A Word in Translation: Genesis 19:5

[Dash]

In another thread, Tdogg recently expressed what is a common concern regarding translation--that is, how do we know that the Bible has been translated correctly?* Blossom responded to mention that the many different translations are remarkably accurate, with rare variances due to the difficulty of translating idiomatic expressions out of the original language. She suggested reading the same Bible passage in several different translations--an excellent suggestion that made me think about some previous (much briefer) work I had posted on the UMC Forums. Blossom further encouraged tdogg that faith questions about translations did not necessarily need to be ones that confused us. Sometimes though particular minority...or should I say "disempowered"...groups like gays and lesbians have points of particular concern regarding Biblical translation. This post is about one such point...

[*struck text, with apologies to Blossom]:
The answer came back, "That's not something you need to worry about." I suppose in many ways, that answer is true. On the other hand, there are some points at which concern may be warranted.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is told in Genesis 19. At one point in the narrative, the men of Sodom call to Lot in his home saying: "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (King James Version) One of the major beatings that gay and lesbian folk receive from conservative Christianity in Genesis is based on the idea that what the men of Sodom were "really" saying is "We want to have sex with them." This is based on the fact that out of the 943 times that the Hebrew verb "yada" or "to know" appears, some 10 times it refers idiomatically to a woman having sexual knowledge of a man. In fact, immediately after the men of Sodom call out the visitors, Lot offers his daughters to them, saying they "have never known a man."

Now the other times that male homosexual intercourse is mentioned, the operative word is
"shakab" which is rendered "to lie with." Perhaps there was a play on words that was intended by the choice of words in the Genesis 19 passage, but the direction that "black pun" was intended to take would not be any clearer, in my opinion, for recognizing its presence. The ambiguity is the most remarkable feature of this word-usage, and the translator, reader, or interpreter must make a choice about how they are going to use it.

We must always make a choice about how we will use the Bible.

Below I give what I find to be a very enlightening list of translations of Genesis 19:5. I included as many foreign language texts as I could, using online dictionaries and machine translators to get at least an idea of how the text was rendered. Where I was less confident of my understanding I noted it with an asterisk (*)--although the verb "to know" is pretty clearly different than the phrase "to have sex." Even machine translators, as crude as they may be, probably wouldn't mistake the connotation. Where I could find publication or copyright dates I provided them.

There does appear to be something of a trend: modern translations beginning in the mid-20th Century are now translating the original text to mean "have sex." This seems especially true of American English translations. I need to make a trip to the bookstore to flip through more English editions, though. All of these texts were accessed online, so this list doesn't represent all modern (ie. still in copyright) editions, I'm sure. The removal of the ambiguity inherent in the original Hebrew has a profound effect on the understanding of the story, and even perhaps an effect on culture--or perhaps it merely reflects culture.

In any case, I've been fascinated by this growing list, and have been wondering about the implications of the choices that translators have made throughout biblical history.

_________
Texts that use the verb "to know":

Hebrew, Torah: yada = "know" (c. 1280 B.C.E.)

Greek, Septuagint: συγγενωμεθα (suggenometha) = "know" (3rd - 1st century B.C.E.)

[Note: This Greek word basically means to "get acquainted," but like the Hebrew "yada," it does occur a few times in ancient texts in similar idiomatic use implying sexual knowledge.]

Latin Vulgate: cognoscamus = "know" (5th century)

English:
Wycliff Bible: "that we `knowe hem" (1395)
Miles Coverdale Bible: "that we maye knowe them" (1535)
The Geneva Bible: "that we may knowe them" (1587)
The Bishop's Bible: "that we may knowe them" (1568)
Douay-Rheims Bible: "know" (1764 revision)
King James Version "know" (1611)
Webster Bible Translation: "know" (1833)
Young's Literal Translation "know" (1898)
Darby Translation "know" (1890)
American Standard "know" (1901)
Jewish Publication Society Old Testament: "know" (1917)
21st Century King James Version "know" (1994)
English Standard "know"(2001)

French:
Bible Martin: connaissions = "know" (1744)
Darby: connaissions = "know" (1872)
Louis Segond: connaissions = "know" (1910)
La Bible Catholique Crampon: connaissions = "know" (1923)
La Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible: connaissions = "know"

