There are two problems with this approach here: 1) There is no objective evidence that this combination of words ever constituted an idiom; 2) There is no consensus among translators as to what this "idiom" meant.  My suggested rendering is as follows: Nothing created is hidden before him, but everything is naked and laid open to his eyes concerning whom the message has come for us.  This is not a very smooth translation, and it probably might be adjusted a bit; but I do think it catches the author's intended meaning.

What difference does it make?  The passage in question is one of several forceful warnings that appear in the book.  It follows immediately after a quotation from Ps 95:7-11: Today if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts as they did at Maribah.  This is the message, and it is presented before us for our benefit.  Take heed.  This force is completely missed by the standard translations.

Hebrews 5:11

περι ου πολυς ημιν o λογος και δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν, επει νωθροι γεγονατε ταις ακοαις.

The first clause is identical in structure to that of the last clause in 4:13.  The most common modern translation is 'Concerning whom (i.e., Melchizedek) we have much to say…'  (Close variations of this rendering occur in essentially all English translations, the Segond French translation, and the Hebrew translations.)  This translation fits the context well, but it has no connection with the Greek words and forms that are actually present in the text.  In addition, direct references to Melchizedek are restricted to 8 verses out of 303 in the book, and the author's extended coverage of the topic may include some 20 verses at most.  Consequently, he really did not have much to say about Melchizedek himself, but he did have a great deal to say about Yeshua's role as a new type of high priest patterned after that of Melchizedek.

From a grammatical standpoint, o λογος is the subject of the clause, πολυς is a nominative predicate adjective, and ημιν is a dative plural here meaning either 'to us' or 'for us.'  The adjective can mean much, many, or great, and it may be used with respect to number, degree, value, space, or time.  If we retain the grammatical relations that are present in the Greek text, then we obtain the following translation: Concerning whom the message is great (in significance) to us…  (It is worth noting that the Vulgate rendering de quo nobis grandis sermo… is again a word-for-word, form-for-form equivalent to the Greek text.)  That is, Melchizedek becomes a significant figure to us because his priesthood as described in Genesis serves as a typical paradigm for the priesthood of Yeshua.  It is also worth noting that Melchizedek is mentioned just twice in the entire Hebrew bible.  However, the messianic king-priest is mentioned in Zech 6:13, the figure of a king-priest became significant to the Maccabees who were priests that took the role of kings, and Melchizedek is also mentioned prominently in some of the Qumran scrolls.  It is reasonable to surmise that the author brings this figure up because he knew that Melchizedek was familiar and significant to this particular group of Jewish believers. 

και δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν          This phrase is generally translated as a coordinate clause 'and it is difficult to interpret.' The first word, δυσερμηνευτος, is a compound form.  The prefix δυσ- implies difficulty; the base word is a genitive noun meaning 'interpetation', and this compound noun is modifying the infinitive λεγειν.  Now, there are two Greek words that refer to speaking: λαλεω and λεγω.  The difference between the two is that λαλεω refers to the act of speaking and λεγω refers to the content of what is spoken.  Note that λογος and λεγειν both come from the same root, both function as nouns, and both refer to the content of what is spoken – the message being conveyed.  The two words δυσερμηνευτος λεγειν are difficult to translate because they consist of an infinitive phrase joined to a verbless clause by και.  Unlike the Hebrew vav conjunction, και is always a conjunction and never an asseverative (emphatic), concessive, or adversative particle.  (One might argue that this construction is a Hebraism, but everywhere else the book of Hebrews contains the most elegant Greek in the entire the New Testament.)  As a Greek conjunction, και must join syntactical elements of equal weight.  Consequently, this string of words could be understood as either as a compound subject within a single verbless clause or as second verbless clause. The latter option is the interpretation used for essentially every modern translation, because the words are much easier to render as such.  The former option cannot be rendered into English using the same syntactic structures present in the Greek text, so the words must be paraphrased.  A possible rendering might be: Concerning whom to us great is the message and difficult of interpretation…   In either case, the point being expressed is that the content of this important message is difficult to explain to them because they have become sluggish listeners.

επει νωθροι γεγονατε ταις ακοαις        This is the only clause in the verse that is not difficult to translate: … because you have become sluggish with respect to hearing.

Who is greater in the Kingdom of Heaven?

 Mat 18:1-7

In that hour, the disciples came to Yeshua saying, ‘So who is greater in the kingdom of heaven?’  And calling to himself a young child, Yeshua stood him in the midst of them and said, ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like the young children, you surely cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.  So anyone who humbles himself such as this young child, that one is the greater one in the kingdom of heaven; and should one receive a child such as this one in my name, he receives me.  Should somebody cause one of these small ones who believes in me to stumble, it would be better for him that a mill stone be hung about his neck, and he be thrown into the depth of the sea.

This passage is often used to assert that one must exhibit either the faith or the trusting character of small children in order to enter into salvation; however, I have often wondered if this was really the point of Yeshua’s response to his disciples’ question.  Yeshua makes five assertions:

1.  Unless they change and become like the children (definite plural), they most definitely would not enter the kingdom of heaven.

