Calvary or Skull?
Luke 23:33
To translate
or to transliterate?
That is a question!
From the
Greek or the Latin?
That is the question!
Question received from fellow pastor and seminary
classmate (17 APR 2014):
“Hi Jack. Got a
question for you. All 4 Gospel accounts, in speaking about the place of the
crucifixion, use the Gk. word for skull (kranion), but the KJV translators
translated it "Calvary" (from the Latin for skull, seemingly from the
Vulgate) only Luke. Any idea why the KJV translators did so? Possibly because
Luke was a Gentile??? But what difference would that make?
Gromacki (NT
Survey) suggests Luke probably researched material for his gospel either during
Paul's 2-yr . imprisonment at Caesarea & wrote it during the voyage to Rome
or in the early months of Paul's first Roman imprisonment. If that is the case,
perhaps he used the Roman/Latin term for skull for that reason.
Except that, he
used the Gk term kranion. It was the KJV translators who used 'Calvary.' Maybe
for that reason????”
******************************************************************************
1. The KJV English, the Nestle-Aland Greek, and
the Clementine Vulgate Latin texts for the four Gospel verses involved in this
translation issue are as follows:
Mt. 27:33 - And when they were come unto a place called
Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
Καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Γολγοθᾶ, ὅ ἐστιν Κρανίου Τόπος λεγόμενος,[1]
Et venerunt in locum qui dicitur Golgotha, quod est Calvariæ
locus.[2]
Mk. 15:22 - And
they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place
of a skull.
Καὶ φέρουσιν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Γολγοθᾶν τόπον, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Κρανίου
Τόπος.[3]
Et perducunt illum in Golgotha locum: quod est interpretatum
Calvariæ locus.[4]
Jn. 19:17 - And he bearing his cross went forth into a
place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
καὶ βαστάζων ἑαυτῷ τὸν σταυρὸν ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὸν λεγόμενον Κρανίου Τόπον, ὃ
λέγεται Ἑβραϊστὶ Γολγοθα, [5]
Et bajulans sibi crucem exivit in eum, qui dicitur Calvariæ
locum, hebraice autem Golgotha:[6]
Lk. 23:33 - And when they were come to the place, which
is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the
right hand, and the other on the left.
Καὶ ὅτε ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον, ἐκεῖ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν *
καὶ τοὺς κακούργους, ὃν μὲν ἐκ δεξιῶν ὃν δὲ ἐξ ἀριστερῶν.[7]
Et postquam venerunt in locum qui vocatur Calvariæ, ibi
crucifixerunt eum: et latrones, unum a dextris, et alterum a sinistris.[8]
2. BLUF (“bottom line up front”), my simple assessment,
is:
Given that the words in consideration in these verses (Κρανίου/ Κρανίον and Calvariæ) are
identical in both Greek and Latin in all respects - apart from the accusative
case ending in Greek in Luke differing from the genitive in the other three Gospels
- then there exists no reason to render them differently. To do so has the inevitable negative effect
of needlessly and inexplicably obscuring this identity in the original to the
English reader.
3. The operative principles that should be insisted
on are:
1) If you are
going to translate the Greek, then translate it, and do so consistently.
2) If you are
going to transliterate the Greek, then you better have a very good reason for
doing so, and should do so consistently.
3) If you are
going to translate the Latin, then translate it. However, if that is what you are doing then
don't present it as a translation from the original languages, especially when
sufficient manuscripts were extant to do otherwise. In any case, do it consistently.
4) If you are going
to transliterate the Latin, then do so consistently. In other words, render the Latin Calvariæ
by the English "Calvary" in every instance, not just one out of four.
5) When a place
name is being translated or interpreted, as the Marcan text indicates is the
case here, then that should be understood as how the name would be spoken and
written in the target language. In other
words, in this instance, the place name is Golgotha, which is untranslated (transliterated)
from the Aramaic and Hebrew in the Greek. The meaning in Greek is kρανίον, in Latin is calvariæ, and in English is “skull”. For those who did not speak either Aramaic or
Hebrew the corresponding Koine Greek name for the place would therefore have
been Κρανίου
Τόπος, as in Matthew,
Mark, and John’s account, or simply Κρανίον, as
Luke has it.
