By Carlos A. Donate
May I begin by defining what I mean by “sociolinguistics”. According to the Miriam Webster Dictionary, sociolinguistics means the study of linguistic behavior as determined by sociocultural factors. In other words, it is the study of how a culture can influence language, and vice versa. Such factors as religion, politics, economics and ethnicity can affect how a group of people understand concepts, and speak accordingly.
When referring to the revision work of the Spanish Bible, and particularly the two main ones that are currently being supported by the Bible believing Hispanic community, the Reina Valera Gomez and the Valera Purificada 1602 (or 1602P), the thing that stands out to me isn´t necessarily the textual basis of them, but rather their particular sociolinguistic methodology and their effectiveness in communicating Bible truths. It is true, that both Bibles were carried out by good men who stand for the Traditional Text method of revision and translation, versus the modern eclectic, Westcott and Hort method which is prevalent in the Reina Valera 1960 Bible of the UBS under the guide of Mr. Eugene Nida, who introduced “dynamic equivalency” in order to eventually do away with the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Old Testament readings as well as the Greek Textus Receptus New Testament readings, and “topple” the authority of the King James Bible (KJB). Therefore, my intent is not to discuss our underlying texts necessarily, albeit there are some of those that I will mention, but more importantly to address the linguistic aspect of both Bibles, and ultimately prove beyond a shadow of doubt, the superiority linguistically of the RVG.
SERMO VERSUS VERBUM
First, I want to share an update on the ongoing linguistic debate between “Sermo” versus “Verbum” of John 1:1. The 1602P uses “Palabra”, but the RVG uses “Verbo”. In a previous study, I mentioned two of the world´s most recognized and leading authorities in Biblical Latin manuscripts: the Vetus Latina Institute, and its president, Dr. Hugh Houghton, and the Beuron Museum in Germany, and one of its contributing researchers, Dr. Lu Ann Homza, who also wrote for a famous newspaper, “Erasmus: As Hero or Heretic”, Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Spring, 1997), pp. 78-118. BOTH affirm that sermo is a reference to Mercury, the Greek deity of communication between mortals and the divine. You can read the entire article here:
Mercury in the Middle: The Many Meanings of (Medius) Sermo in Latin | William M Short - Academia.edu
This explains why today, new-agers translate John 1:1 as “the conversation”. Below I offer evidence to the fact.
The 1602P then gets it from the Latin, following Erasmus´ Instrumentum Novum Testamentum of 1516 which was a Latin alternate version of the New Testament. It was Erasmus´ intent not to offer a definite substitute from “Verbum” to “Sermo” but to offer an alternate reading from Latin point of view, and as such, it would be handled privately among Roman Catholic scholars, but never by the laity (See “Erasmo Y España”, by Marcel Bataillon, Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico, 1950, pages 40-41, especially page 256). Erasmus wanted to amplify the meaning of “logos” to incorporate a divine “conversation”, or “dialogue”, something which enjoins the idea of all who deny the Deity of Christ. By the way, Erasmus never defended the Trinity even though he was given an opportunity to do so. No one is certain as to why that was. It was concluded that this new linguistic alternate was an assault, perhaps unintended, on the Person of Christ and His Deity. This is because in linguistics, and cognitively, Verbum always referred to a proper noun (a name), not a collective conversation of many words. The culmination of this poor linguistic choice is evidenced in modern, new-age thinking (not to mention the Jehovah Witness Spanish use of it to denigrate the doctrine of the Person of Christ) where sermo is simply a conversation of all things that are wholesome, but never Person of Christ and His deity as the primus intentionem (prime intended meaning). Visit:
and
as well as modern, liberal Baptists who defend sermo:
Furthermore, our 1602P friends accuse us RVG men in “promoting Catholicism” when its uses “Verbo” in John 1:1. However, it is evident from Catholicism itself that BOTH Verbo and Palabra are used in their writings whenever Christ is being referenced. Others wrongly assert that the reason they cannot use the RVG is because it makes Christ “an action”, confusing the grammar part of speech with the noun in capital V as in Verbo. A simple search in any Spanish dictionary will define Verbo as the second person of the Holy Trinity. Its not just absurd, but forthwith evil to say that the RVG promotes Catholicism, for even they defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the Arian sermo.
JESUS CRISTO
Another linguistic mistake is to use the phrase “Jesus Cristo”. It´s awkward to the ear, when you try to separate the two words, and shows a lack of usage in America versus Spain. However, this is what a Spanish linguist says about this, the quote being taken from https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/jes%c3%bas-cristo-jesucristo.2944218/#:~:text=The%20correct%20way%20is%20Jesucristo.%20It%27s%20true%20that,as%20well%20as%20Cristo%2C%20but%20not%20Jes%C3%BAs%20Cristo.
“Humi Malo-Fernández
Humi Malo-Fernández
New Member
Spanish
Sep 20, 2017
Trailbosstom said:
I've been writing Jesús Cristo. I find it everywhere when I google it, but Word Reference has nothing on it. A Spanish friend says it should be Jesucristo.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Tom
I'm from Spain & a Spanish professor. So, you know.
