In the recent episode of Fox’s Fringe, an apocalyptic fringe-science supernatural sort of show, Dr. Bishop recites a Latin quotation to a devout Christian woman. Here’s the exchange:
Woman: How can we be sure?
Dr. Bishop: Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis.
Woman: I don’t understand.
Dr. Bishop: It is the Latin translation of Isaiah 7:9.
Woman [nodding and remembering the verse, looking very profound]: “Unless you believe, you will not understand.”
Dr. Bishop: Even as a scientist, sometimes I have to rely on faith.
Now, if that quotation feels a bit off to you, here’s why. You will find no modern translation of Isaiah 7:9 that ends the verse with the word “understand.” Instead, they use phrases such as “you will not stand firm” or “remain secure,” etc. That’s because the Hebrew (אמן) means something like endurance or faithfulness. Actually, the Vulgate also has that meaning. Its Latin translation from the Vulgate goes like this: Si non credideritis, non permanebitis (from permaneo, to remain, endure, etc.). So there is basically only a one word difference with Dr. Bishop’s quotation. Is he making it up?
A friend of mine on Facebook actually noticed that the English quote sounded like something she read in Augustine, which is what got me going on this investigation. Indeed, if you google the English phrase “Unless you believe, you will not understand,” you will find a bunch of those cheesy famous quote websites, simply attributing the phrase to Augustine with no real citation. If you go digging in Augustine’s works, however, you find that he is actually quoting Isaiah 7:9. Apparently, this is a favorite biblical quotation for him (see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.).
The English translations of Augustine seem to attribute this reading to the Septuagint. That doesn’t seem likely. The Septuagint enigmatically uses the Greek word σύνειμι (”to be with”). That may not relate quite so well with the same sort of concept of endurance, but it certainly doesn’t look like “understanding.” Augustine himself seems to offer an answer in chapter 12 of his On Christian Doctrine. He actually notes the Vulgate version of a Latin translation and offers the other Latin statement (used by Dr. Bishop) as an alternate translation (unattributed, perhaps pre-Vulgate). Augustine uses the opportunity to discuss the relationship between translation and interpretation:
Now which of these is the literal translation cannot be ascertained without reference to the text in the original tongue. And yet to those who read with knowledge, a great truth is to be found in each.
Ah, indeed. An intriguing distinction between “Unless you believe, you will not understand” and “If you do not believe, you will not endure” (translating the two Latin translations). And, sure, both have some profound truth to them. But as far as the Fringe writers were concerned, I’m sure they just wanted to sound all mysterious and deep.
I’m too lazy to check myself, but what does the Vetus Latina have? Usually it follows the OG, but you never know.
Pat, thank you for the blog. I am one who will look up a biblical passage I hear, if I am unfamiliar with it. And this was one. Upon looking it up I was stumped. I searched e-Sword and found the verses listed below. Thanks for “making it plain.”
Melani R. Young
(Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton’s 1851 English Septuagint) And the head of Ephraim is Somoron, and the head of Somoron the son of Romelias: but if ye believe not, neither will ye at all understand.
(Complete Apostles’ Bible, a revised version of the above) And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria the son of Romaliah; but if you believe not, neither will you at all understand.
copied from e-Sword
Is there a verse that says what Bishop says on the show?
I just watched this episode via Hulu. I cringed at the priest’s dismissal of exorcism as “superstition” but that is all too common these days.
In regards to the passage, the LXX translates Is 7:9 as “καὶ ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε οὐδὲ μὴ **συνῆτε**” (DRB: “If you will not believe, you shall not **continue**.”)
But also compare it to Is. 6:9: “καὶ εἶπεν πορεύθητι καὶ εἰπὸν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ **συνῆτε** καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε” (DRB: “And he said: Go, and you shall say to this people: Hearing, hear, and **understand** not: and see the vision, and know it not.”)
And Christ’s reference to Isaiah in Mt 13:14: “καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ἡ λέγουσα· ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ **συνῆτε**, καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε.” (DRB: “And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled in them, who says: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not **understand**: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive”).
So according to the Seventy, the Hebrew should be translated “συνῆτε” — “to understand” — but modern scholarship goes with the Masoretic text over the Septuagint. Indeed, according to Wikipedia, even the Jerome used the texts that were probably very close to what became the Masoretic texts 600 years later.
The choice to use the LXX or the Masoretic is a divisive debate but it’s more than just Augustine’s personal translation.
This kind of stuff in TV and movies kill me. I haven’t seen this episode, but I remember in some movie that Keanu was in (Constantine?) where he’s talking about the “17th chapter of 1 Corinthians” in the devil’s Bible (or something) and the formerly Christian female lead says something like, “But there aren’t 17 chapters in Corinthians.”
How in the world do these people know this stuff?
Hey,
I also watched this Fringe episode and the quote also got me wondering (as I didn’t know it).
Just dropping my comment to let you know I like your research on this matter.
Pat,
I stumbled across your blog (happily) because I was researching a biblical quote I found in a book about Pascal’s Pensees. The quote was “unless you believe, you will not understand,” and it was attributed to Isaiah 7: 9. But, of course, as you point out in your piece, there’s not a Bible in existence that uses the word “understand” at the end of that verse. I find the quote profoundly true, and wanted to use it in an essay of my own that I’m working on, but wanted to get the attribution right. Your blog hit the nail on the head! Thanks for the scholarship, man!
The theme of my little ditty is that faith precedes reason; that there’s a “guy behind the guy” who employs reason, and this “guy behind the guy” is the one who’s essential. Everything this pre-rational guy does involves faith, not reason, even if his faith is IN reason. I got on the subject because several friends of mine are struggling with their faith for intellectual reasons. One guy, a close friend of mine, starts to believe, but then his reason takes over and he starts to intensely question his faith from the point of view of someone who might disagree. As the back-and-forth proceeds he gets all bollixed up and ends up in a state of agnosticism. I was trying to get across to him that he needs to assume mastery over his reasoning — not reject reason, but master it — and could start by “putting on the clothing” of faith, by acting as if he had faith and earnestly wishing for it. Anyway, that’s where I got the idea for a paper discussing the often oblique way that Christ comes at us — an approach that is all over the New Testament, as I’m sure you know way better than me. As I began cataloging examples of this “glimpsed from the corner of the eye” approach of Jesus, I became interested in WHY this is so — why does God seem to hide in the twilight rather than reveal Himself with crystal clarity? Hmmmm . . . .
Anyway, your blog is very illuminating and I appreciate it very much. Please keep it up! By the way, I’m Roman Catholic. I’ve never talked to many Anabaptists, but you guys seem pretty cool. Peace. Bob
Thanks, Bob! And everyone else for that matter. I got behind on responding to everyone on this post.