2.  Anyone who humbles himself like this example child will be the greater one in the kingdom of heaven.

3.  Anyone who receives such a person receives Yeshua himself.

4.  Such a person as a small child can stumble.

5. The person who causes such a person to stumble will receive so great a level of punishment that annihilation would be a better condition for him.

The immediately prior context includes the following events:

1.      Peter, James, and John witnessed Yeshua’s transfiguration.  (Mat 17:1-13)

2.      The disciples were unable to cast out a demon from a boy, so Yeshua responds to the father’s plea and does so.  Yeshua informs the disciples that they had failed because of their lack of faith.  (Mat 17:14-21)

3.      Yeshua pays the temple tax for himself and Peter by telling Peter to go fishing and to take the money for the tax from the mouth of the first fish he caught.  (Mat 17:24-27)

Now, the disciples had committed themselves to Yeshua, and Peter had already made the declaration that Yeshua was the Messiah and the Son of the living God (Mat 16:13-20).  In addition, Yeshua had given them power to cast out demons and to heal the sick some time previously (Mat 10:1-4).  So personal faith in Yeshua was not at issue.  They had witnessed supernatural power, and they personally had exercised supernatural power.  Perhaps, they had become confident in themselves rather than recognizing that the power they had been wielding came from outside themselves and that they were merely channels.  In other words, they had faith, but their faith had become somewhat misdirected.

What was the significance of the question that the disciples posed to Yeshua?  The NASB and other common English translations render μειζων by greatest, and the common interpretation is that they were asking which of them would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  Ranking among the disciples is an issue that crops up in various places in the gospels (c.f., Mat 20:25, Mark 10:14, Luke 22:25), but I do not think that was their point here.  The term μειζων is the comparative form for μεγας, and μεγιστος is the superlative.  In their world and experience, people were ranked socially by wealth, position, religious observance, and the ability to wield personal power.  So, in my opinion, they were asking what kind of ranking system would exist in the kingdom of heaven.

Yeshua answered by calling to a person, παιδιον, and standing him in the midst of the disciples.  Now in the immediately prior context, Yeshua and his disciples were in Capernaum – probably at or near Peter’s house – so there would undoubtedly have been either children or young men nearby.  The term παιδιον is a diminutive of παις and literally means young child.  In the LXX, the term is used most often to translate ילד but also for בן and נער.  The term נער refers to a young man who has not yet taken up full adult responsibilities; the other two may refer specifically to a male child, or generally to children of any age.  In Koine Greek, παιδια could also be used like boys or lads to refer to close associates who are not children.  If Yeshua was speaking Hebrew at the time, as is most likely, he probably used the term ילד and probably called to a child between 7 and 15.

His first statement in answer was, ‘Unless you change and become like the children, τα παιδια, you surely cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.’

Change from what?  In the prior context (17:17-22) Yeshua had admonished his disciples for their lack of faith, and now they are asking about the social ranking system in the kingdom of heaven.  In both cases, their conduct and attitudes lacked what Yeshua was trying to build into them.  Consequently, he is asking them to change their attitudes and values.

Become like the children in what way?  Assessing the force the second verb is more difficult.  The term like implies similitude not identity, but it does not define specifically what character or attitude is expected.  Yeshua called a child from the street as an example, but his words make a distinction between the children and this particular child.  What attributes apply to young children generally?  Usually, unquestioning trust and complete dependence in their elders, particularly those of their extended family.  In the immediately prior context, the disciples had exhibited personal faith in Yeshua but had faltered in recognizing their total dependence on him for supernatural power over the demonic world.

What is meant by the kingdom of heaven?  Most Christians today assume that this refers to the place where the redeemed will go following physical death.  This expression does not occur anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures.  It is prominent in the Gospel of Matthew but not in any other part of the New Covenant writings; however, related expressions do occur five times in the Gospel of Mark and once in Luke. 

	Mat	Mark	Luke
Βασιλειας του κοσμου	4:8
Βασιλειας των ουρανων	4:17, 5:3, 5:10, 5:19, 5:19, 5:20, 7:21, 8:11, 10:7, 11:11, 11:12, 13:11, 13:24, 13:31, 13:33, 13:44, 13:45, 13:47, 13:52, 16:19, 18:1, 18:3, 18:4, 18:23, 19:12, 19:14, 20:1, 22:2, 23:13, 25:1
Βασιλεια του θεου	12:28, 21:31, 21:43,	1:15, 4:11,4:26, 4:30	22:16
Βασιλεια του πατρος μου	26:29,
Ευαγγελιον της βασιλειας	4:23, 9:35, 24:14
Τον λογον της βασιλειας	13:19
Ευαγγελιον θεου		1:14

Now, the generally acknowledged purpose of Matthew is to present Yeshua as the promised Messianic king who is to rule over the kingdom of heaven eternally.  The remaining interpretive problem is to assess the significance of the form των ουρανων.  The reasonable range of possibilities are as follows:

·         Genitivc of Description – the kingdom that is heavenly in character

·         Genitive of Place – the kingdom located in the heavenly realm

·         Ablative of Source – the kingdom that comes from heaven

The common perception among Christians has been that the destiny of the church will be the heavenly realm, which favors genitive of place.  However, this idea is alien to the expectation of Matthew and the other disciples who were looking for the Messianic rule there and then during their lives.  In as much as Yeshua describes himself as one who came from heaven, one who returns to heaven, and one who will return from heaven to earth, ablative of source appears to be the best choice.  That is, this kingdom was described as (temporally) near while Yeshua was here physically, and it will be manifest fully when he returns from the heavenly realm, but it will exist here physically on earth.