The correct way is Jesucristo. It's true that Cristo Jesús is there, but only as an expression. Nothing to do with the English counterpart. The translation to Jesús Cristo is incorrect. You can say Jesús, as well as Cristo, but not Jesús Cristo.”
Why did 1602P decide to regress to this archaic spelling in 80 places? (see below). Was it because they looked at the Greek, and noticed two separated words? Or perhaps they think that following the KJB is good?
1. Hechos 11:17
2. Hechos 15:11
3. Hechos 15:26
4. Hechos 16:31
5. Hechos 20:21
6. Hechos 28:31
7. Romanos 1:8
8. Romanos 5:1
9. Romanos 13:14
10. Romanos 15:6
11. Romanos 15:30
12. Romanos 16:18
13. Romanos 16:20
14. Romanos 16:24
15. 1 Cor. 1:2
16. 1 Cor 1:3
17. 1 Cor. 1:7
18. 1 Cor. 1:8
19. 1 Cor. 1:10
20. 1 Cor. 5:4
21. 1 Cor. 15:57
22. 1 Cor. 16:22
23. 1 Cor. 16:23
24. 2 Cor. 1:3
25. 2 Cor. 8:9
26. 2 Cor. 11:31
27. 2 Cor. 13:14
28. Gálatas 1:3
29. Gálatas 6:14
30. Gálatas 6:18
31. Efesios 1:3
32. Efesios 1.17
33. Efesios 3:14
34. Efesios 5:20
35. Efesios 6:23
36. Efesios 6:24
37. Fil. 1:2
38. Fil. 3:20
39. Fil. 4:23
40. Col. 1:2
41. Col 1:3
42. 1 Tes. 1:1
43. 1 Tes. 1:3
44. 1 Tes. 2:19
45. 1 Tes. 3:13
46. 1 Tes. 5:9
47. 1 Tes. 5:23
48. 1 Tes. 5 28
49. 2 Tes. 1:1
50. 2 Tes. 1:2
51. 2 Tes. 1:8
52. 2 Tes. 2:1
53. 2 Tes. 2:14
54. 2 Tes. 2:16
55. 2 Tes. 3:6
56. 2 Tes. 3.12
57. 2 Tes. 3:18
58. 1 Tim. 1:1
59. 1 Tim. 1:5
60. 1 Tim. 5:21
61. 1 Tim. 6:3
62. 1 Tim. 6:14
63. 2 Tim. 4:1
64. Tim. 4:22
65. Tito 1:4
66. Filemón 1:3
67. Filemón 1:25
68. Santiago 1:1
69. Santiago 2:1
70. 1 Pedro 1:3
71. 2 Pedro 1:8
72. 2Pedro 1:14
73. 2 Pedro 1:16
74. 1 Juan 2:22
75. 2 Juan 3
76. Judas 1:4
77. Judas 1:17
78. Judas 1:21
79. Apocalipsis 22:21
80. In their index
Weird? Well, I do believe it is at least awkward in its pronunciation, and hearing of it. Furthermore, I think the reasons for doing this is because they thought it was a way to honor the KJB, or the Greek, or the old Castilian way of saying it. However, nothing could be farther to the truth. It´s just plain bad Spanish linguistics in this time and era, when communicating the Word of God to Latin American Hispanics is so important. Spanish, unlike the Elizabethan English, lacks both the authority and the acceptance when it comes to sociolinguistics and regionalisms.
Speaking of regional linguistic difficulties, consider the constant usage of enclitic and proclitic verbs in the 1602P. This is where a pronoun appears attached either at the beginning of a verb, or attached at the end of a verb. Time and space do not permit me to enumerate them all, but believe me when I say that the 1602P is replete with this sort of linguistic style. Other Bible Societies, such as the Trinitarian Bible society, have already addressed this situation by saying that it definitely limits the understanding of the common Hispanic reader. Mr. William Greendyk, the TBS General Director, states that the “Real Academia Española” or Royal Academy of Spain, believes that proclitic and enclitic verbs can limit the communication of the message of God´s Word in Latin America, where illiteracy runs rampant. Dr. Greendyk´s article, Reina Valera 1909 SBT, Sociedad Bíblica Trinitaria, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, page 10, affirms that the Royal Academy of the Spanish language advocates the use for a more modernized, contemporary form of Spanish without the abusive archaic enclitic and proclitic verbs. Such styles are hardly taught in most schools throughout Latin America, according to Greendyk´s investigation. Greendyk cites Dr. Cesar Antonio Molina, a long-standing Spanish linguist, and member of the Cervantes Institute in Spain. (See silo.tips_spanish-a-language-for-dialog.pdf)
Consider one example: In Deuteronomy 32:19, the 1602P says:
“Y viólo el Señor, y encendióse en ira, por la provocación de sus hijos y de sus hijas.”
