-1

I think the grammar of Matthew 18:6 in the ESV is not right. I think they have the verb agreeing with the subject of a prepositional phrase, instead of the true subject. But AI checkers say it has no errors. So if the ESV translators and the AI are right, why am I wrong?

Matthew 18:6
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

KillingTime
  • 6,206
Maryjf
  • 1
  • 4
    Where is "the verb agreeing with the subject of a prepositional phrase". Please spell it out. – Lambie Jan 09 '24 at 14:24
  • 2
    Which subjects and which verb are in question? – Mitch Jan 09 '24 at 15:04
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because it's misguided nitpicking pedantry – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 15:58
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I sure would like to know what it even means. – Lambie Jan 09 '24 at 16:15
  • 1
    @Lambie: It means anyone who causes, allows, or encourages "these little ones" to do sinful things is in *big* trouble! But why a bunch of primitive desert nomads should think of weighting the sinner down with a millstone and drowning him in the ocean as an appropriate punishment is beyond me! – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 16:19
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I want to know what this means: "the verb agreeing with the subject of a prepositional phrase" I can see what the paragraph means... – Lambie Jan 09 '24 at 16:25
  • 1
    If the subject is “one”, then the verb should be “believes”; if the subject is “ones”, then the verb should be “believe”. You would never say (I think) “One believe.” You would say “One believes.” I thought this site was supposed to be for grammar nerds. And Jesus preached around the Sea of Galilee a LOT. – Maryjf Jan 09 '24 at 17:25
  • 2
    maryf - it's entirely a matter of how you *choose* to parse the text. The people who wrote it obviously intended that the antecedent of (*plural* verb form) *believe* should be (*plural* noun phase) *these little ones. But you're choosing to parse the antecedent as (singular* noun phrase) *one of these little ones, which is why it doesn't work for you. The only "mistake" is in your parsing, not the text itself. Don't forget Jesus obviously didn't speak English; you're looking at a translation* from a couple of decades ago (with very "dated" text! :) – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 17:34
  • Well, yeah, I know that, haha. But isn’t “of these little ones” a prepositional phrase? So shouldn’t “one” be the proper subject? I have to memorize this verse for a class and so I’m saying it over and over again. I’m not this nitpicky usually. – Maryjf Jan 09 '24 at 17:50
  • 1
    And of course, I’m not asking about the original text or what the translators intended. I’m asking: “Is this good English?” – Maryjf Jan 09 '24 at 17:53
  • You're implying that the people who wrote that text don't know the basic rules of English, which is ridiculous. I take issue with the outdated phrasing, but native speakers almost never make singular/plural verb form mistakes, which is what you're doing when you mis-parse the text. – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 18:52
  • I used up my closevote, but this is a duplicate of Number when using "one of those who..." Where the correct version is He is one* of those who prefer studying over traveling* - because the "subject" of the embedded clause is plural *those, not singular one. And it's the same here with these [little ones]* – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 19:03
  • 1
    Plural "believe" agrees with the object of the prep "of", i.e, the plural "ones". – BillJ Jan 09 '24 at 19:55
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers, yes, the question should have been closed as a duplicate, but not as 'off topic'. While the question leaves a lot to be desired, Maryjf's pursuing 'nitpicking pedantry' about the language should be welcomed as well within the spirit of this site. – jsw29 Jan 10 '24 at 16:40
  • @jsw29: Point taken. Anyway, if there's a fairly clear-cut duplicate (that wasn't itself closed) then I guess that should be taken as a pretty strong signal (at least, to think again about any misgivings). – FumbleFingers Jan 10 '24 at 17:13

2 Answers2

2

The noun group whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin is essentially in a left dislocation (after the introductory contrastive 'but') structure.

Compare

  • This old man, he played one.
  • My aunt, she died when I was just seven.

It would be a more prototypical left dislocation if written

  • [W]hoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, he would be better off were he to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Within the noun group in the original [ESV] text, 'whoever' should be in the subjective as the subject of 'causes', in spite of the switch to 'him' in the independent clause. And even with 'Who[m]ever is caused to sin by their evil desires', few would opt for archaic 'whomever'.

