Today’s reading is from Hebrews chapter 12:
7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
In verse 8 the word translated as ‘bastards’ is the Greek, nothos (Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon agrees with the Liddell & Scott Lexicon as they define it, “baseborn, adulterated, cross-bred”).
In the Old Latin Text A this word is rendered nothus (which the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary and Leverett’s Latin Dictionary define as, “of mixed-breed, a mongrel”).
The Old Latin Text J renders it as adulterinus (this, the Oxford Latin Dictionary defines as “Not thorough-bred, not full-blooded”).
And Old Latin Texts I and D use the term adulter (Oxford Latin Dictionary defines this as, “mixed, cross-bred”).
So it is that Thomas Holyoke’s Large Dictionary says that the Greek nothos and the Latin nothus are synonyms with the Hebrew word Mamzir and the Greek word moichikos. All of these words mean “mongrel”.
Luther therefore, being well aware of this, translated the word nothos in Hebrews 12:8 with the German word, bastarde and according to the English-Deutches, Deutsch-Englisches Worterbuch (1956), bastarde denotes “mongrels”.
Of course, as our modern English texts have conspicuously replaced the politically incorrect terms mongrel and bastard with the word illegitimate, the modern Luther bible has likewise replaced bastarde with the denatured term, Ausgestobene, meaning, “outcasts”.
Beyond the lexical matter however is the contextual reality that verse 9 appeals to an a fortiori argument from “fathers of our flesh” to the “Father of spirits”. The author, arguing from lesser to greater, is substantiating the good of the lesser category, even if it is subservient to the greater category.
And the employ of such an argument is an obvious reference to and endorsement of the case Law of Deuteronomy 23:2. Far from nullifying or abrogating the prohibition against Bastards (mamzer/nothos/nothus/mischling/bastarde), the author calls upon it to justify his broader argument for purity in matters spiritual.
In short, the author of Hebrews presupposes the continuity of the national prohibition on bastards (mongrels) into the New Testament age as well as the reader’s responsibility to assume the same.
And Paul presupposes the same principle in II Corinthians chapter 2:
17For we are not as many, which corrupt [literally, adulterate] the word of God: but as of sincerity [literally, purely generated], but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
… and in II Corinthians chapter 6:
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And when one employs an a fortiori argument saying, “if A, how much more so B(?)”, this requires the reader to assume the validity of A first. Without that assumption, the a fortiori argument cannot work.
Which is to say that the New Testament Christians presupposed the continuing equity of the Old Testament Laws contra unequal yoking, ethnic adulteration, and racial mongrels.
And the author of Hebrews again undergirds this point as he continues (Heb.12):
14Follow peace with all men, and holiness [literally, separateness], without which no man shall see the Lord:15Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled [literally, made impure]; 16Lest there be any fornicator[literally, sexually immoral] , or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
For what cause is Esau called a profane fornicator? Genesis 26 yields the answer:
34And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:
35Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.
Of this, the footnote commentary of the Reformation Study Bible reads:
The story of the stolen blessing is framed by Esau’s marriage to Hittite women, and his parents’ resulting displeasure (27:46). Profane Esau showed his disregard for the covenant blessings by marrying daughters of the land …
So then, when we look back to the words of the author of Hebrews on the matter, it is clear that the entirety of the writer’s argument rests upon the assumption of the abiding equity and righteousness of the Old Testament prohibitions contra Miscegenation.
Hat-tip: the Lexical work of John Herrell was especially helpful to me in this study.
"And the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses: so they pitched by their standards, and so they set forward, every one after their families, according to the house of their fathers." (Num.2:34)
Though he cling to the Altar, the Apostate will find no refuge from God's Law.
Brilliant. Excellent research and a clear explication. Thanks for clearing this relationship up, Ehud.
Laurel
Many thanks, Laurel.
We, more than anyone, must endeavor to make the profound simple and the simple profound.
I think you’re overstating your case here.
The quotes from Paul are not proof that he is reiterating the principle of the continuity of national covenants. In 2 Corinthians 2:7, he is clearly talking about not corrupting the word of God, which, whatever it might add to the lexical discussion, has nothing to do with covenant continuity. And 1 Corinthians 6:14 is forbidding marriages with unbelievers; not that interracial marriages are not forbidden elsewhere, but the principle can in no way be extrapolated from this passage.
The reference by the writer of Hebrews to the immorality (“pornos”) of Esau could be drawing upon the common tradition that Esau had numerous affairs with married women, as recorded in intertestamental literature, or he is using the term figuratively to refer to Esau’s spiritual foolishness in sacrificing his birthright, which the logic of the wording would seem to suggest.
In my understanding, the usage of the word “adultery” to refer to extramarital affairs does indeed preserve the meaning of “mixing” or “corrupting” – the corrupting of the marriage sexual relationship by bringing into it an outside person. This is clearly the meaning Matthew 5:32, which has nothing to do with racial mixing.