4. My concluding assessments based on the
principles above:
In this case, it is quite obvious that the King James
Version translators transliterated from the Latin rather than either
translating from the Greek, or the Latin, and opted to do so only in one of the
four occurrences. In so doing, they clearly
violated principles #1, #3, and #4 above.
If the KJV translators had at least translated the
Vulgate Latin, we would not be aware of it, since they would have been forced
to render it just as the Greek was in the other three Gospels, since the
meaning of the Latin noun calvaria or
calvarium is “skullcap” in English. Perhaps the more accurate translation of the
Greek term would have been the Latin cranium,
but that is not what the Vulgate translators opted for. Be that as it may, the name of the place
being referred to was not understood by anyone to be “skullcap”, so the KJV
translators would have had to render the Latin as “skull”, which is precisely
what they opted not to do here. This is
just another example of their explicit inconsistency or license in
“translating”[9] (see the
multiplied renderings of the Greek verb μενῶ in 1 John for a prime example),[10] and their inexplicable anachronisms (another example is “Easter” in Acts 12:4).[11]
Caveat: In taking
this position, I realize that I incur the wrath of the “KJV Only” cult members
who defend their "inspired" translation by interpreting the original manuscripts
from their hymnals. I wish I were
kidding when I assert this, but documentation for this desperate and ignorant
method is readily available. When your
head is buried in the sand by such obscurantism my advice is to be very careful
about taking deep breaths! So, oh ye
1611ites, it is your paint, and your brush, and now it is your corner that you
have painted yourself into. If you
insist on camping out in this corner of your own creation in defense of
“Calvary” here, you may think that you have solved one problem. However, from that corner you cannot explain the rendering in the other three Gospels, so don’t
bother attempting to do so! You can’t
spare the breath!
Sadly, the New King James Version preserved this
untranslated Latinism, and neither of the two study Bibles based on the New
King James Version that I checked offered any criticism of this decision.[12] This may be due to the fact that the publisher
for each of these study Bibles is also the copyright owner of the New King
James Version.
5. Some other resources on this place name:
“Golgotha is an
English transliteration of the Greek, itself a transliteration of the Aramaic gulgoltâ, which means ‘skull’. Our more
common ‘Calvary’ derives from Latin calvaria,
which also means ‘skull’ and which was used in the (Latin) Vulgate version in
all four Gospels. The place of the Skull
probably derived its name from its appearance, though this is uncertain. The
site is in doubt. Gordon’s Calvary is not an option. The most likely site is
near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, just outside the northern wall, and not
far from a road (Mt. 27:39; Jn. 19:20).”[13]
“33. Golgotha. An Aramaic word, Gulgoltha, = the Hebrew, Gulgoleth, and translated skull in Judg. 9:53; 2 Kings 9:35. The
word Calvary comes through the Latin calvaria, meaning skull, and used in the Vulgate. The New Testament narrative does
not mention a mount or hill. The place was probably a rounded elevation. The
meaning is not, as Tynd., a place of dead
men’s skulls, but simply skull.”[14]
See also Alfred
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, one-volume ed.
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.; 1971 reprint), Part
Two, Book V, pp. 585-586.
Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria,
John T. “Jack” Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA
17 APR 2014
Revised:
18 APR 2014
Sources:
Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam, ed. electronica (Bellingham, WA: Logos
Bible Software, 2005).
D. A. Carson, The
Gospel according to John, The Pillar
New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991).
Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the
Messiah, One-volume ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
n.d.; 1971 reprint).
John T. Jeffery, “Pastor’s
Sermon Notes: Herod Attacks the Apostles” (Acts 12:1-19), a sermon preached at
Wayside Gospel Chapel, Greentown, PA (23 MAR 2014); on Wayside Gospel Chapel at http://waysidegospelchapel.blogspot.com/2014/03/pastors-sermon-notes-herod-attacks.html [accessed 17 APR 2014].
Novum Testamentum Graece, eds. Eberhard and Erwin
Nestle, 27th ed., eds. Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes
Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1898, 1993).
“The Translators to the
Readers: Preface to the King James Version 1611”, on Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) at http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref10.htm [accessed 17 APR 2014].
M. R. Vincent, Word
studies in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1881).
