In my last post, I asked, in connection with a footnote to John 2.3 in the 2015 edition of John: Eternal Love, whether Brian Simmons, the supposed translator of the ‘Passion Translation’, was even looking at the Greek text at all. Today, I ask the same question with regard to the first footnote to John 1.10 in the 2014 edition. The second footnote also casts some doubt on whether he is really translating from Greek. I take them one at a time. Tomorrow, I plan to look at the following verse and its footnote.
I give both verses together here, since the Greek text of verse 11 helps to explain a blunder in the first footnote to verse 10:
Continue reading John 1.10 in the ‘Passion Translation’: more evidence that Brian Simmons may not be translating from Greek.
I continue to question whether the ‘Passion Translation’ New Testament is really translated from Greek, as is claimed. In this post I look at Brian Simmons’ footnote to John 2.3 in the 2015 edition of John: Eternal Love.
1) Καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ·
2) ἐκλήθη δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν γάμον.
3) καὶ ὑστερήσαντος οἴνου λέγει ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν· οἶνον οὐκ ἔχουσιν.
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” [NKJV]
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus *said to Him, “They have no wine.” [NASB]
1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” [ESV]
In John: Eternal Love (2015), the passage read:
Continue reading ‘Miriam’, ‘Mary’, or ‘the mother of Jesus’? – is Brian Simmons even looking at the Greek text?
I have been considering two closely related questions:
a) Is the so-called ‘Passion Translation’ New Testament actually translated at all, or is it derived from English versions?
b) Does Brian Simmons, who says he is the ‘translator’, lack elementary competence in Greek?
In this post I consider a second example of a mistake in transliteration. Yesterday, I asked how Simmons could have transliterated ἑώρακα (heōraka) in John 1.34 as ophesthe. Today I consider the implications of his transliterating ἐξηγέομαι (exēgēomai) as hexegeomai, as if the first epsilon had a rough breathing ἑ rather than a smooth breathing ἐ . Although this may seem like a relatively minor error, in comparison with the one I examined yesterday, I would like to ask whether it is an error that somebody who has elementary competence in Greek could plausibly make?
Continue reading Why did Brian Simmons transliterate ἐξηγέομαι (exēgeomai) as ‘hexegeomai’?
In my last two posts I have been presenting evidence (here and here) that Brian Simmons, who calls himself ‘the translator’ of the ‘Passion Translation’ New Testament, is less than familiar with the Greek language. I continue with a surprising mistake in a footnote to John 1.34 in the 2014 edition of John: Eternal Love.
κἀγὼ ἑώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ [NA 28]
"I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God." [NASB]
In the Passion Translation, 2014 edition, the verse and first footnote read:
ἑώρακα is the first person perfect active indicative of ὁράω, ‘I see’, ‘I perceive’, and means ‘I have seen’ or ‘I have perceived’. This must be the Greek word that Simmons is referring to in his footnote.
ἑώρακα transliterates as heōraka;
ὁράω, the lexical form, transliterates as horaō.
Why then does Simmons transliterate it as ophesthe?
I cannot give a definitive answer, but I do have a possible partial explanation.
Continue reading Why did Brian Simmons transliterate ἑώρακα (heōraka) as ‘ophesthe’?
In my last post I began to present evidence that seems to betray a lack of elementary competence in Greek on the part of the supposed translator of the ‘Passion Translation’. I say ‘supposed’, because I have reluctantly come to the provisional conclusion that Brian Simmons is not translating at all, in any meaningful way, but rather is working from English versions, while making some use of lexicons to find novel renderings for individual words. I stand to be corrected. I have written to the author and publisher presenting my evidence and have not received any alternative explanation for the gross blunders in the ‘translator’ footnotes. Yesterday I showed that:
spoken these things
but must mean
spoken to them.
Today I draw attention to a similarly glaring error in another footnote just three verses later in John.