It’s also worth nothing that the Septuagint translates the word “mamzer” as “ek prones,” meaning “son of a prostitute.”
Thoughtful commentary, Siegfried.
On your first point, I think you may have missed the thrust of my argument. I’m not saying that the passages in question are positing original doctrines contra miscegenation, but that they rely upon such doctrines propounded in the OT in order to justify their case of religious purity in the NT.
When Paul says that he isn’t “adulterating” (mixing, diluting, polluting, alloying, mongrelizing, bastardizing) the Word of God, but as one “purely generated”, from God, he is very much assuming the audience to know that ‘adulteration’ is wrong and that being ‘purely generated’ is good.
It is afterall, a mainstay of Federal theology that the domestic relations of primogeniture (natural descent) are analogous of our spiritual relations (the Father/Child relationship of God with Christians). That’s just basic Reformed theology.
And as for Paul’s prohibition of Unequal-yoking, the Reformed hermeneutic of analogia de fide says that we allow scripture to interpret scripture: Therefore, we recognize Paul’s treatment of the matter as directly referencing Deuteronomy 22 where we are commanded not to allow the unequal yoking of our cattle. And we recall that St. Paul elsewhere explicitly tells us that the laws regarding cattle haven’t chiefly to do with cattle, but with human relations (1 Cor. 9:9-10).
And really, how could anyone ignore this connection? If the OT redundantly denounces national adulteration and lauds the alternative of pure descent, how can we, seeing the same language used of spiritual relations in the NT not associate one with the other? One would have to go out of their way to pretend as if there were no correspondence.
As for the apocryphal possibility that Esau had numerous affairs with married women, I wouldn’t deny it outright.
However, when the scripture provides all the justification needed for his being called a “profane fornicator” by his marriage to foreign women and his parents’ grief over the matter, we needn’t go groping after any para-biblical traditions. To do so is in fact to esteem the traditions over Divine Revelation. God forbid.
And the concept of ‘Adultery’ is an interesting matter because there are two clearly defined categories of it in scripture — one which carries a penological remedy of capital punishment and another which carries only a consequence of forced separation.
In fact, this is the likely origination of the bifurcated iteration, Adultery vs. Adulteration. We needed a conceptual differentiation between adulterating a marriage covenant through infidelity and adulterating one’s lineage (national covenant) through miscegenation.
But both sorts are very much communicated in the 7th commandment prohibition.
But because you raise the possibility of ‘Mamzir’ being defined as ‘one born of a harlot’, I’ll close with a quote from a previous post:
First, if someone hopes to say a Mamzer is one born of an un-wed union or other forms of illicit sex, we find that though Jephthah was born of a harlot (Judges 11:1), the Law in nowise impeded his ascension to the highest office in Israel. And no one suggests that it should have.
And on the other side of the issue we find that the Prophets Ezra and Nehemiah banished the mixed-children along with the foreign wives from the body politic. Matthew Henry says that this can only be explained by the case Law of Deuteronomy 23:2 and that the Prophets have given us the perfect interpretation of that Law by divine authority.
So if the Law didn’t lock out children of harlots but DID lock out mixed-race children, we are forced to accept that ‘Mamzer’ is in fact correctly defined as ‘a mixed-race Mongrel’.
And the truth is that most translators know this … but are unwilling to admit the fact. How do we know that they know it? Look at Zechariah 9:6; the same word (Mamzer/Nothos) is therein translated by our modern bibles as “mixed-race”, “mongrel-people”, etc. Its the SAME WORD but they translate it in a radically different way when the matter of ethnic exclusion is on the line.
Excellent, Ehud. May I ask what translation of Holy Scripture you recommend? Are there any which preserve these distinctions? Thanks for your labors.
Thanks, Randall.
Yeah, I typically read from the KJV, NKJV, NASV, and ESV.
Though my favorite may be the NKJV, I used the old KJV for this article as it preserves the politically incorrect term, “bastards”. All the new versions have discarded that term in favor of “illegitimate”.
But I definitely glean from the AST (Anointed Standard Translation) as well. That one is of particular interest to Kinists.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that until recent times, the word bastard meant “a person of mixed-breed”.
[...] Hebrews 12:7-16 on Miscegenation from Ehud’s blog [...]
Where can one find the Annotated Standard Translation? I’ve never heard of it before.
Thanks,
Laurel
@Laurel, its pretty hard to come by in hardcover these days but its still available in softcover:
The New Testament, Anointed Standard Translation, First Reference Edition
Wow…expensive. A little rich for my blood right now. But I will certainly start saving up for it…
Thanks, Ehud.
I know. But here’s another great translation resource online:
http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/charles_thomson/
Thx…
Laurel