The lowest of mankind or the humblest of mankind?
What is the translation in harmony with the context?
The thing is by decree of the vigilantes, and the request is [by] the saying of the saints, with the intention that the living know that the Most High rules over the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and establishes on it even the least of mankind - Daniel 4:17, 1987 New World Translation
This thing is by the decree of the guardians, and the sentence is by the mouth of the saints, so that living beings recognize that the Most High rules over the kingdom of mankind and gives it to whomever He wills, and installs even the humblest of men upon it. – Daniel 4:17, 2013 New World Translation
This article intends to be inserted in the section of those dedicated to the correct biblical translation.
The articles " The importance of the seals and the number of trumpets " part one, " We respect the meaning of the Scriptures ", " We respect the context and meaning of the Scriptures" , " We will appeal to Caesar " and others belong to this genre .
From now on these kinds of articles will be followed by the question “ What is the translation in harmony with the context? ”… in this way it will be easier for the reader to isolate them and put them aside if he wishes.
Let's begin to see if at least in Italian “infimo” and “umile” can be synonyms.
From the Oxford language dictionary, for "lowest" we find this definition.
“ Without any qualitative or social value” or, as a second meaning, “located at the lower end or at the maximum depth” (from which the word “hell” also derives).
In a similar way the Treccani encyclopedia, to the question "What does it mean to be the lowest?" reports… “ who occupies the lowest place in a scale of values: people of the lowest condition; the lowest plebs; goods of the lowest quality etc”.
On the other hand, always the same reference works, under the heading "humble" report " In person or attitude, meek, reserved: humble demeanour.; stood in a humble attitude. and resigned; she sat Humble in so much glory (Petrarch).
Marked by respectful submission
Attribute attributable to the Christian virtue of humility; also sm and f. .
"blessed are the u. of heart" Modest, both by birth and by social condition: to be of humble condition, of humble origins (also sm and f.: the humble and the powerful); of things (Oxford language)
And again “Not noble, modest, above all in terms of origin and economic-social status: being of u. condition , birth , family , or humble birth ; also as a noun, spec. in the plural: the socially humble are not always humble in spirit (L. Romano); accept jobs , carry out chores or tasks that are more humble , more material and servile, less rewarding. 3. a. Who does not exalt himself about his own worth and merits, and instead always shows himself aware of his own limitations: he is humble ; he is a great scientist , yet he is very humble”… etc (Treccani).
It is absolutely clear that the most immediate and direct meanings do not at all suggest that these terms are interchangeable.
The fundamental difference, evident, once all the more or less necessary technicalities have been removed, lies in the fact that "very low" indicates a morally low condition , while "humble" indicates at the limit, and only as a second definition, a low economic condition (obviously the first meaning of "humble" indicates a submissive, modest, not haughty mental attitude).
 |
| The Word of God is sacred. Will God not ask how it was used? |
Attentive readers will immediately understand why this scripture, Daniel 4:17, was chosen and not others.
The crux of the matter is, after all, trying to understand who this scripture should refer to, always assuming that it should refer to a specific person .
As we have also seen in the articles dedicated to the 70 weeks, biblical translators (even translators of the interlinear) have often been guided by their own preconceived religious ideas.
For a demonstration of what has just been stated, see the videos dedicated to this subject in the following links:
Furthermore, in our biblical study journey we were able to see how the book of Daniel was the most retouched of all and this is significant.
What about this single verse, namely Daniel 4:17, and why should it be important to understand whether the more correct translation is “lowly” rather than “lowest” or vice versa?
If there were no religions in the middle, the translation would probably be clear and unambiguous for everyone.
However, the New Review translates this verse as follows…
“ This is the decision of the watchers, and the judgment is of the saints, that the living may know that the Most High rules over the kingdom of men, and that he gives it to whomever he wills, and therein he lifts up the lowliest of men” – Daniel 4:17 , New Review
The word “miserable” can actually have a double meaning because it can indicate both economic misery (the poor, the miserable) or even moral misery (“You are miserable!”)… in both cases this translation would get rid of any reference to who we know, or rather the reference to which the 2013 TnM would like to bring.
No sane person would appeal to the Lord by the second definition, and as for the first definition, while He did indeed have humble beginnings as the son of a carpenter, he certainly could not identify himself as "the most wretched " !
It is true that the scriptures show that He lived on very little - he was certainly not in luxury like some scribes and Pharisees - but it is not recorded that He ever starved to death or that His family here on earth starved to death.
That his human parents were not rich we understand for example from the offering they made in the temple once the days of purification were completed – see Luke 2:22-24 and compare with Leviticus 5:7
Surely the Lord was not rich and would never have flaunted any material goods, but in fact he lived and knew how to be among others.
For example we read that He attended the wedding at Cana - John 2:1, 2
Does it honestly seem possible that “the most miserable human being” could afford to attend weddings?