Spanish
Sagradas Escrituras: conozcamos = "know" (1569)
Reina-Valera Antigua: conozcamos = "know" (1569 & 1602)
Reina-Valera 1960: conozcamos = "know" (1960)
La Sagrada Biblia: conozcamos = "know" (1978)
La Biblia de las Américas: conozcamos = "know" (1986-1997)

German:
Elberfelder: erkennen = "know" (1871-1985)
Luther Bible: erkennen = "know" (1545)
Schlachter: erkennen = "know" (1951)

Italian:
La nuova Diodati: conoscere = "know" (1991)
Luzzi/Riveduta: conosciamo = "know"

Others:
Portuguese, by João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada: conheçamos = "know" (1628-1691)
Russian, Synodal Version: познаем = "know" (1876)
Bulgarian: познаем = "knowledge" (1940)
Icelandic: kenna = "know"
Japanese (新改譯): 彼らをよく 知りたいのだ = "know"
Japanese (口語譯): われわれは 彼らを 知るであろう = "know"
*Afrikaans: beken = "know" (1953)
*Albanian: njohim = "meet"
*Czech: poznáme = "know"
*Dutch: bekennen = "profess/confess"
*Greek, Moderne: γνωρισωμεν (gnorisomen) = "know"
*Hungarian: ismerjük = "know"
*Maori Bible: mohio = "know"
*Vietnamese: biết = "know"
__________________________________
Texts that use verbs meaning "sex":

Old English:
Junius Manuscript (poetic paraphrase): hæman = "intercourse" (c. 1000)

English:
Tyndale Bible: "do oure lust with them" (1534)
Bible in Basic English: "take our pleasure with" (1949)
Amplified Bible: "know (be intimate with) them" (1954-1987)
New American Standard: "have relations" (1960-1995)
New Life "have sex" (1969)
New International Version "have sex" (1973-1984)
New King James Version "know them carnally" (1982)
The Message: "have our sport with" (1993-2002)
Contemporary English "have sex" (1995)
New Living Translation "have sex" (1996)
New International Reader's Version: "have sex with" (1996-1998)
Holman Christian Standard Bible: "have sex with" (1999-2003)
Today's New International Version: "have sex with" (2001-2005)
World English Bible: "have sex" (still in draft version)
The Net Bible: "have sex" (1996-2005)

French:
Bible en Français Courant: prendre notre plaisir = take our pleasure (1997)
La Bible du Semeur: couchions avec = "sleep with" (1999)
Bible de Jerusalem: en abusions = "misuse" (2003)
La Bible Chouraqui: pénétrons-les = "penetrate"
Bible des Témoins de Jéhovah (Jehovah's Witnesses): ayons des relations = "have relations"

German:
Einheitsübersetzung: mit ihnen verkehren = "to consort with" (1960-1980)
Lutherbible (revised): über sie hermachen = "set or pounce upon" (1984)
Gute Nachricht Bibel: mit ihnen Verkehr haben = "have intercourse with" (2000)

Spanish:
Nueva Versión Internacional: acostarnos = "lie down with" (1999)
Traducción del Nuevo Mundo de las Santas Escrituras (Jeh. Wit): tengamos ayuntamiento = "have sex"

Reina-Valera 1995: conozcamos = "know" (1995)

[Note: This is the most recent Reina-Valera edition. It keeps the same translation as those listed in the previous section, but adds the following commentary:

"Conozcamos: es decir, Tengamos relación sexual con ellos. La pretensión de los habitantes de Sodoma incluye dos delitos: la perversión sexual y la violación de la ley de la hospitalidad. Acerca del primero de estos pecados, cf. Lv 18.22; 20.13; Dt 23.17-18; Ro 1.26-27."

"That is to say, "we may have sexual relations with them. The pretensions of the inhabitants of Sodom included two crimes: sexual perversion and violation of the law of hospitality. About the first of these sins, cf. ... etc.]

