Ruth 2:4

Months ago, the Daily Dose of Aramaic went over Targum Ruth 2:4:

As I follow along in the series, I've been referencing the Vulgate, in which this verse is:

et ecce ipse veniebat de Bethleem dixitque messoribus Dominus vobiscum qui responderunt ei benedicat tibi Dominus

In the ESV, it's:

And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem.  And he said to the reapers, "The LORD be with you!"  And they answered, "The LORD bless you."

In the Vulgate, I found an-other instance of a feature I've noted a few other times.  As usual, the prepositional phrase "cum vobis" ("with you") is inverted and condensed into one word (vobiscum).  Because this immediately follows "Dominus," the words for "the LORD" and "you" are directly next to each other, lending a slightly greater sense of this accompaniment.

Psalm 1:2

Months ago, I watched the Worship Anew program for 16 February (Sixth Sunday after Epiphany).  The Psalm was Psalm 1, and in verse 2, I found the same sort of feature that I'd previously noticed in Psalm 145:5:  the object of the man's meditation comes first in the clause, and to some degree, this placement illustrates its importance for him:

But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.  [ESV]

This structure is also in the Hebrew:

כִּי אִם בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה חֶפְצוֹ וּֽבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָֽיְלָה׃

and the Latin Vulgate:

sed in lege Domini voluntas eius et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte

I'd previously noticed (but didn't think it significant enough to note on its own) that "day and night" is a temporal merism.

Luke 6:17

When I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 18 February, I found the same feature that I'd noticed in the reading from Luke 5 the previous week.

The reading for this service was Luke 6:17-26.  I was following along in the Vulgate, where verse 17 is:

Et descendens cum illis stetit in loco campestri et turba discipulorum eius et multitudo copiosa plebis ab omni Iudaea et Hierusalem et maritimae Tyri et Sidonis

In the ESV, this is:

And he [Jesus] came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon

In the Latin, the phrase "multitudo copiosa" (translated as "a great multitude" in the ESV) is redundant (something like "an abundant multitude"), but this redundancy lends a greater sense of the large number of people.

Again like Luke 5:6, the phrase alliterates in Greek (πλῆθος πολὺ), and the repetition involved also suggests a great quantity.  Here's the full verse:

καὶ καταβὰς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σειδῶνος

John 12:6

Months ago, I watched the Daily Dose of Latin video on John 12:6:

dixit autem hoc non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum sed quia fur erat et loculos habens ea quae mittebantur portabat

In the ESV, this is:

He [Judas Iscariot] said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Where the ESV has "not because he cared about the poor," the Latin has "non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum."  This is something like:  "not because about the destitute, it pertained to him."  The Greek text is comparable:

εἶπεν δὲ τοῦτο οὐχ ὅτι περὶ τῶν πτωχῶν ἔμελεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν καὶ τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔχων τὰ βαλλόμενα ἐβάσταζεν.

Like the Latin pertinēre, the Greek verb μέλω is impersonal.  I'm not sure if a native speaker of either of these languages would take it this way, but it seems to me that this sort of construction (where Judas isn't the subject of the verb) lends a greater sense of the distance between him and the poor.  Even grammatically, there's less of a relationship between them.

Ruth 1:21

A few months ago, I watched the two Daily Dose of Aramaic videos on Targum Ruth 1:21:

I was following in the Latin Vulgate and noticed a feature specific to that translation:

Egressa sum plena et vacuam reduxit me Dominus cur igitur vocatis me Noemi quam humiliavit Dominus et adflixit Omnipotens

In the ESV, this is:

"I went away full, and the LORD has brought me back empty.  Why call me Naomi, when the LORD has testified against me and the Almighty has brought calamity upon me?"

In the Vulgate, there's a chiasm that highlights the opposites "went away" and "brought back" ("egressa sum" and "reduxit") and "full" and "empty" ("plena" and "vacuam"):

Egressa sum

plena et

vacuam

reduxit me Dominus

Following this word order, an English translation of this section of the verse would be something like:  "I went away full, and empty brought me back the LORD."

Luke 5:6

A few months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 11 February:

The reading was Luke 5:1-11, and while following along in the Vulgate, I noticed a small feature in verse 6:

et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem copiosam rumpebatur autem rete eorum

In the ESV, this is:

And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking.

The phrase "multitudinem copiosam" is redundant (something like "an abundant multitude"), but this redundancy does heighten the sense of this large amount.

This feature is also present in the Greek:

καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσαντες συνέκλεισαν πλῆθος ἰχθύων πολύ· διερρήσσετο δὲ τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν.

Additionally, the words πλῆθος (multitude) and πολύ (much) alliterate.  To a small degree, the repetition in this alliteration contributes to this sense of abundance even further.

