One Year Bible: February 16
16 February, 2006 
(One Year Bible Blog post & readings)
Three books down; 63 to go.
Our Gospel reading has my antennae up. We read:
A man with leprosy came to him…
and there is a footnote indicating, “the Greek word was used for various diseases affecting the skin—not necessarily leprosy.” So, my question is this: If “leprosy” is not, as the translators admit, the best English word/phrase available to translate the Greek original, why use it? I think this is an homage to past translations, but don’t we deserve something more accurate now that scholarship permits? Shouldn’t we remain more faithful to the original text than to previous translations?
For the conspiracy theorist in us all, I have a follow up question: How may other instances such as this one exist in our various translations that haven’t been footnoted?
++ My tongue will speak of your righteousness and of your praises all day long. ++
Technorati Tags: One Year Bible
Can’t speak to the Greek, but I can tell you that the Hebrew word usually rendered as leprosy in Leviticus — tzara’at — is considered by serious scholars not to be leprosy at all. In the same way that I tend to refrain from translating tahor (”ritualy pure”) and tamei (”ritually impure”), I now refrain from translating tzara’at, because in all of these cases the English terms are loaded in specific ways that I believe the Hebrew is not.