Italian:
C.E.I/Gerusalemme: abusarne = "misuse" (1986)
Nuovo Riveduta: abusare = "misuse"
Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo delle Sacre Scritture (Jeh. Wit.): rapporti = "relations"

Other:
Haitian Creole: kouche = "sleep"
Chinese NCV: 我們要與他們同房。= "sexual intercourse with them"
*Portuguese, O livro: "possuí-los" = "possess them" (2000)
___________________________________

[One last note: I have the East Asian fonts activated on my computer. If they are not on your computer, you may not see some of these texts correctly....sorry.]

[Steven E. Webster]

Dash,

Fascinating! I really like your comment about the fact that translating the Hebrew "yada" by any other word than "know" is an interpretive decision forcing a certain meaning on the text (namely a sexual meaning) that is, in fact, ambiguous in the original. An important observation.

I also observe that Hebrew (like alot of languages/cultures) is generally very reticent about sex. They tend to use lots and lots of euphemisms, like "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in unto" (as in "Adam went in unto his wife Eve and she conceived").

This reticence of scripture to speak about sex is one of the barriers we inevitably run up against when our adversaries demand that we produce a scripture text that offers a positive example of same-gender love being expressed physically. The fact is that the Bible hardly even tells us that about heterosexual love. The Song of Songs gets kind of graphic, but euphemism abounds even there.

Most scholars believe that the ancient Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh presents a model homosexual relationship--but even there it is hinted at through euphemism and allusion. In Ecclesiastes, chapter 4 there is an apparent quotation from that epic of Gilgamesh. I believe those verses, including the reference to the "three fold cord" to be a celebration of same-gender love. I am convinced of it, but the ambiguity will always be such that "conservative Christians" will always deny it.

"Yada," "know" is also ambiguous--but the conservative Christians are sure they know what THAT means.

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

Just to make sure I understand - the translations in the bottom half of your listing are considered the newer translations, the upper half, the older ones?

This is fascinating! Do you know of anyone who may have done this research on a majority of controversial translations and possibly written a book? Well of not, I vote for you!

Thanks for the research and thought that you put into this one, looking forward to hearing what else you find. This is exactly what I was talking about, and feel it is not only important, it is imperative that people understand the history that has taken place over the centuries in translating the original scriptures. Not to forget that even the original scriptures were penned by imperfect humans. All but 2 of the examples of adding the connotation of 'sex' are from the 20th & 21st centuries - WOW! Just a bit self-serving of those who came up with the wording....

[Dash]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Just to make sure I understand - the translations in the bottom half of your listing are considered the newer translations, the upper half, the older ones?

Not quite, tdogg. The uppr half represents texts that basically mean "to know" while the bottom half shows translations that mean "to have sex."

I'm going to edit the post to make that more clear in just a sec.

[tdogg]

It is interesting though, that the translations meaning "to have sex" are for all means and purposes done later (as in dates) than those meaning "to know." It seems that sometime in the 20th century, translaters got on a roll with sex in general!

Funny, from the King James Version, I never got 'sex' out of reading the Sodom story. Of course, later using the New King James Version, there is a lot more sex in the text!

[Dash]

Originally Posted by tdogg

It is interesting though, that the translations meaning "to have sex" are for all means and purposes done later (as in dates) than those meaning "to know." It seems that sometime in the 20th century, translaters got on a roll with sex in general!

Funny, from the King James Version, I never got 'sex' out of reading the Sodom story. Of course, later using the New King James Version, there is a lot more sex in the text!

Absolutely, tdogg. Interesting too...notice that the "21st Century KJV" (1994) has gone back to "know."

[Dash]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Most scholars believe that the ancient Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh presents a model homosexual relationship--but even there it is hinted at through euphemism and allusion. In Ecclesiastes, chapter 4 there is an apparent quotation from that epic of Gilgamesh. I believe those verses, including the reference to the "three fold cord" to be a celebration of same-gender love. I am convinced of it, but the ambiguity will always be such that "conservative Christians" will always deny it.

That's awesome! I have been meaning to read the Epic of Gilgamesh for years now!!

Hey!!!! What're you doin' here??? Shouldn't you be out getting to "know" someone right now, Mr. "I'm-all-married-and-cool-now"???

