My first reading-Bible was the KJV, and I always read “the scribes and the Pharisees” as the critics and challengers of Jesus’ ministry.
Then when I started the reading the NIV, it was “the teachers of the law and the Pharisees”—the same bad guys, but now “teachers of the law.”
Well, recently I was reading in the NLT when I discovered that it’s not the “scribes and the Pharisees” or “the teachers of the law and the Pharisees,” but ”the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees.”
In my preaching I still find myself saying “scribes and Pharisees” and the people still get it—those bad guys!
BDAG renders the Greek γραμματεύς in the Gospel narratives, in the plural, as “specialists in the law of Moses: experts in the law, scholars versed in the law, scribes.”
Now in my preaching and teaching I tend to like how “scribes and Pharisees” roll off my lips, but if I had to choose between “the teachers of the law” and “the teachers of religious law,” I’d go with “the teachers of the law.”
Where’s why: I get “the law” as referring to the Mosaic Law. “Religious law” seems to broad to me. Now “religious law” works if we talking about other religious laws besides the Mosaic Law.
Now that is just my take on the matter…
TC, most laws can be considered as religious-moral laws but I don’t know if all the laws in the Torah can be considered religious, e.g., Lev. 13 and 14 is concerning health laws. If so, then I think “law” rather than “religious law” might be more appropriate.
TC, your problem is that you already know what the phrase means! But put yourself in the shoes of someone who has never read a Bible before, perhaps a young person or a new Christian, and think how they will understand it. If they read “scribes”, they will think of people who write. If they read “teachers of the law”, they will probably think of law school faculty. But these were clearly people within the religious domain, and translators need to make sure that their target audiences understand this.
I have to agree with Peter on this, TC. You and I know what the scribes are. We’ve been using the term all our lives.
But I am now becoming much more aware of all the biblical terminology I use that a lot of my students in church don’t understand. Maybe it’s a good thing that they learn the terminology. (Actually, if they don’t, they will be very confused by Bibles other than the NLT and the other easy ones!) But we can’t use such terminology and expect people to understand without having been taught.
When we’re talking about Bibles for the masses, they simply must be understandable. It’s all about understanding, someone has said.
I was reading 1 Cor 1 in 8 translations and noticed that in v. 20 “Where is the scribe?” is rendered “Where is the expert in the Mosaic law?” in the NET and “the scholars” in the NLT.
I wonder if “scholars well versed in the Mosaic law” or “scholars who teach the Mosaic law” would be too much.
Jeff
How much more “help” can we put in a particular gloss? There is an assumption that new readers will only read one page, and we have to make sure they understand it correctly. I think we can expect more from the reader. Much can be learned inductively.
I’m not so sure about how high we should make our expectations. As a public school teacher, I can see how translations like the NLT and CEV are in high demand. Today’s high school graduates (if they make it that far) have very low comprehension levels, and almost no historical context to read from. The average person in the blog circuit is generally much more capable of reading traditional bible translations that your average american. think Peter really nailed it with his reply, and I’ve seen this phenomenon when reviewing student work at both the undergraduate and secondary school level.
Kevin, if we consider all the laws under the OT as “the law,” then the TNIV’s rendering works.
If they read “teachers of the law”, they will probably think of law school faculty. But these were clearly people within the religious domain, and translators need to make sure that their target audiences understand this.
Peter, Does the average reader know who “a Pharisee” is. I doubt. Yet, all major translations still read “Pharisees.”
But even if we were to go with the NLT’s “religious law,” What religious law are we speaking of? Is it within Hinduism?
(Actually, if they don’t, they will be very confused by Bibles other than the NLT and the other easy ones!) But we can’t use such terminology and expect people to understand without having been taught.
Gary, if they are going to appreciate the older works, they need to learn some of these older terms like “scribes and so on.
I was reading 1 Cor 1 in 8 translations and noticed that in v. 20 “Where is the scribe?” is rendered “Where is the expert in the Mosaic law?” in the NET and “the scholars” in the NLT.
I wonder if “scholars well versed in the Mosaic law” or “scholars who teach the Mosaic law” would be too much.
Jeff, the NET’s “the expert in the Mosaic law” is more like what the Greek actually means.
I think the issue was about the Mosaic law in the community of Israel, and not just any old “religious law.”
How much more “help” can we put in a particular gloss? There is an assumption that new readers will only read one page, and we have to make sure they understand it correctly. I think we can expect more from the reader. Much can be learned inductively.
Vlad, good observation! But I think it comes down to the predisposition of the reader to matters religious, esp. Judaism and Christianity.
I’m not so sure about how high we should make our expectations. As a public school teacher, I can see how translations like the NLT and CEV are in high demand. Today’s high school graduates (if they make it that far) have very low comprehension levels, and almost no historical context to read from. The average person in the blog circuit is generally much more capable of reading traditional bible translations that your average american. think Peter really nailed it with his reply, and I’ve seen this phenomenon when reviewing student work at both the undergraduate and secondary school level.
Nathan, to some extent I think Peter nailed it, but I’m not too sure the NLT’s rendering should be preferred.
TC, there is indeed a comprehension problem with “Pharisees”. But this is a proper name (or would anyone dispute that?) for a party which is not explained in the text (except to some extent in Acts 23:8) and so we can’t really add an explanation in the text. So my advice is to add a footnote or glossary entry explaining “Pharisees”. Now you could reasonably argue that we can do the same with “scribes”, but there is still the problem that “scribes” (and for that matter “teachers of the law”) seems to have a meaning, for readers who don’t read the footnotes, but that apparent meaning is misleading. Perhaps we should put the Greek word “Grammateis” in the text, as if it is a proper name, with a footnote!
Peter, well, we have “Pharisaical” as an English dictionary entry, meaning “practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit; self-righteous; hypocritical.”
Yes, I agree that “scribes” is a bit different. I suppose we can accept “Grammateis” with a footnote.
I just uncoverd the problem of the definition of scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the law today as I ws reading my Bible. So I did a Google search and found this discussion group. After reading your comments, I still don’t have an answer and am more confused than ever. Before I began looking for definitions I thought that the Pharisees and Saducees were two separate religious parties, the scribes were the guys who copied the sriptures by hand so as to have more copies avaialble, and the “teachers of the law” were the Levite priests. But the comments above have me all confused. Is any of what I previously thought correct??? I’m still looking for a definition of the “teachers of the law”.