Proverbs 15:9

When I read Proverbs 15:9 in the ESV a few months ago, I found yet an-other chiastic structure, although the elements are a bit more loosely equated:

The way of the wicked

Is an abomination to the LORD,

but he loves

him who pursues righteousness.

Like other chiasms I've found, this one highlights contrasts:  "the way of the wicked" with "him who pursues righteousness" and "an abomination to the LORD" with "he loves."

This structure is in the Hebrew, too, but in the opposite order:

תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה דֶּרֶךְ רָשָׁע וּמְרַדֵּף צְדָקָה יֶאֱהָֽב׃

It's more like "An abomination to the LORD is the way of the wicked, but him who pursues righteousness he loves."  The Latin Vulgate follows roughly the same word order:

abominatio est Domino

via impii

qui sequitur iustitiam

diligetur ab eo

2 Kings 2:12

A few months ago, I read 2 Kings 2 in the NIV, where Elijah is taken up to Heaven in a whirlwind after a chariot and horses of fire separate him from Elisha.  Elisha sees Elijah taken up and says (in verse 12), "My father!  My father!  The chariots and horsemen of Israel!"  I think it may be significant that Elisha says, "My father!" twice.  Before Elijah is taken, Elisha makes a request of him:  "Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit" (verse 9), and Elijah replies, "If you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours" (verse 10).  Because Elisha's repeated "My father!" coincides with his seeing this event, it seems to indicate his inheriting this double portion as it occurs.  (Verse 15 makes it clear that Elisha does receive it:  "The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, 'The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.'")

Proverbs 14:35

A few months ago, I read Proverbs 14 in the ESV and noticed a loose chiastic structure in verse 35:

A servant who deals wisely

Has the king's favor,

But his wrath falls on

One who acts shamefully.

Such a structure highlights the opposite nature of how the two servants behave (wisely or shamefully) and of the king's disposition toward them (favor or wrath).

The NIV has a similar structure but in a different order:

A king delights in

A wise servant,

But a shameful servant

Incurs his wrath.

This structure isn't in the Hebrew, though, or in any of the other translations I referenced.

Hebrews 2:16

A couple months ago, I watched the Worship Anew program for 2 February (The Purification of Mary and Presentation of Our Lord).  The epistle reading was Hebrews 2:14-18, and I noticed verse 16 in particular:  "For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham."

There's a chiastic structure highlighting this difference:

It is not angels

that he helps,

but he helps

the offspring of Abraham.

Of the translations I referenced, this is unique to the ESV and my German New Testament, in which this verse is:

Denn er nimmt sich

nicht der Engel an,

sondern der Kinder Abrahams

nimmt er sich an.

Proverbs 12:20

A few months ago, I read Proverbs 12 and noticed a chiasm in verse 20, although it isn't as precise as others I've found.  In the ESV, it's:

Deceit is in the heart of

those who devise evil,

but those who plan peace

have joy.

In an inverted way, "deceit is in the heart of" almost parallels "have joy," and likewise, "those who devise evil" sort of parallels "those who plan peace."  The opposite order in the structure (deceit | devise evil || plan peace | joy) matches these differences.

This structure is also in the Hebrew:

מִרְמָה בְּלֶב־חֹרְשֵׁי רָע וּֽלְיֹעֲצֵי שָׁלוֹם שִׂמְחָֽה׃

and in the Latin Vulgate:

dolus in corde

cogitantium mala

qui autem ineunt pacis consilia

sequitur eos gaudium

Hebrews 13:8

A few months ago, I read Hebrews 13:8 in my German/English catechism (cited under "Who is Jesus Christ?" in the explanation to the second article of the creed) and noticed that there's no explicit verb in the German translation:

Jesus Christus, gestern und heute und derselbe auch in Ewigkeit.

It's something like:  "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and also in eternity."

The Greek text also has no verb:

Ἰησοῦς χριστὸς ἐχθὲς καὶ σήμερον ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

Likewise the Latin Vulgate:

Iesus Christus heri et hodie ipse et in saecula

I think it may be significant that a form of "to be" is merely implied here.  All tenses equally apply (Jesus was, is, and will be the same, as the different time elements in the verse indicate), so it's almost as if any one form would be too temporally specific.

Proverbs 9:11

A few months ago, I read Proverbs 9 in the ESV, and I noticed that a slight difference in the parallelism of verse 11 illustrates the meaning of the verse.

For by me your days will be multiplied, and years will be added to your life.

"Days will be multiplied" and "years will be added" are parallel expressions, but because the scale of the measurements increases ("days" to "years"), there's a picture of this expansion.