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Dash

In another thread, Tdogg recently expressed what is a common concern regarding translation--that is, how do we know that the Bible has been translated correctly? The answer came back, "That's not something you need to worry about." [/I]

Dash, do you even read what I write? I am indeed concerned with traslation issues. Although I have found that translations are remarkably accurate, that doesn't mean that there will not be further discussions of specific words--that's par for the course in scholarship. The main point I wanted to make, however, was that even if there were numerous errors in translation this would not speak to the validity of the original documents. That issue requires a totally different line of logic.

[Dash]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Dash, do you even read what I write? I am indeed concerned with traslation issues. Although I have found that translations are remarkably accurate, that doesn't mean that there will not be further discussions of specific words--that's par for the course in scholarship. The main point I wanted to make, however, was that even if there were numerous errors in translation this would not speak to the validity of the original documents. That issue requires a totally different line of logic.

I'm sorry, Blossom. I did not mean to offend or even contradict you. I only mentioned the tdogg's question and the response, to give my post some context. And, it's true, I did not go back to look at your post when I wrote mine today. I'm happy to edit this one to reflect a fairer representation of your previous statements. Please don't be mad at me. I didn't set out to debate your points at all. My brain just followed it's own path of interest, which was suggested by the interchange between you girls.

And, it is entirely possible that I missed the main point of your post, because other aspects of it captured my imagination.

I do agree with you that the original texts are probably remarkably preserved. And even in that area, I'm pretty ignorant. This thread is just a sample of my own casual...well, it's hard to call it research or scholarship...just a brief documentation of what I have seen.

[Blossom]

Thanks for the edit, Dash.

Concerning the Hebrew term yada, it can refer to sex. I've quoted two cases of it below, including the text in question (I'm using the New Revised Standard Version):

NRS Genesis 4:1 Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD."

NRS Genesis 19:5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."


With the first, you don't need context at all to understand it. Yada leads to a baby...not too hard to figure out. Then, with Gen. 19:5, yada is used again. The sentence doesn't define the term itself, but as you mentioned earlier, the offer of these girls who haven't known a man reflects what is going on here. You don't offer virgin girls to someone who just wants to have a nice chat with the strangers.

Hope I'm understanding where you are going with this. By the way, even a conservative such as myself would not use this text to refer to homosexuality. This is a clear case of gang rape, not an issue of consensual same-gender sex.


Oh, and the issue of whether or not to translate these instances of yada as either know or have sex could reflect our culture's more recent ability to deal with reading the word SEX in the Bible. Goodness, is it really O.K. to mention sex in the Bible?

Also, Bible translations such as KJV, NASB, and NRSV keep closer to the exact wording (sometimes called a more wooden translation) of the text without helping the reader out by using the words we would likely use to get across the same idea today. NIV, and especially NLT work at translating the idea and not just the specific words. This can really help people understand the Bible. This freer style of translation obviously moves into the deeper issue of interpretation, but I think that in the case of yada in the Sodom story, giving a more modern translation helps clarify the story line. I would recommend the NRSV (my favorite translation--it is inclusive) for Bible study, as less interpretation has gone into it and we are more likely to see some of the original literary devices used by the authors. But for devotional time (when you are not analyzing structure, etc.) the NLT is great...it feels like a nice story. Plus, the NLT is a better, truer translation than the earlier, and wildly poplular Living Bible. For anyone who read through this last paragraph, you get a gold star.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Dash

I do agree with you that the original texts are probably remarkably preserved.

I agree there are texts which are remarkably preserved in the scriptures--however I have a little problem with the idea of "original texts." Take the book of Genesis, it seems to be the work of an editor or editors working from collections of more ancient sources (scholars reconstruct these sources and give them names like J, E and P). Is there really an "original text" of Genesis, or did Genesis evolve gradually from a collection of various ancient sources? At some point the text of Genesis was "fixed"--and after that point scribes sought to preserve the text as faithfully as possible, but prior to that point our knowledge of the development and editing of the text of Genesis is very limited--we just know that such a process seems to have occured.

I affirm the authority of the Bible--but it's authority does not arise from its ever having been dictated word for word by God. I believe the Bible is revelatory, but revelation doesn't come simply from the literal words--the present action of the Holy Spirit is required for scripture to be revelatory.

