Meanwhile, I’ve checked electronic versions of Geneva, Tyndale and Wycliffe, which also all have know. I’ve also checked the OED which thinks the usage was originally a hebraism that passed into Greek and Latin. It’s recorded in English by 1200, and Shakespeare, nor surprisingly, puns on it. The latest example seems to be 1623. So it might already have sounded slightly archaic, even biblish by the time the AV kept it.

I also think that virtually everybody down until the very recent past indeed (the last 15 years) will have understood these passages in this way. Irrespective of the differences of detail between cultures, this will have given them a reasonable working understanding of the significance of what the passages are describing.

It is slightly odd that I can’t think of a translation that uses the word consummate, which I’d regard as the normal modern expression to describe what the passages are actually getting at.

It’s actually quite significant that the text uses “ginosko” to indicate a deep, intimate relationship when you consider other uses of that word in the Greek.

In fact more than this, in the context what is significant is that it was a sexual relationship.

The trouble is that the English word “know” does not “indicate a deep, intimate relationship”, and certainly not a sexual one, but not much more than a casual acquaintance. In English we might say that a man was married, and presumably having normal marital relations, but didn’t really know his wife until some time of difficulty which brought them close together and deepened their relationship. Of course this idiom has no sexual connotations at all. I suspect that readers of this passage in ESV who don’t already know the story (if there are any) would very likely understand the passage along these lines, that the birth of Jesus was what restored the deep relationship broken by the revelation of verse 18. And so they would fail to understand the main point of the passage, which is that Mary was a virgin up to the time of Jesus’ birth.

So an adequate translation has to find an English term which “indicate[s] a deep, intimate relationship” and in fact a sexual one. TNIV’s “had no union with her” may also be weak in that it focuses too much on the mechanical sexual aspect, but at least it clearly brings out the point that Mary remained a virgin. But can you suggest anything better? I can’t find a good rendering in any of the Bibles on my shelf.

There’s a difference between ‘in hospital’ or ‘to hospital’ and ‘in the hospital’ or ‘to the hospital’. ‘In hospital’ is general. It means you are in a hospital. The significant point is that you’ve gone somewhere medical. ‘In the hospital’ means the hospital is a specific hospital, not necessarily mentioned because speaker and hearer know which one it is already. There’s something significant about which one – even if it’s not that important.

The same distinction potentially exists between ‘at table’, i.e. ‘eating’, ‘having a meal’ and ‘at the table’, meaning more ‘at our table’, or in this case at Simon’s table. Because most of us eat sitting round one table at a time, which has domestic resonance, the core of home life, ‘the table’ is more usual, as in ‘don’t leave the table before you’ve finished eating/I’ve told you you can’ or whatever.

It’s the same difference as between ’she’s at school’, i.e. ‘it’s during the daytime; she isn’t at home’ and ’she’s at the school’, i.e. the little red schoolhouse on the hill with the bell on top of it.

Most of us instinctively make these choices as we speak without noticing we’re doing it. It’s only when we are translating what somebody else said that it suddenly becomes an issue.

On that basis, perhaps in this text, ‘at the table’ might be better. I’m not though convinced this is significant enough to argue about it.

Thanks for the Strauss article. I have enjoyed reading his comments and the lively debate. I really don’t have a horse in this race, so the different perspectives on the ESV are interesting.

I would make one comment on Matthew 1:18: After thinking about it, I decided to look up some commentaries (NAB,NJB,ESVSB,TNIVSB) on the concept of “betrothal”, and it seems to me that simply translating it as “engaged” to give it a modern equivalence may be a bit misleading. From my understanding, back in those days one who was betrothed was closer to being a “husband” rather than our idea of “fiance”. And certainly in society today, where “engagements” break up all the time, translating this term simply as “engagement” could fail to show how firm the betrothal between two people were back then. I don’t think there is anything wrong with maintain certain words in a translation that may force people to look them up or consult a good commentary.

Second, It’s actually quite significant that the text uses “ginosko” to indicate a deep, intimate relationship when you consider other uses of that word in the Greek. Consider the term PROginosko, or “to know beforehand,” translated foreknowledge. It’s not just a knowledge of facts, but rather that God had a deep, intimate love for His elect before creation. Think also of Jesus saying, “depart from me, I never KNEW you.”

If we don’t perpetuate some of the euphemisms in our translations, then people might miss some of them in important contexts.