English Bibles should quit Dancing Around Matthew 1:25
My weekend reading took me to Matthew 1:25. I looked it up in several English Bibles. I was a bit disappointed with some.
And I hope it’s not a matter of appearing too vulgar. Such would be utter nonsense.
At any rate, I hold to no such thing as the perpetual virginity of Mary. And I wish our English translations, especially those meant to be read in the 21st century, would get on with a proper rendering of Matthew 1:25.
The following would not do:
1. “ he had no union with her” (TNIV). 2. “but knew her not until she” (ESV). 3. “but did not know her intimately” (HCSB).
But the following would do:
1. “But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby” (The Message). 2. “But he did not have sexual relations with her until” (NLT). 3. “But he didn’t have sexual relations with her until” (CEB).
- The NET Bible even ventures an explanation for their decision to go with “did not have marital relations”:
The verb “know” (in both Hebrew and Greek) is a frequent biblical euphemism for sexual relations. However, a translation like “did not have sexual relations with her” is too graphic in light of the popularity and wide use of Matthew’s infancy narrative. Thus the somewhat more subdued but still clear “did not have marital relations” was selected.
It’s about time we quit this dancing around and get beyond this biblical euphemism.
So hats off to The Message, NLT, and CEB.
If the euphemism is built into the og language shouldn’t we maintain that? I don’t read Greek so I could be totally wrong here :0)
R,
It’s a biblical euphemism for sure, but I’m not sure we need to maintain it at the expense of clarity in meaning (perhaps we will be going against the nature of the euphemism).
Another option, perhaps too *coarse*:
REB: “but had no intercourse with her [...]”
NJB: “he had not had intercourse with her [...]“
This is also one of the verses Catholics use to argue for Mary’s perpetual virginity because I guess “until” in this verse doesn’t really mean that somehow. How the HCSB translates it gives them the most leeway to support perpetual virginity.
EE,
Yep, “coarse” indeed. But isn’t NJB Catholic?
Brian,
I agree. Too bland. TNIV isn’t far behind either.
TC,
I agree with you fully concerning those translations that leave the door open for the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Such translations don’t do full justice to the text.
Yet I agree with you only in part concerning the translation of ἐγίνωσκεν in Matthew 1:25. While I tend to shun too much prudishness in translation (the Scriptures can be very “coarse” to our ears at times), the Biblical terminology in Matthew 1:25 (as well as other passages) is more than merely a euphemism, imho. I have to agree with Victor Hamilton in his commentary on Genesis 4:1 . . .
It is not without significance that often the sexual relationship described in the Bible is one in which the partners fully know each other. One partner does not exploit the other. Rather than being an end in itself, cohabitation is a means to an end, and that end is deeper, more intimate knowledge of each other. In other words, expressing oneself sexually is not just a glandular function.
So I wonder . . . when we translate in such a way to “get beyond this biblical euphemism” in order to be “clear”, do we also lose something of the fullness of meaning?
At least we preachers wouldn’t have to delve into an explanation of “to know means to have sex with”!
Meto,
Thanks for this perspective. Hamilton is onto something. Supposing he’s right, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then yes, something is lost.
Jason,
I know. But it’s translations like these why we’re in the pulpit.
Jason, on the contrary, I think preachers should delve into such explanations frequently, especially those with congregations full of little old ladies.
Peter,
My friend.
There’s a problem with using “know” as a form for “legitimate” sex and say, “went in” for pure carnal sex:
Jdg 19:25 KJVA But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
For straightforwardness I nominate the Good News Bible:
Mat 1:25 GNB But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.
Jdg 19:25 GNB But the men would not listen to him. So the Levite took his concubine and put her outside with them. They raped her and abused her all night long and didn’t stop until morning.
It’s interesting how a horrific sexual assault like Judges 19:25 is more directly desscribed in the modern translations, while the intimacy of a husband and wife in Matt 1:25 is gingerly danced around. Prudishness, over realised concern for saintly dignity, or just the simple fact Matt 1:25 gets read massively more than Judges 19:25?