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

Dash laid the different translations and meaning out pretty clearly - thanks for that buddy! I really appreciate how you simply listed the version, year and word(s) - very clear, very concise and simple. I think it would extremely interesting and worthwhile to do the same to other verses as well. I wonder if part of the problem with the newer translations is that the closer one gets to the 1900's, the more constricted and embarrassing sex and related topics seem to become to the general population. Perhaps those involved in coming up with their translation have an unconscious issue with sex and have a need to portray it as a bad thing. Perhaps I'm totally off with it, but think about the possibility of that having even a small bit of validity.

Blossom, when was the New Revised Standard Version born? It would be interesting to see if it falls in the newer bunch (say 1900's or even 2000's?). Since it is a "New" and "Revised" I'm assuming it probably does.

Dash - in referring to Steven's wedding night - would that be "know" or "KNOW"??? Hope you are having the time of your life Steven! You and your sweetie!!! Hooray! Now get off the darn computer and get back to your man!

[Dash]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Thanks for the edit, Dash.

Concerning the Hebrew term yada, it can refer to sex. I've quoted two cases of it below, including the text in question (I'm using the New Revised Standard Version):

NRS Genesis 4:1 Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD."

NRS Genesis 19:5 and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."


With the first, you don't need context at all to understand it. Yada leads to a baby...not too hard to figure out. Then, with Gen. 19:5, yada is used again. The sentence doesn't define the term itself, but as you mentioned earlier, the offer of these girls who haven't known a man reflects what is going on here. You don't offer virgin girls to someone who just wants to have a nice chat with the strangers.

Hope I'm understanding where you are going with this. By the way, even a conservative such as myself would not use this text to refer to homosexuality. This is a clear case of gang rape, not an issue of consensual same-gender sex.


Oh, and the issue of whether or not to translate these instances of yada as either know or have sex could reflect our culture's more recent ability to deal with reading the word SEX in the Bible. Goodness, is it really O.K. to mention sex in the Bible?

Also, Bible translations such as KJV, NASB, and NRSV keep closer to the exact wording (sometimes called a more wooden translation) of the text without helping the reader out by using the words we would likely use to get across the same idea today. NIV, and especially NLT work at translating the idea and not just the specific words. This can really help people understand the Bible. This freer style of translation obviously moves into the deeper issue of interpretation, but I think that in the case of yada in the Sodom story, giving a more modern translation helps clarify the story line. I would recommend the NRSV (my favorite translation--it is inclusive) for Bible study, as less interpretation has gone into it and we are more likely to see some of the original literary devices used by the authors. But for devotional time (when you are not analyzing structure, etc.) the NLT is great...it feels like a nice story. Plus, the NLT is a better, truer translation than the earlier, and wildly poplular Living Bible. For anyone who read through this last paragraph, you get a gold star.

You know, we dealt with this...you and I...over on the UMC Forums. I'm really done arguing with you. Don't bait me. Let's just be friends.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Hope I'm understanding where you are going with this. By the way, even a conservative such as myself would not use this text to refer to homosexuality. This is a clear case of gang rape, not an issue of consensual same-gender sex.

Blossom,
This was a good post--not just the snippet I quote above, but the whole thing. I did not follow in detail the dialogue you had with Dash over on the UMC board, so I don't know how that went. But I agree with BOTH Dash and Blossom in this thread so far.

Blossom's interpretation of "know" in the Sodom story is plausible, but Dash is also correct that "know" is ambiguous--it is.

The most important point that Blossom makes is that the Sodom story is not about homosexuality. However, Blossom is overly generous to "Conservative Christians" when she suggests that "Conservative Christians" don't still use the "sin of Sodom" as a synonym for homosexuality. Many still do, and in my experience, I would have to suggest that Blossom is somewhere in the "liberal wing" of "Conservative Chrisitians." All the better.

In the end, the labels "conservative" and "liberal" do not serve us very well.

Blossom also won points with me by recommending the NRSV.

