The title sounds imperious. It isn't. The fact is there isn't much controversy over it. Well, in some circles, but they're pretty small ones.
To what am I referring? It is the capitalization of the pronouns related to God. You see, for some time it has been the convention that references to God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit as "He" or "Him" or "His" were to be capitalized. It has primarily been a matter of respect, although at times it serves as a helpful distinction when talking about God and Man in the same sentence or context. Take, for instance, Genesis 1:27. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." That's in the ESV. Notice the "he" and the "him" in the same phrase. Now read it in the NASB: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." See it? "In the image of God He" -- and the capitalization tells you it is a reference to God -- "created him" -- where the lack of capitalization tells you it is Man being referenced. Did God create Man in his own image -- Man's own image -- or in God's image? You can't tell from the ESV pronoun. So for respect and for some cases of comprehension, capitalization can be helpful.
Since it has been my convention and since I see it as a matter of respect, I was a bit surprised when the ESV didn't capitalize the pronouns for God. My NASB did. What's up with that? What kind of irreligious folks are these ESV people? And then I did my research. Turns out that these pronouns were not capitalized in the King James version either. Nor are they capitalized in any other language. They were never capitalized in the original Hebrew and Greek. They aren't even capitalized in British English. It appears, from all I can find, that it's a relatively new, American convention. I shouldn't be getting my knickers in a twist.
Okay, fine. I still see it as a matter of respect and I still think that it can be an aid in comprehension, but I'll relegate this controversy to the "personal pile". Unlike the horrors I've seen of late in spelling and grammar in common interactions, this one is quite minimal. And it's quite personal. So, if you'll agree to bear with me as I retain the capitalization of the pronouns for God, I'll agree not to think poorly of those who don't. It's not a rule of the language or even a standardized practice. Fine. Fair enough? Good. Another controversy averted.
8 comments:
I use caps in the same way for the same reasons. When referring to MYSELF I use caps and boldprint together. :)
Oh, I see. "Respect yourself." I can hear the Staple Singers now.
I found this interesting as well, I just assumed that caps for God pronouns was the right way to do it. I'll keep it up, for clarity if nothing else.
Staples Singers, I was thinking of Bruce Willis. :(
In the original greek, not only was text comprised in all caps (or more accurately, "uncials"), there was no punctuation or even any space between words or sentences. In Hebrew (though I not as proficient in Hebrew), the vowels were even omitted.
Applying a modern, post-enlightenment frame on ancient writings is folly -- even in the years following Gutenberg, there was no convention of spelling -- the same author might spell the same word in many different ways in the same document. Until ~17th-18th century, written documents were solely for the purpose of oral consumption -- the spoken word.
Well, of course you were thinking of Bruce Willis. You're too young for the original. ;)
Well, it wasn't actually an attempt at applying my rules of capitalization or grammar to the original texts, but to the translated texts. They should, if they are going to accurately reflect the original text, meet some rules of the language into which they're being translated ... right? I mean, a translator can't say, "Well, 'love' is spelled l-o-v-e in English, but I'm going to spell it x-w-z-y because applying a modern, post-enlightenment frame on ancient writings is folly." Right?
No, of course, we'd expect a "modern" translation to enforce the customs, rules and standards of contemporary language.
But then, these become matters of interpretation and what to stress -- for instance, in the middle ages, later scribes inserted accents (which in Koine Greek matters mainly for pronouncing but does impact the meaning of a few words) and punctuation based on what they thought about the content, hundreds of years after. And even in the timeframe from Homeric to Attic to Koine (plus, all the sprinkled in "Semitisms") Greek, words morphed in meaning, just as they did from Olde English to King's English to 21st century American English.
And there really isn't that much ancient writing to draw benchmarks from. So scholars take their best stab…
So, in other words, we really can't say with any real certainty what was said or intended in the original language. What we read is, at best, a reasonable assumption, but having a sense of certainty would be vain and foolish and basing an entire worldview on it would be nonsensical.
Post a Comment