Leviticus 19:35-36

Every four years or so, I re-read Luther's Small Catechism.  This time, I'm reading (for the first time) a German/English edition from 1912.  A couple months ago, I read Leviticus 19:35-36 (cited under "What particular sins are here forbidden?" in the explanation to the seventh commandment), and I noticed that the structure matches the meaning in a way.

I don't know what specific translation this Catechism uses, but these verses from Leviticus 19 appear as:

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.  Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have.  I am the Lord, your God.

In the first clause, "unrighteousness" is modified by a string of prepositional phrases ("in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure"), but in the second clause, the adjective "just" is applied individually to various measurements ("just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin").  Even in the structure of the language here, then, there's a representation of this equality.

This feature is present in the Hebrew, too:

לֹא־תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט בַּמִּדָּה בַּמִּשְׁקָל וּבַמְּשׂוּרָֽה׃

מֹאזְנֵי צֶדֶק אַבְנֵי־צֶדֶק אֵיפַת צֶדֶק וְהִין צֶדֶק יִהְיֶה לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃

It also occurred to me that there's a chiastic structure that highlights these opposites:

Ye shall do

no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin,

shall ye have.

Matthew 12:30

When the Daily Dose of Greek went over Matthew 12:30 a couple months ago, I noticed a small feature in the Latin Vulgate.

Ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

'Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.' [ESV]

qui non est mecum contra me est et qui non congregat mecum spargit

Because Latin inverts the prepositional phrase "cum me" ("with me") and combines the two words into one, there's a chiastic structure in the sequential prepositional phrases "with me" and "against me" ("mecum contra me").  This structure emphasizes these opposites.

In looking at the text more closely in order to write this post, I realized that there's also a chiasm in the Greek, just with different elements and on a broader scale:

Ὁ μὴ ὢν (the one not being)

μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ (with me)

κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ (against me)

ἐστιν (is)

With a slightly different form (a relative clause instead of a participle), this is also in the Latin:

qui non est (who is not)

mecum (with me)

contra me (against me)

est (is)

Luke 1:28

Months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 11 December:

The service had a sort of lessons-and-carols format, and one of the readings was Luke 1:26-38.  I was following along in the Latin Vulgate, and in verse 28, I found an-other instance of a feature I've noticed elsewhere:

et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

In the ESV, this is:

And he [the angel Gabriel] came to her [Mary] and said, 'Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'  [some manuscripts add "'Blessed are you among women!'"]

Latin takes the prepositional phrase "cum te" ("with you"), inverts it, and combines the two words into one (tecum).  Consequently, the words for Lord (Dominus) and you (te) are directly next to each other here, lending a slightly greater sense of this accompaniment.

Proverbs 1:22

A few months ago, I started reading Proverbs in the ESV again and noticed some significance in the diction of Proverbs 1:22, where Wisdom says, "How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?  How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?"  As if to reflect the nature of the "simple ones," the vocabulary of the first clause is somewhat limited, with "simple" being repeated.

This repetition is also in the Hebrew:

עַד־מָתַי ׀ פְּתָיִם תְּֽאֵהֲבוּ פֶתִי

And in my German translation of Proverbs:

Wie lange wollt ihr Unverständigen unverständig sein

Matthew 11:30

I had a realization about Matthew 11:30 when the Daily Dose of Greek went over it a few months ago.

ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.

'For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' [ESV]

The verse contains two clauses with the same basic structure:  article, noun, possessive pronoun, adjective, copulative verb (implied in the first clause).  Partially because of the nature of copulative sentences, the grammatical elements in this verse are fairly simple (the only case here is the nominative, and the verb is in the present tense), and this simplicity matches the characteristics mentioned in the verse ("easy" and "light").

Psalm 145:5

A couple months ago, I read Psalm 145 in the ESV and noticed some significance in the structure of verse 5:  "On the glorious splendor of your majesty, and on your wondrous works, I will meditate."  The structure is inverted so that the objects on which the Psalmist meditates come first in the sentence, and to some degree, this primary position matches the importance they hold for him.  In English, "splendor" and "works" are both objects of prepositions, but if I'm not mistaken, in the Hebrew, which also has this structure, they're simply direct objects:

הֲדַר כְּבוֹד הוֹדֶךָ וְדִבְרֵי נִפְלְאוֹתֶיךָ אָשִֽׂיחָה׃

Psalm 143:3

Last year, I read Psalm 143 in the ESV and noticed a way in which the punctuation in English translations heightens the meaning.

In the ESV, verse 3 is:  "For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has made me sit in darkness like those long dead."  In the NIV, it's:  "The enemy pursues me, he crushes me to the ground; he makes me dwell in darkness like those long dead."  The NKJV renders it as:  "For the enemy has persecuted my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground; he has made me dwell in darkness, like those who have long been dead."