The accentuated, enclitic verb vió, which means “to see”, with its attached pronoun lo at the end, spells out another word: violó, which means to to violate (rape) unless the tilde or accent is there. Accents must be there to differentiate both meanings. The problem with this is the lack of readability by some Hispanics who would read the word “violo” as “VIOLÓ” (emphasis at the end), which would definitely alter the meaning of the verse! RVG offers a clearer, more updated rendering of the verse:
“Y cuando lo vio Jehová, los aborreció, por la provocación de sus hijos y de sus hijas.”
Another example of the same situation with “viólos” is in 2nd Kings 2:24. Here the 1602P reads:
“Y mirando él atrás, viólos, y maldíjolos en el nombre del Señor. Y salieron dos osos del monte, y despedazaron de ellos cuarenta y dos muchachos.”
Sociolinguistic-challenged Hispanics might not accentuate the “o”, which would change the entire meaning of the verse itself to say that the prophet Elisha violated the young men! This is what happens with the 1602P when they retain so many verb endings.
CHRISTOPHANY
The appearance of Christ in the Old Testament is called Christophany. The KJB doesn´t use it when referring to the Angel of the Lord, but in Spanish, where ambiguity as to the identity of angels is common, the RVG chose to capitalize it to avoid any confusion and help the reader identify Christ. See the first appearance in Genesis 16:10. If you take a look at the original Valera 1602, you will notice that Valera did in fact employ the usage of the capital “Á”. On most of his side notes, Cipriano de Valera states that “the Angel is Christ” in order to teach the reader to identify Him. Why didn´t the 1602P do this? That´s 183 times the 1602P missed the opportunity to communicate a great truth. Furthermore, why do they boast of using Valera´s name but not follow his linguistic style?
ESPÍRITU AS IN ESPÍRITU SANTO
(Spirit, capital S, as in the Holy Spirit)
The 1602P does not capitalize the word Espíritu in all references to the Spirit of God. To be fair, neither does the RVG. But the RVG capitalizes Espíritu more than the 1602P, demonstrating its sociolinguistic superiority. There are well over 84 of such appearances, but take a look at Isaish 32:15, for example.
1602P, “Hasta que sobre nosotros sea derramado espíritu de lo alto, y el desierto se torne en campo labrado, y el campo labrado sea estimado por bosque.”
RVG, “hasta que sobre nosotros sea derramado el Espíritu de lo alto, y el desierto se torne en campo fértil, y el campo fértil sea estimado por bosque.”
Again, our 1602P friends will be quick to say “neither does the KJB!” The point I am making is sociolinguistics, and the ability to influence the cognition of readers. In Spanish, it is much more superior to capitalize Espíritu (Spirit) to emphasize the Third Person of the Trinity´s role.
THE DEEMPHASIZING OF THE SACROSANCT NAME OF JEHOVAH
In an earlier article I wrote about the RVG defending the use of “Jehová”. One has to wonder why the 1602P decided to mirror the over 5,000 appearances in the Old Testament to just 6 appearances? As I said above, the 1602P boasts of its use of Valera in their work all the while refusing to acknowledge what Reina and Valera both said: Jehová is indeed God´s holy, sacrosanct Name which deserves to be pronounced with reverence and adoration. Does culture and linguistics play a role? I believe so, given the fact that in Latin America there is so much confusion of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton . So, I suppose that the 1602P believed it was necessary to mirror the English AV with the word LORD to “SEÑOR” ignoring the Spanish admonition of Reina (1569) and Valera (1602), and thus affect our belief that for the Hispanic and Castilian world, God preserved His sacrosanct Name to us as Jehová. This has been the way the priesthood of the believer in Spanish fundamentalism has always understood and used it, until 1602P came along.
OTHER PROPER NAMES
Other names that appear in the 2024 edition of the 1602P that are linguistically different in Latin America are:
1) “Adam” rather than “Adán”, 32 out of 32 times. In Latin America, it is rare to use Adam.
2) “corintio” (which is a reddish color) rather than “Corinto” (the actual name of the city). This happens at the end-of-chapter of Romans 16:27. Perhaps an honest mistake.
3) “Belem” rather than Belén, 53 out of 53 times. In fact, if the 1602P is so much into Valera 1602, they would have used “Bethlehem”. Instead, they chose a European geographical rendering not common in Latin America, unless you are from Portugal or Brazil (like Allen Johnson).
4) “Jerusalem” rather than Jerusalén. There are well over 700 references. The 1602P retains the old Spanish way for no reason other than to give it that antique flavor, which attracts so many Hispanics, but fails miserably to employ a more communicable language, and this is faux-pas in sociolinguistics, unless you´re intention is to make your Bible a museum piece!
Conclusion
The linguistics, grammar and syntax superiority of the RVG 2024 edition is significantly higher than that of the 2024 edition of the Valera 1602P. Language rules set forth by the Royal Academy in Madrid demand than a word or phrase be communicable, efficacious, and geographically updated in order to be accepted. In Christianity, if the Lord said that a jot and tittle was important, then it is also important that the Hispanic world use a Bible that is linguistically relevant to the 21st Century. -C.D.
Comentarios