May 27, 2024

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth

英语He hit the man with a crutch有歧义，既可能是“他用拐杖打了那个人”（with a crutch作状语修饰hit），也可能是“他打了那个拄拐杖的人”（with a crutch作定语修饰the man）。但在汉语中不可能造出兼有这两种意思的歧义语句。

《圣经·马太福音6:19-21》：“不要为自己积攒财宝在地上；地上有虫子咬，能锈坏，也有贼挖窟窿来偷。只要积攒财宝在天上；天上没有虫子咬，不能锈坏，也没有贼挖窟窿来偷。”这段话中，“在地上”和“在天上”是语句的状语，修饰谓语“积攒”。这段话的英语一般是：Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 其中on earth和in heaven既可能是修饰store up的状语，也可能是修饰treasures的定语。哪种理解正确？

查到罗曼语言如法、西、意大利语对这段话的翻译，与英语一样，也无法区分。但德语的翻译可以，如第一句是Ihr sollt euch nicht Schätze sammeln auf Erden。既然auf Erden（“在地上”）与Schätze（“财宝”）分离，前者就不可能是修饰后者的定语。我在脸书Polyglots群问，在其他哪些语言中我们能看出《圣经》这段话的翻译明确地是状语或定语？日语如何？有人指出，日语这段话是

“地上に財宝を蓄えるな”，其中“地上に”是修饰“蓄える”的状语。

那么，我们得知这段话在汉、日、德语中都把“在地上”和“在天上”理解为修饰谓语动词“积攒”的状语，应该不会错了吧？我到一个讨论宗教的论坛问，并且指出这三种语言的翻译都采用了状语理解（没有贴出原文，因为讨论者不大可能懂英语以外的语言），还增加了一点说明：假设“在地上”和“在天上”被理解为定语，那我们凡人怎么能做到积攒天上的财宝？我们还未到天上呢。很快有几个人回复，他们的意见一致，都认为“在地上”和“在天上”是定语，修饰“财宝”，并引用《圣经》中其他段落解释为什么这种理解是正确的。

这就有趣了：至少几个美国（很可能是美国）的宗教人士的理解与圣经的至少三种语言的翻译都不同，要么这几人错，要么这三种翻译错。

[增补]耶稣以阿拉姆语传道。几个美国基督徒对《圣经》一段话的理解与《圣经》的汉、日、德语翻译不同，他们中一人问这段话的阿拉姆语如何？我只搜到公元8世纪的文本： https://theholyaramaicscriptures.weebly.com/mat-6.html，从它严格的英译看，其中“在地上”、“在天上”是修饰“积攒”的状语，不是修饰“财宝”的定语，与汉、日、德语译本一致，与这几人的理解相悖。此时，他们中一人说“谈到语法和上帝的话语时，语法是无用的”（"When it comes to grammar and God's Word, grammar gets a no-go"）。

English version

We know that the sentence "He hit the man with a crutch" is ambiguous. Its meaning depends on whether you interpret "with a crutch" as a complement modifying the verb "hit" or as an attributive clause modifying the noun "man". So this is what I'm going to talk about.

In Matthew 6:19-21 of the Bible, we read "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal." Should we consider "on earth" and "in heaven" as a complement of "store up" or an attributive clause of "treasures"? I checked a few other languages. Unfortunately, the French, Spanish, and Italian translations I found all have this ambiguity. But German translates this passage as "Ihr sollt euch nicht Schätze sammeln auf Erden". Since "auf Erden" and "Schätze" are separate, it's safe to assume that "auf Erden" is a complement of "sammeln", not an attributive of "Schätze". I posted a question to a Facebook group, where someone told me the Japanese translation is "地上に財宝を蓄えるな", where "地上に" is a complement of the verb "蓄える", not an attributive of the noun "財宝". I find the Chinese translation "不要为自己积攒财宝在地上" agrees as well, where "在地上" is a complement of the verb "积攒", not an attributive of the noun "财宝".

Since Jesus said those words in Aramaic, the definitive answer probably has to come from the Aramaic original. On the Internet, I found the 8th century Aramaic version (https://theholyaramaicscriptures.weebly.com/mat-6.html), not any earlier one. Ignorant of this ancient language, I have to rely on the author of that web page who provides a good English translation, i.e. "You are not to place treasure for yourself in the Ara {the Earth}, a place that the sasa {the moth} and the akla {the weevil} destroy, and where the ganabe {the thieves} break through and they steal." Obviously he treats "in the Ara {the Earth}" as a complement of the verb "place", not an attributive of "treasure".

It seems that there is consensus among various sources about this quote in the Bible. Curiously, when I asked this question in a forum dedicated to discussions about religions, they all support the other understanding, i.e. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth" is equivalent to "Do not store up for yourselves treasures that are on earth", not "Do not store up on earth treasures for yourselves". (I find it easier to explain to them by rewriting the sentence than using linguistic jargon.) After I point out the Aramaic source, I get a reply "When it comes to grammar and God's Word, grammar gets a no-go". That's indeed an impeccable argument!