Steven E. Webster

[Blossom]

Hi tdogg,
Yes, the NRSV is pretty new, I think from 1989. The original RSV came out maybe in the 60's (check me on that). Many people did not welcome it--and many still resent the fact that it is gender inclusive. There are a few places where this inclusiveness messes up the translation, but it usually works out well. It is difficult to find this version in many bookstores, esp. Baptist bookstores. But you can find it at secular bookstores (Barnes and Noble, Borders) and especially at the Methodist bookstore "Cokesbury". If you are interested in reading a nice summary of the NRSV, I found this site on the web--from a quick look, it seemed to be helpful:

http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutnrs.html

Dash,
I wasn't baiting you. I was adding some info. that could be helpful to those who read your post.

Steven,
Yes, many conservatives use the Sodom story against homosexuals. But I don't think that many O.T. conservative scholars would. And of course, always keep in mind the spectrum within who is called conservative--esp. considering the fact that a conservative Methodist is a liberal Baptist!


Blossom

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Many people did not welcome it--and many still resent the fact that it is gender inclusive. It is difficult to find this version in many bookstores, esp. Baptist bookstores.

There is a currently a similiar dispute (mostly among evangelicals and fundamentalists) involving the new TNIV (Today's New International Version.) I grew up owning (though rarely reading) the King James Version and it wasn't until college that I got serious about faith. I remember attending a Southern Baptist church where the others all had Bibles with NIV on the cover. "What was that?" I wondered. Up until that point, I had been clueless about different translations. Now I own this Bible. Anyway the TNIV is gender-inclusive. Evangelicals are mostly for it, while fundamentalists are very opposed to it. And you are right, if you find a NRSV in a Lifeway bookstore it is likely someone ordered the wrong shipment.

Originally Posted by Blossom

...always keep in mind the spectrum within who is called conservative--esp. considering the fact that a conservative Methodist is a liberal Baptist!

The fundamentalist resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (1979-present) and the publicity of independent Baptists such as Jerry Falwell have done much to distort the Baptist image. That is sad given the history of early Baptists in America, such as Roger Williams who championed religious liberty.

I also like to read the famous 1922 sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" by Harry Emerson Fosdick, a liberal Baptist preacher who became pastor of Riverside Church in New York. And Riverside Church is where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., another Baptist, preached his "Beyond Vietnam" sermon where he condemned the war.

[Blossom]

Hi Jamie,

Just thought I would officially say "hello" to you. I attended Asbury Theological Seminary from '98-'02, which you likely know is very close to Lexington. I certainly enjoyed living in Kentucky, and especially like the Lexington area. In a strange turn of events, after moving back to my home state of TX, my husband and I have moved to Ohio. Of the many things that I miss about the South, good Mexican food is pretty high on the list. I would rather eat a frozen Mexican meal than some of the tamales I've had here! We've ventured to Lexington a couple times in the past year to eat at a Mexican place there--"El Chico"--good stuff.

Have a great day,
Blossom

[Dash]

So two cowboys walk into a saloon...

They are tall and dust-ridden, with the quiet confidence of those who generally keep their own company but aren't afraid to stand up in a crowd. They ignore the turning heads...the eyes peering over fanning poker cards...the eyes peering from under broad-brimmed hats. Straight to the bar they go, and with a boot on the brass rail, they nod sociably to the bartender.

"What'll it be boys?"

"Two shots of the hardest whiskey you got in your cellar," says one.

"Comin' right up."

The bartender wipes a couple glasses on his apron and pours the copper liquor before the men.

"I'm Shorty. If you need anything else, just let me know."

"Thanks mister," one of the strangers says. "Say...we just rode in from Wichita. Is there a place we can stay the night?"

"You're welcome to stay here. It's a dollar a night, and you'll have the company of Elli and Nina. Unfortunately there's no proper hotel in town yet."

"Well, that sounds mighty nice, but maybe we'll just set up with our horses on the ground again."

"Suit yourself, though I wouldn't recommend it," Shorty warns. Then, lowering his voice and leaning in, "There's some mean folk in these parts, that don't get on with strangers."

Upon that invocation, the saloon doors clatter back against the walls, and six lanky roughs stride in fingering their pistols and scratching themselves. They leer back at the patrons with tobacco-stained grins, laughing their fetid breath in clouds that smell like a pig trough.

