Virgins and White Raisins

Those of us who have studied ancient Middle Eastern languages know how difficult it is to arrive at an exact translation of ancient texts.  There are several words in the Hebrew Bible which are used only once and which have no modern counterpart.  Even after making such efforts as comparing them to Akkadian, or examining numerical clues, they remain a puzzle.

Lately I was amused by some translation work done by "Christoph Luxenberg,"  a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany who writes under a pseudonym, and Gerd R. Puin, who teaches at Saarland University in Germany. The two have searched the earliest known copies of the Qur'an and examined the document's origins and composition. As in ancient Hebrew texts, these copies were originally written without vowels and diacritical dots that modern Arabic uses to make it clear what letter is intended.  Islamic commentators added diacritical marks to clear up the ambiguities of the text beginning in the eighth century, long after the death of Muhammad.  Luxenberg and Puin maintain that parts of Islam's holy book  were misinterpreted by these later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Qur'an commonly read today.

For example, the famous passage describing the rewards for the righteous in the afterlife in Qur'an 78:33, وَكَوَاعِبَ أَتْرَاباً  (often translated "delightful virgins"), is based on the word hur, which is an adjective in the feminine plural meaning simply "white." Islamic tradition insists the term hur stands for "houri," which means virgin, but Luxenberg insists that this is a forced misreading of the text. In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, hur means "white raisin."  The description of paradise described it as a garden with grapevines, vineyards, and a full cup. In this context, offerings of food and drink make more sense than a reward of sexual favors.

There are other differences which can be quite significant, Puin points out.  In the early archaic copies of the Qur'an, it is impossible to distinguish between the words "to fight" and "to kill." In many cases diacritical marks were added that yielded the harsher meaning, perhaps reflecting a period in which the Islamic Empire was often at war. Scholars now suggest that a return to the earliest Qur'an might lead to a more tolerant brand of Islam, as well as one that is more conscious of its close ties to both Judaism and Christianity.

This discovery has had an significant impact upon my view of Church history and doctrine. There is a tendency of the modern reader of scripture to place a gloss upon his or her reading of scripture and interpret ancient writings according to personal preference or modern ways of looking at things.  Over the years, distortion is likely to result, even in a Church as young as ours.  I have seen, for example, that words in the 1828 Webster's  Dictionary hold different meanings than they do today.  Thus, words that Joseph Smith used in his translations and revelations had connotations for him that have changed over the years.

And how much more does this take place when the intervening time is a period of many centuries, as well as  through a translation into a different language and society?  This is our dilemma when studying the Old Testament.  No matter how much we are trying to read a word as "virgin," perhaps the ancients only had grapes in mind.  I'm trying to be more careful to consider context and culture as I make my way through Genesis this month, and to tease out where folk doctrines have grown up around mistranslations and misinterpretations.

One example of this for Latter-day Saints might be the folk doctines which have sprung up around the "Curse of Cain," including speculative descriptions of "fence-sitters" in the premortal existence and other ideas that have no basis in scripture or revealed doctrine.

What other virgins can be found among the grapes?