The NIV has a comma splice, but otherwise, all of these translations connect the three clauses with semicolons.  Because the clauses follow each other so closely, without the pause that a sentence break or even a conjunction would provide, there's a sense of being "pursued" or "crushed."

1 Kings 2:33

While reading 1 Kings in the NIV last year, I found an-other instance where a chiastic structure highlights opposites, this time in 1 Kings 2:33:

May the guilt of their blood rest

on the head of Joab and his descendants forever.

But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne,

may there be the LORD's peace forever.

This structure is also in the Hebrew:

וְשָׁבוּ דְמֵיהֶם

בְּרֹאשׁ יוֹאָב וּבְרֹאשׁ זַרְעוֹ לְעֹלָם

וּלְדָוִד וּלְזַרְעוֹ וּלְבֵיתוֹ וּלְכִסְאוֹ

יִהְיֶה שָׁלוֹם עַד־עוֹלָם מֵעִם יְהוָֽה׃

And the Latin Vulgate:

et revertetur sanguis illorum

in caput Ioab et in caput seminis eius in sempiternum

David autem et semini eius et domui et throno illius

sit pax usque in aeternum a Domino

Psalm 139:5

A few months ago, I read Psalm 139 in the ESV and noticed a small feature in verse 5:  "You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me."  There's a sort of parallelism between "behind" and "before," and the visual similarity of the words matches this.

This feature is also present in the NIV and the NKJV, but it seems specific to what English translations I referenced.

1 Kings 1:25-26

In reading 1 Kings in the NIV a couple months ago, I found an-other chiasm that highlights opposites.  In verses 25-26, Nathan says to David, "25 Today he [Adonijah] has gone down and sacrificed great numbers of cattle, fattened calves, and sheep.  He has invited all the king's sons, the commanders of the army and Abiathar the priest.  Right now they are eating and drinking with him and saying, 'Long live King Adonijah!'  26 But me your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon he did not invite."

The sentence structure is inverted between "He has invited all the king's sons, the commanders of the army and Abiathar the priest" and "But me your servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and your servant Solomon he did not invite," highlighting this contrast.

This feature is also present in the Hebrew:

וַיִּקְרָא לְכָל־בְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וּלְשָׂרֵי הַצָּבָא וּלְאֶבְיָתָר הַכֹּהֵן

וְלִי אֲנִֽי־עַבְדֶּךָ וּלְצָדֹק הַכֹּהֵן וְלִבְנָיָהוּ בֶן־יְהוֹיָדָע וְלִשְׁלֹמֹה עַבְדְּךָ לֹא קָרָֽא

And in the Latin Vulgate:

vocavit universos filios regis et principes exercitus Abiathar quoque sacerdotum

me servum tuum et Sadoc sacerdotem et Banaiam filium Ioiadae et Salomonem famulum tuum non vocavit

Psalm 132:18

A couple months ago, I read Psalm 132 in the ESV and noticed an interesting feature in verse 18:  "'His enemies I will clothe with shame, but on him his crown will shine.'"  The phrases "clothe with shame" and "crown will shine" resemble each other visually, and to some degree, this superficial resemblance draws attention to their opposite nature.

Mark 12:44

On Worship Anew a couple months ago, the Gospel reading was Mark 12:38-44.  In all of the English translations I referenced (ESV, NIV, and NKJV), there's a chiastic structure in verse 44.  Here's the ESV:

"For they all contributed

out of their abundance,

but she out of her poverty

has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."

Such a structure highlights the opposite natures of "abundance" (the NIV has "wealth") and "poverty" and perhaps even the different manners in which the rich people and poor widow gave their offerings.

This structure isn't in the Greek, though, where this verse is:  πάντες γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύοντος αὐτοῖς ἔβαλον, αὕτη δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσεως αὐτῆς πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν ἔβαλεν, ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς.  The two clauses have roughly the same structure here, something like "All out of their abundance contributed, but she out of her poverty put in...."

1 Kings 17:8-16

On Worship Anew a couple months ago (10 November, Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost), the Old Testament reading was 1 Kings 17:8-16, and I noticed a way in which the vocabulary sort of mirrors the meaning of the text.

Initially, the widow at Zarephath has "only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug.  And now I am gathering a couple of sticks that I may go in and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it and die."  Elijah asks her for some food and tells her "thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'The jar of flour shall not be spent, and the jug of oil shall not be empty, until the day that the LORD sends rain upon the earth.'"  By the providence of God, "she and he and her household ate for many days."

"Her household" (בֵיתָהּ) here is really just her son, but the multitude of people that this term could imply matches the abundance of the provisions that don't run out.