Mathew 17:15 and the nuances of translation

[Eoghan]

[BIBLE]Mathew 17:15[/BIBLE]

I always wondered where the idea that the Bible mistakes possession for epilepsy. It seems this is the text! I am reading D.A. Carson and read an interesting book on translation not so long ago which probably makes me more sensitive, but translating G4583 - selēniazomai (lit. moon-struck), as epilepsy, puts into the words of the father the formal diagnosis of epilepsy. This would then seem to be contradicted by the exorcism which Christ prescribes.

The KJV and NASV correctly translate it as lunatic. I know, many enjoy the ESV and hold it is a more literal translation than the NIV which simply describes seizures.

It is a simple mistake but it loads the dice and frames the way it is understood.

Am I wrong?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I can understand how they might interpret his illness as Epilepsy, but if you do that then you must also accept the conclusion that Epilepsy is caused by a demon because that is how Jesus cures him.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Or could it be that the son's condition looked like common epilepsy to the father and he wanted healing for his son, but in this case the condition was actually caused by demonic possession and so to "heal" the son, Jesus exorcises the demon?

 

[Te Deum]

It cannot be logically construed as epilepsy. One just has to continue reading the sacred text:

"And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour."

Christ actually exorcised a demon, He didn't cure the child from a simple illness.

 

[Peairtach]

Strongs mentions epilepsy:

1) to be moon-struck or lunatic

2) to be epileptic

a) epilepsy being supposed to return and increase with the increase of the moon. This meaning is doubtful as the Greeks knew nothing of epilepsy.

It couldn't be simple moon-stroke or simple madness, either, if moon-stroke was a synonym for madness generally.

cf.

The sun shall not strike you by day, nor the moon by night. (Ps 121:6, ESV)

 

[Jack K]

I wonder if Matthew 4 influenced that translation decision. I'd think the translators would want to translate a word like that consistently, especially within a book. Matthew 4 uses the same Greek word. Here, again, is the ESV:

They brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. (Matthew 4:24)

In this passage, the context would suggest a meaning other than demon possession because demonic attack is mentioned separately. Do you see? It sounds repetitive if you read it as demon possession here. That doesn't make sense. It must mean something else.

I'm just guessing, but maybe that's why the translators of the ESV (and several other translations) don't go with demon possession even though the context in chapter 17 suggests that might be the best reading. The context in chapter 4 doesn't seem to favor it.

 

[Eoghan]

Unless there is a distinction between oppression and possession?

I wonder if Matthew 4 influenced that translation decision. I'd think the translators would want to translate a word like that consistently, especially within a book. Matthew 4 uses the same Greek word. Here, again, is the ESV:

They brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. (Matthew 4:24)

In this passage, the context would suggest a meaning other than demon possession because demonic attack is mentioned separately. Do you see? It sounds repetitive if you read it as demon possession here. That doesn't make sense. It must mean something else.

I'm just guessing, but maybe that's why the translators of the ESV (and several other translations) don't go with demon possession even though the context in chapter 17 suggests that might be the best reading. The context in chapter 4 doesn't seem to favor it.

 

[Jack K]

Unless there is a distinction between oppression and possession?

I wonder if Matthew 4 influenced that translation decision. I'd think the translators would want to translate a word like that consistently, especially within a book. Matthew 4 uses the same Greek word. Here, again, is the ESV:

They brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. (Matthew 4:24)

In this passage, the context would suggest a meaning other than demon possession because demonic attack is mentioned separately. Do you see? It sounds repetitive if you read it as demon possession here. That doesn't make sense. It must mean something else.

I'm just guessing, but maybe that's why the translators of the ESV (and several other translations) don't go with demon possession even though the context in chapter 17 suggests that might be the best reading. The context in chapter 4 doesn't seem to favor it.

I know there are people who contend there's a difference between demon-oppressed and demon-possessed. But I don't think you can make that case for the language in Matthew 4, since the word translated as "demon-oppressed" is the same one used for the demoniacs in the Gerasenes in Matthew 8:28, which seems to be a clear case of all-out possession. The ESV notes there that the one Greek word can mean either possession or oppression, and also helpfully notes that it translates the word differently in other places. Presumably, the translators wrestled with this.

My point is that you can't always look at a single passage and say, "Oh, the translators clearly made a mistake that should have been simple to catch." No, we ought to presume that the translators were rather bright guys looking at the whole usage of the word in several contexts and several places in Scripture, and basing their decisions on the interplay of all that. This is not to say all their choices are necessarily right. But they likely had sensible reasons for the choices they made.

 

[Eoghan]

I find it intriguing to see that in this case consistency seems to have won over (theological?) context.

 

[Te Deum]

So are we to conclude that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession?

 

[Jack K]

I find it intriguing to see that in this case consistency seems to have won over (theological?) context.

I'm not sure I get that. I was trying to show that the larger context of the entire book of Matthew might argue for the translation they chose. Perhaps larger context won out over immediate context.

One wouldn't want to use immediate context only. It can't be good to translate Matthew 17 as if Matthew 4 and 8 did not exist. The whole context of the entire book must be considered, right?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I like "moonstruck" vs. "lunatic".

 

[VictorBravo]

So are we to conclude that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession?

No, because epilepsy describes the condition, not the cause.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I think Vic has said it right; the possessing devil caused not only the seizures, but also the lad being deaf and dumb (cf Mk 9:14-29; Lk 9:37-43a). Hendriksen prefers the translation "epileptic" over "moonstruck" or "lunatick" even though the Greek is etymologically connected with the moon (WH on Matthew, p 251), as that was the condition manifesting. I would lean to the AV's "lunatick" as that was likely the meaning of the father's expression back in around AD 28 or 29. From the other accounts we understand there were more than mere epileptic seizures, for the devil often "cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him" (Mk 9:22). We know he was neither "epileptic" nor "lunatick", but they were describing his actions, not the cause of them.