Surely such marriages were humble compared to those we are accustomed to today, but even understanding this it is not possible to visualize him as "the most miserable of men."
Surely more miserable than he was John the Baptist who lived in the desert and fed on wild honey and locusts - Matthew 2:4
On the contrary, Jesus pointed out precisely this hypocritical and unjustified criticism… “ Thus , John came without eating or drinking, and they say: 'He has a demon'; the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a man who is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners'…” – Matthew 11:18, 19
Regardless of the fact that these hypocrites exaggerated and were only looking for an excuse to slander the Son of God, does it honestly seem reasonable to you that such a criticism could be made of “the lowliest of men”?
Let's see, however, how other Bibles translate this verse.
“ Thus it is decided by the judgment of the vigilantes and according to the word of the saints.
Thus may the living know that the Most High rules over the kingdom of men and that he can give it to whomever he wishes and settle even the least of men there» - CEI, Jerusalem (in this translation it falls in verse 14).
Here again we see that any claim to apply this scripture to Jesus Christ falls very miserably indeed.
In what sense could the Son of God be “the least of men”?
It is true that scripture says that He had to “empty Himself” or lose much of His glory and power when He came to earth, but this comparison would stand in relation to spirit creatures – Philippians 2:5-7
In fact, he became "a little lower than the angels" and on the other hand it could not be otherwise since he had to be only a man, perfect like Adam, of course, but only a man - Hebrews 1:7-9
How could a perfect man (the second to ever walk the planet earth), the greatest teacher that ever lived, inferior only to the angels, be called "the least of men"?
While the Nuova Diodati and also the Luzzi/Riveduta translate "lowest" exactly like the old TnM, Martini calmly reports "the most abject man"...
Do we really need to think about it?
What is the correct translation?
However, just like we've done so far with all the other articles, we can't choose the one we like best, even if ALL the others translate the way we want.
We cannot be guided by a preconceived idea, even if it were absolutely correct.
Obviously we have seen all the logical and scriptural reasons why Daniel 4 is absolutely not talking about the establishment of the Kingdom of God (you can find the article here ) but regardless of this who guarantees us that the correct translation is not "the humbler than human beings ”?
On the other hand, not only are we not experts in Hebrew (in this case, in Aramaic) but even if we were, we would certainly arrive at the moment in which someone, even just a minority, would defend the reasons for the "humble" translation to the detriment of 'other.
How can we get out of it, categorically and without interpretations, clearly and definitively?
The question seems complex but in reality it is not.
Once religions and their "reasons" are eliminated, everything becomes clear because we really don't care how many translation meanings that word can have.
We are only interested in understanding what the writer meant.
In fact, if we really want to put all our cards on the table, Treccani herself reports that, as a decidedly rarer second meaning, “infimo” can mean “of humble style” or “the humblest people”….
So in theory we should be back to square one, right?
Absolutely not and we understand it from a simple logical reasoning, even trivial.
The Watchtower translates “the humblest of men” because it wants to make a clear reference to the Messiah, Jesus Christ, isn't it?
The explanation they give is as follows… “God gave power to the “lowest of mankind” — Jesus Christ — considered so contemptible by his enemies that they even impaled him”… (farse extrapolated from the book “Prophecies of Daniel” , in chapter 6), page 97 in the Italian edition.
As mentioned we have seen all the scriptural evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the tree can in no way apply to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth but let's pretend that is not the case …
We accept this interpretation for the sake of reasoning.
Why can't Daniel 4:17 translate to "humble" and why can't it be a reference to the Messiah?
Well, because according to their own interpretation that prophecy would be fulfilled in 1914, right?
The kingdom would be given to “the lowliest of mankind,” when?
In the first century or in 1914?
It's too easy, when it's convenient, to remember the first century Jesus when you've gone to great lengths to prove that this prophecy would be fulfilled in 1914.
If this eventual second fulfillment concerns the moment in which God gives the Kingdom to the “lowest of mankind”… precisely it happens when the kingdom is established, right?
Speaking of that Jesus who received the Kingdom… how did John see him?
“ And I turned to see the voice speaking with me, and turning around, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed in a garment that reached down to his feet, and girded about the chest of a golden girdle. Also, his head and his hair were white like white wool, like snow, and his eyes like a flame of fire; and his feet were like fine copper when he shines in a furnace; and his voice was like the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth proceeded a long, sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun when it shines in his power. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as if dead” – Revelation 1:12-17
This is the Jesus who legally received the Kingdom (has not yet actually received it: this only occurs on the seventh trumpet) .
From the description that Giovanni makes of him under inspiration, does he really seem the "humblest of human beings" or, worse still, "the lowest, the most insignificant, the smallest or the most abject"?
Can we really respect Scripture if we are guided by the preconceived beliefs of a religion?
We will respect the meaning of the Scriptures only if we are guided by sincere love and the desire to understand, not the desire to justify one's religion - Revelation 22:18, 19
Comments
Post a Comment