Continue reading Is the ‘Passion Translation’ actually a translation? (part 2)
I spent most of March this year investigating Brian Simmons’ claims to be translating from Aramaic in certain verses of the holy scriptures. I reluctantly came to the conclusion that he did not know the language and was in fact making use of existing English translations from the Aramaic Peshitta. I did my best to discuss the matter with Brian personally before going public with my conclusions, here and here. The only response I had from him was on Facebook, where he referred me to an English translation, and made no reference to the Syriac text, which I had included in the question I put to him about his supposed translation of Galatians 3.1.
It dawned on me gradually, as I was working on the Aramaic text of various verses, and examining Brian’s translator footnotes, that he might not know Greek or Hebrew either. There are many mistakes which I do not think that somebody with even elementary competence in these biblical languages could make. In this post, I share one of these and invite responses.
Continue reading Is the ‘Passion Translation’ actually a translation at all?
I left off my last post halfway through an introduction to Thomas Huxley’s positive review of Origin of Species in The Times of 26 November 1859. I had found Huxley in 1854 committed to the notion of fixed archetypes, giving room for evolution of types within prescribed bounds only. In this post I find Huxley, the following year, still opposed to transmutationism, but now in the context of a broader opposition to ‘progressive development’ in both its transmutationist and creationist varieties.
Continue reading Huxley’s early opposition to ‘progressive development’ (part 2 of series)
In my last posts I have been highlighting the fact that Darwin’s theory of evolution ascribed the origin of the first one or few primordial organisms to the work of the Creator, and have looked at Richard Owen’s criticism (Edinburgh Review, April 1860) of his apparent inconsistency in balking at the miraculous nature of special creation on one page (Origin of Species, 1st edition, 1859, 483), and invoking it on the next (p. 484).
I was aware that the German paleontologist H. G. Bronn had criticised Origin of Species on similar grounds in a review published January 1860, and being interested to find out whether he was the first to do so, began to read reviews (gleaned mainly from here (p. 599), here (p. 25-27), and here) published prior to his. They are of sufficient interest in their own right, in my opinion, to merit a few observations.
My account of Huxley’s review of Origin in The Times is preceded by an introduction, which will extend into my next posts, of his change of view about evolution just prior to the book’s publication.
Continue reading Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ under fire and defended (part 1)
In my last post I looked at a review (pp 417-9) by anatomist and palaeontologist Richard Owen of a book by William Carpenter about the Foraminifera, a single-celled organism with shells or tests (internal shells). Carpenter had argued that the multitude of Foraminifera species had descended from one or a few primordial forms. Owen thought he recognised in this the influence of Darwin, who had proposed in Origin of Species that all living things had descended from one or a few primordial forms, into which life had been breathed by ‘the Creator’.
Owen saw in Darwin’s appeal to divine action a departure from the scientific method, which in his view demanded, or at least gave preference to, explanations from natural processes only. While admitting that the Foraminifera underwent reproduction, he believed that they were also being spontaneously generated from dead organic matter through the action of a vital force. ‘Mucus’ was converted from a ‘passive’ to an ‘active’ state, from ‘snot’ to ‘sarcode’ by means of the conversion of the operation of a ‘polar’ force – an analogy being drawn with magnetic phenomena – from an ‘attractive’ to an ‘assimilative’ or ‘vital’ mode (418, col.3, 419, col. 1):
Continue reading Is there a fact, or a shadow of a fact?
In my last post, I described the account Darwin gave in his Origin of Species of the initial appearance of life on earth. In the first edition he said that life had been ‘breathed’ into a few forms or one, and in subsequent editions he added that the breath was imparted ‘by the Creator’.
The idea of life being imparted by breath comes from Genesis 2.8:
וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [King James Version]
as Darwin acknowledged in a letter to his close friend Joseph Hooker dated 29 March 1863. Hooker had sent Darwin his copy of the Athenaeum, dated one day earlier. It contained (pp 417-9) a review of a book by William B. Carpenter on the single-celled amoeboid Foraminifera. The reviewer was Richard Owen, the anatomist and palaeontologist, whose earlier (1860) criticism of the apparent inconsistency of Darwin’s view of the origin of the life I described yesterday. Writing anonymously, Owen made some further and very scathing remarks about Darwin, which presumably Hooker thought Darwin should see.
Continue reading Deep sea slime and ooze: did life emerge there?