"Shorty! What're you sayin' to them strangers?"

"Now, gentlemen, don't let's cause any trouble in my saloon. You leave these visitors alone, and go play yourselves some gin rummy. I'll get y'all a drink or two while you find a table."

"We don't want to play no gin rummy! And we don't want none a your piss-thinned whiskey! We want to know these two riders that you been talkin' to!"

"Come on, boys. I said, you leave these men alone! They're not doin' nobody any harm. Why don't you just go upstairs and get to know Elli and Nina instead."

The two cowboys regard the menacing group calmly. They haven't moved yet except to finish their drinks. "Shorty," one says, "Thanks for the whiskey." He sets a coin on the bar and they turn.

"Where do you think yer goin'?" one of the gang says, thrusting his chin at the cowboys.

"Well, I reckon we're gonna go fetch our horses and bed up for the night. In the morning we'll be continuing on our way back to the Cimmarron River. If that's okay with you."

He brushes back the side of his jacket to reveal a distinctive black steel pistol. Its carved ebony handle gleams darkly against the leather holster. A row of close-set notches are cut into barrel.

"Say, mister. You're not...why, your not the Cimmarron Kid are ya? I hear he has a black gun just like that." He steps back, leaving his nervous laughter and the stench of pig-breath where he was standing.

"As a matter of fact," says the cowboy, "I am, and I'm sure you'll recognize my friend here, Pecos Pete."

"Uhh...yeah, we know who ya are, now, misters. Don't be mad. We didn't mean no harm by askin'."

"I'm sure you didn't. Now why don't you git, before the black widow earns herself another notch."

In a sudden flash of night, the pistol is in his hand. As fast as you could drain a shot glass, there are six holes in six hats, and the Cimmarron Kid is dumping spent cartridges on the floor. Pecos Pete's gun follows the hasty trail of departing troublemakers as they chase each other out into the street.

***

"That's some fine gunsmanship, mister," Shorty grins as he pours another round of shots for the men. "I reckon those boys'll be thinkin' hard on the lesson you taught 'em. I hear you been guarding the cattle drives along the trail. You fellas have saved a lotta good cowboys from rustlers."

"It's a livin'," says Pete. "Say, Shorty, what do you suppose them folks been eatin'? That was some jack-nasty halitosis they brought in here!

"That it was, mister." Shorty waves a hand in front of his face. "That it was."

_______________________

End of Chapter Questions:

1. The troublemakers wanted to "know" the two strangers, and Shorty told them to go upstairs and "get to know" Elli and Nina. Did the gang want to "know" the cowboys in the same way Shorty implied they could "know" the girls?

2. Shorty could have just as easily told the gang to go upstairs and have sex with the girls. Why do you suppose the writer placed the same verb "know" in Shorty's mouth?

3. If you were to translate this story into another language, what do you think would be the best way to get all the writer intended across to your readers?

3. What offense did the gang bring to the Saloon and to the Cimmarron Kid and Pecos Pete?

***
Alright...turn in your answers. They will be graded.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Dash

End of Chapter Questions:

1. The troublemakers wanted to "know" the two strangers, and Shorty told them to go upstairs and "get to know" Elli and Nina. Did the gang want to "know" the cowboys in the same way Shorty implied they could "know" the girls?

(Drawling) I reckon not. In the first case, the gang wants to check the two men out. It's about territory, not sex. Sniff. Sniff.

2. Shorty could have just as easily told the gang to go upstairs and have sex with the girls. Why do you suppose the writer placed the same verb "know" in Shorty's mouth?

Shorty is smart. He's trying to redirect the attention of the gang. Just the sort of thing you do with men who act like children.

3. If you were to translate this story into another language, what do you think would be the best way to get all the writer intended across to your readers?

Simplify. You use the same word, otherwise, you change the meaning.

4. What offense did the gang bring to the Saloon and to the Cimmarron Kid and Pecos Pete?

Bad breath and attitude. A winning combination.

***
Alright...turn in your answers. They will be graded.

How's I do?

[Dash]

You get an A++ Daniel!! Extra points for the cowboy accent!