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
  • 1
    Apparently, Published in 2001* by Crossway, the ESV was "created by a team of more than 100 leading evangelical scholars and pastors."* But the text cited by OP looks as if it was written a century or two earlier! Strange. – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 16:10
  • Well, I’m no expert, but there are different translations and paraphrases of the Bible that have different goals. Some have the goal of correctly conveying the original meaning of the text. Those ones will add words or move them around, in order to correctly represent what the passage means. But others try to stick, as much as possible, to a word by word translation. But that is difficult, as anybody who is multilingual knows. So, it’s not surprising if things are phrased differently in a more exact, word by word translation. – Maryjf Jan 09 '24 at 17:37
  • The ESV has the heritage of the RSV and KJV behind it, so it's in the more literal camp rather than free translation for meaning (like the NEB). – Andrew Leach Jan 09 '24 at 17:43
  • 1
    @Maryjf: If by that you mean you think versions of the Bible that use archaic and outdated vocabulary and syntax more "correctly represent what the passage means", I disagree. The only justification for retaining such outdated forms as in the fragment you cited is that antiquated text has a certain "gravitas". People alive today understand current English much better than they understand out-of-date text. – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 17:43
  • Aparently that figurative image of the millstone around the sinner's neck was first recorded in a history of the Quakers (c. 1720). I doubt the people who wrote the original Hebrew text would have even understood that image, let alone written it! They used to crucify or stone people to death, not weight them down and drown them! – FumbleFingers Jan 09 '24 at 17:49
  • Many consider the NASB as most accurate and the NLB as most readable. The AmpV explains a lot, but then so do study bibles. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 09 '24 at 19:25
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers In danger of getting off-topic here, but the original Greek (not Hebrew) is 'ος δ αν σκανδαλιση ενα των μικρον τουτων των πιστευοντων εις εμε συμφερει αυτω 'ινα κρεμασθη μυλος ονικος επι τον τραχηον αυτου και καταποντισθη εν τω πελαγει της θαλασσης -- "μυλος ονικος" is "millstone requiring an ass to turn it." – Andrew Leach Jan 10 '24 at 12:26
  • 1
    Seems rather a lot of (off-topic?) blurb to say, simply, that plural "believe" agrees with plural "ones", the object of the prep "of", – BillJ Jan 10 '24 at 14:28
0

"It" here refers to the statement, "Whoever causes one of these little ones to sin".

What are you thinking the pronoun should be? Perhaps you think "he", referring back to "whoever"? But it is not "whoever" that the alternative would be better than. Jesus is not saying that being thrown into the sea is better than the person. He is saying that being thrown into the sea would be better than the action of causing little ones to sin. And an action is an "it". And there is only one action under discussion, so it is singular.

Just by the way, people who translate the Bible usually have a great deal of respect for the text, so they are very careful to have correct spelling and grammar. I'd be very cautious about supposing that there is a grammar error in a Bible translation. Well, except for non-standard grammar that is there for a specific reason, to convey a concept that is difficult to express with standard grammar. Like, "Before Abraham was, I am." The tenses are not correct in any language, but it's the only way to express the timelessness of God. The same kind of problem you might run into writing a time travel story. (Like I'm suddenly reminded of a movie I saw once where a character tells a time traveller where he's from and then asks, "Have you ever been there?" And the time traveller replies, "Yes, but not yet.")

Jay
  • 36,223
  • 2
    Isn't It a dummy pronoun here? – Peter Shor Jan 09 '24 at 17:19
  • I never mentioned pronouns. Did you read my question? I asked about the verb agreement. – Maryjf Jan 09 '24 at 17:29
  • Also, the ESV is an excellent translation, but translations are, rarely, not perfect in English. The NIV is infamous for its several errors in translation AND English. And I like the NIV. – Maryjf Jan 09 '24 at 17:31
  • @Maryjf Sorry, I shifted from talking about the verb to talking about the pronoun. I can reword the answer if you like, but the point is the same. The subject of "would be better" is "it", and "it" refers to, etc, and then you're back to the answer I gave. – Jay Jan 10 '24 at 11:59
  • @Maryjf I tried to word my statement carefully. I am not claiming that there are NO grammar errors in ANY translation of the Bible, but simply that such errors are rare because the translators were very scholarly and meticulous. If you think you found such an error, it's more likely that you are mistaken than that the translators were. As to errors in translation, i.e. meaning ... I'm happy to research and debate claims of Bible translation errors, but this forum probably is not the place for such a discussion! – Jay Jan 10 '24 at 12:08
  • @Maryjf, Jay's posting this answer confirms that the question was not very clear as formulated. It took several back-and forth comments below the question before Fumblefingers finally reformulated it so that it became clear that the question is entirely about one vs. ones in the first part of the sentence, and that the part after the comma is irrelevant to it. It would have been wise if you had edited the question after the first critical comments appeared, so as to make it more focused. – jsw29 Jan 10 '24 at 16:36