And by the by, what do you do with girls named “Tamar” in the bible?
Actually, I don’t think we’re forced into the dichotomy of “know” as a form for “legitimate” sex vs. “went in” for pure carnal sex when we say that “know” involves a deeper knowledge than merely linking body parts together. In other words, using “know” for sexual relations does not have to imply healthy marital companionship (as Hamilton seems to imply in the quote I supplied above), but it does imply a kind of special, intimate knowledge of another person that is anything but “common.”
My point in offering another perspective on this issue was not so much to advocate a “sanctifying” of “know” as “good sex” vs. “went into” as “bad sex.” Instead, I would rather focus on the first sentence and the last sentence of Hamilton’s quote (although I did supply the whole quote as it was stated in the commentary). There is a kind of “fullness” of knowledge of another person in sex . . . at least in a certain sense. And sex is more than a “glandular function” . . . it involves something profound, a deep seated, mysterious κοινωνία, if you will, between the two persons. Truly, this mystic relation is most readily seen in the sexual relations of husband and wife who love and care for one another. Yet this “knowledge” happens to a certain extent even in the cases of disturbing sexual relations like what we see in Judges 19:25. Even in the rape described in this passage, these men “knew” the concubine. Not that they loved her or cared for her, but there was an existential, intimate knowledge of her through their rape of her. That is one reason why the crime is so heinous. Rape is a violation of the person in that a man “knows” a woman when she doesn’t want to be “known” by him. He participates in a knowledge of her when he should remain ignorant.
but it does imply a kind of special, intimate knowledge of another person that is anything but “common.”
Yes.
We’d be too naive not to see that point.
Regarding Judges 19:25, you might be putting philosophical and existential categories into the heads of these rapists. Do you really believe they so reasoned or that it how we should understand “know” in that reference?
Chuck,
Where do you get these “goodies”? Sure put a strain on Hamilton’s reading above. Hmm.
It’s interesting how a horrific sexual assault like Judges 19:25 is more directly desscribed in the modern translations, while the intimacy of a husband and wife in Matt 1:25 is gingerly danced around. Prudishness, over realised concern for saintly dignity, or just the simple fact Matt 1:25 gets read massively more than Judges 19:25?
Good question. Perhaps some “sacredness” is going on.
“Tamar”? I say follow your instinct.
T.C.,
I use a bit of memory and a lot of e-Sword bible software.
You’d think no one would name his daughter “Tamar” who had any biblical background, never mind Matthew’s genealogy.
Oh, and as for “intercourse” for “know”? It could be mistaken for “and he didn’t even see or speak with her until….”
I always liked Pasoloni’s Gospel of Matthew moment when Joseph comes by Mary’s home and sees her standing in the door, visibly pregnant. Gets across the shock one imagines Joseph felt.
Chuck,
Are we that slow? Maybe we need that adjective after all.
Pasoloni’s is quite innovative for sure.
T.C.
Well, one always hears about people confusing “reign of God” for “rain of God”, after all.
So true! There’s a song I know that says “Let your reign fall on me” with the pun obvious, in that you’d expect rain to fall. Yet one privately typed songbook said rain there, when it is supposed to be a wordplay. That made me sad.
Chuck,
I’m not a whole lot into bible software. You’ll have to teach me a thing or two.
Yeah, we can be slow. I guess I’m giving church folks too much credit. ha!
Beats Jezebel.
No, I’m not saying the rapists reasoned this way when it came to “knowing” the concubine. I’m saying that whether one understands, acknowledges, or believes these things or not, the reality is there. It is written into the fabric of what sex is. Our society has a tendency to make sex all about physical gratitifcation, and we may decieve ourselves into thinking that is all there is. But there is something “mystical” and profound that we miss when try to tell ourselves that “sexual intercourse is only an internal rubbing accompanied by spasmodic exceretion of mucus” (a quote from Marcus Aurelius).
I got you.