Now, who will be present in this kingdom?  Certainly, one major group will be believers, which will be composed of two groups.  First, redeemed individuals who have died prior to Yeshua’s return will be present with resurrected bodies.  Second, believers who remain alive at the time of Yeshua's return will be given resurrection bodies without having first died physically.  In both cases, these people will then be immortal and not subject to the sin principle that affects mortal humans.  However, Isaiah (Is 65:20) wrote of people who would be thought accursed should they live less than 100 years.  Similarly, Revelation 19 describes the final deception of the nations and their war against Messiah.  Neither the elect angels nor resurrected believers can be susceptible to Satan’s deception.  Consequently, the second group that enter the kingdom must be ordinary humans who will have ordinary human children, and some of their descendants will participate in the final rebellion against God and his Messiah.  Consequently, I conclude that Yeshua here is addressing the question of who will enter the messianic kingdom at the time it is formed and what the ranking system will be at that time.

Luke 2;49 "I must be about my father's business..." -- Really???

Luke 2:46-49

Και εγενετο μεθ’ ημερος τρεις, ευρον αυτον εν τω ιερω, καθεζομενον εν μεσω των διδασκαλων, και ακουοντα αυτων, και επερωτωντα αυτους.  Εξισταντο δε παντες οι ακουοντες αυτου, επι τη συνεσει και ταις αποκρισεσιν αυτου. Και ιδοντεςαυτον, εξεπλαγησαν.  Και προς αυτον ειπε, Τεκνον, τι εποιησας ημιν ουτως;  Ιδου ο πατηρ σου καγω οδυνωμενοι εζητοθμεν σε.  Και ειπε προς αυτους, Τι οτι εζητειτε με;  Οuκ ηδειτε οτι εν τοις του πατρος μου δει ειναι.

After three days they found him in the temple seated in the midst of the teachers listening and questioning them.  Now, he was amazing all those who heard him because of his understanding and his answers.  When they saw him, they were shocked, and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you done this to us?  Your father and I have been distressed, searching for you.”  But he said to them, “How is it that you were searching for me?  Did you not realize that I must be in the precincts of my father?”

Syriac NT of Luke 2:49 (in Hebrew characters)

אמר להון מנא בעין הויתון לי?  לא ידעין דבית אבי ולא לי דאהוא?

He said to them, “Why were you searching?  Did you not realize that my father’s house is where I must be?”

Deilitch Hebrew translation of Luke 2:49

ויאמר אליהם למה זה בקשתם אתי?  הלא ידעתם כי עלי להיות באשר לאבי?

But he said to them, “Why did you search for me?  Did you not realize that I must be in my father’s place?” 

Modern Hebrew

למה חפשתם אותי? השיב להם.  האים לא ידעתם כי עלי להיות במה ששיך לאבי?

“Why did you search?" he responded to them.  "Did you not realize that I must be in what belongs to my father?"

The common English translation from Greek of Luke 2:49 is "Did you not know I must be about my father’s business."  This is based on a rendering of the elliptical phrase εν τοις του πατρος μου.  The element omitted from the text is a masculine/neuter dative plural, but the only likely antecedent in the prior context is τω ιερω, which is neuter singular.  If this is the correct understanding, then why the shift from singular to plural?  One possible explanation is that the singular term during the second temple period referred both to the temple proper as well as to the entire complex of buildings whose construction at the time of this story had not yet been completed.  The first reference would be a generic reference to the entire temple complex.  However, Yeshua, who was neither a priest nor Levite, could not have been in the temple proper, so the second reference is to the complex of buildings surrounding the temple structure.  The Syriac translation and the two Hebrew translations favor this interpretation.

Undoubtedly, the shift from singular to plural constitutes the rationale for the common rendering in English, but what is the source for ‘my father’s business’?  Presumably, this comes from ‘answering and asking questions,’ as mentioned in the previous verse.  The remaining interpretive question, then, is ‘How does this constitute my father’s business?’

From a Jewish perspective, Yeshua was 12 years old at the time, and so he was too young to seriously undertake his role as messiah or any other adult pursuit.  Consequently, the common interpretation of English readers cannot be taken too seriously.  Rather the purpose of the entire passage is to demonstrate that even at this young age Yeshua possessed a self-awareness that surpassed that normally expected.  Typically, a child of 12 years who is suddenly separated from family and everyone familiar is likely to panic and become hysterical.  Rather, Yeshua was aware of his unique relation with Adonai, and he knew that he could safely await his parents return at the temple.  His interaction with the teachers there demonstrates the care with which he had been taught by his parents as well as the unique scope of his insight into God’s revelation.