Calvary
or Skull?
by John T. Jeffery
Copyright 2014 by
John T. Jeffery.
All rights
reserved.
The use of
excerpts or reproduction of this material is prohibited
without written
permission from the author.
Contact
information for the author:
Email: waysidegospelchapel at yahoo dot com
[1] Novum Testamentum Graece,
eds. Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, 27th ed., eds. Barbara and Kurt
Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1898, 1993), pg. 83.
[2] Biblia Sacra juxta
Vulgatam Clementinam, ed. electronica (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible
Software, 2005), s.v. Mt. 27:33.
[3] Nestle, op. cit., pg. 144.
[4] Biblia Sacra
juxta Vulgatam Clementinam, op. cit., s.v.
Mk. 15:22.
[5] Nestle, op. cit., pg. 312.
[6] Biblia Sacra
juxta Vulgatam Clementinam, op. cit., s.v.
Jn. 19:17.
[7] Nestle, op. cit., pg. 239.
[8] Biblia Sacra
juxta Vulgatam Clementinam, op. cit., Lk. 23:33.
[9] “Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously
Upon An Identity Of Phrasing: Another
things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied
ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some
peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some
learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that
we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the
word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not
the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience,
according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same
particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once
by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING;
if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where
JOY, never GLADNESS, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more
of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist,
than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God to become
words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use
one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?....”
Source: “The Translators to the Readers: Preface to
the King James Version 1611”, on Christian
Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) at http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref10.htm
[accessed 17 APR 2014].
[10] 23 occurrences: 1 Jn.
2:6, 10, 14, 17, 19, 24 (3x), 27 (2x), 28; 3:6, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24 (2x); 4:12,
13, 15, 16 (2x). Rendered variously as “abide”, “continue”, “remain”, and “dwell”. In one instance, 2:24, this Greek verb is
translated with three different English verbs in the same verse.
[11] “This is an inexcusable and indefensible bad
“translation”! Indeed, it is not a translation at all, and hardly qualifies
even as a dynamic equivalent due to following:
1) the inherent anachronism, 2) the covenantal discontinuity between the
Jewish Passover and the Christian celebration of the crucifixion of Christ,
and, 3) what many refer to as “Easter” corresponds neither to the Jewish
Passover nor the crucifixion since it is the celebration of the resurrection of
Christ. There was no such thing as
“Easter” at this time, and certainly not among the Jews of the 1st
century! Any one of these objections
would be sufficient to rule out this translation. Therefore, in agreement with all translations
since the 1611 KJV, “Passover” is the only valid English rendering! Furthermore, what many find offensive about
the term is its Old English basis in ancient idolatrous beliefs.[11] This would have been equally offensive to
both the first century Jews still observing the Passover, and the early
Christians. This is one of those times when I am reading the King James
translation publicly when I do not hesitate to correct it!”
See “Ēostre”
on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre
[accessed 24 MAR 2014].
Other sources on this issue: Doug Kutilek, “As I See
It”, 11:10 (OCT 2008), on The King James
Only Resource Center at http://www.kjvonly.org/aisi/2008/aisi_11_10_08.htm
[accessed 24 MAR 2014]; Fred Butler, “Easter, Passover and the KJV”, on Fred’s Bible Talk at http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb024.pdf
[accessed 24 MAR 2014]; and Fred Butler’s blog post, “The King James Only
Easter Bunny Trail” (5 APR 2012), on Hip
and Thigh at http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2006/04/king-james-only-easter-bunny-trail.html
[accessed 24 MAR 2014].
Source: John T.
Jeffery, “Pastor’s Sermon Notes: Herod Attacks the Apostles” (Acts 12:1-19), a
sermon preached at Wayside Gospel Chapel, Greentown, PA (23 MAR 2014); on Wayside Gospel Chapel at http://waysidegospelchapel.blogspot.com/2014/03/pastors-sermon-notes-herod-attacks.html
[accessed 17 APR 2014].
[12] New Geneva Study Bible
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), pg. 1,651; and John MacArthur, The
MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), pg. 1,564.
[13] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 609-610.
[14] M. R. Vincent, Word studies in the New Testament
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1881), s.v. Mt. 27:33.
No comments:
Post a Comment