From: mjoseph (mjoseph@terminal.cz)
Date: Wed Dec 24 1997 - 15:43:18 EST
Rolf Furuli wrote:
>In any Bible translation the
>theology of the translators will and must play an important role, and there
>are passages where neither lexicon, grammar or syntax is decisive and where
>theology must be the primary basis for the translation.
This comment brought to a head a number of things I've been thinking of
as I've read posts on b-Greek and studied on my own. I'll try to be
brief, but fear that I'm about to fail miserably!
Put simply, my (first) question is, "Can we understand the New Testament
as a normal piece of Koine Greek writing?" I assume that most of the
people on this list speak at least one foreign language fluently. I
speak both French and Czech fluently, though they are for me, an
American, foreign languages. Now, when I listen to or read in Czech, I
don't stop and ask myself after each genitive "Is this a genitive of
source? of possession? an objective genitive? a subjective genitive?"
etc. I just *know*, because I've been speaking the language for many
years. Yes, there are plays on words, idioms, and figures of speech, but
I understand these without translating them word-for-word into English.
I'm sure that most of you are familiar with what I mean. The rare times
when I don't understand are either when a word that I don't know is used
(but that can happen even in English), the occasional new idiom in which
I understand the words, but not the sense of the phrase as a whole, or
when reference is made to something in the culture with which I am
unfamiliar. This experience of understanding, in a way similar to my
understanding of my native tongue, is normal, whether I'm speaking to
friends, teaching a class in a formal situation, listening to a sermon,
or reading the classics. If a person who doesn't speak Czech happens to
be with me, I can turn to her and give her an idiomatic English
translation of what was said or printed, without parsing each word (Czech
is as heavily inflected as is New Testament Greek), or doing any exegesis
or word studies.
Now, reading the New Testament is not like that! Someone poses a
question on this list about, say, Mt. 4:3 or Lk 3:23 (to use two recent
examples), and all of us give cogent, supported exegetical reasoning as
to why this or that translation is superior or inferior. But, am I not
correct in assuming that in the first century some native speaker of
Koine (it was a spoken [as opposed to a literary] language, was it not?)
would have read (for example) EI hUIOS EI TOU QEOU and *known* whether or
not it meant "if you are God's son," "if you are a son of God," or "if
you are the son of God" (I'm not arguing for any particular translation
here), in a manner similar to how I have described my (our) understanding
of foreign languages that we speak, *without* back translating into
Aramaic or doing a semantical study of the anarthrous use of the word
"hUIOS"? And, if he could, why can't we? Is it the difference between
speaking and just reading a language? (I would really appreciate the
input here of those who have been reading Greek for 20 or 30 years). Is
it the cultural gulf, with our consequent inability to understand a large
number of details in the writing? (I doubt it). Is it our atomistic
exegetical approach? (Two parentheses for the price of one here: [1] I am
*not* running down exegesis! I say this as a fervent believer in verbal,
plenary inspiration, who has done his share of exegesis and word studies
over the years; [2] I remember that a few months ago someone, Carl Conrad
I think, suggested that students should do extensive reading in Greek at
the expense of intensive study of single words--that comment made a great
impression on me as being self-evidently correct. Perhaps that would help
toward resolution of the problem that I am pointing at here). While I
seriously doubt that anyone on this list speaks Koine (and certainly no
one regularly hears it spoken), do those who have studied it for many
years find themselves understanding it in the way someone nowadays might
understand a French-speaking friend? If so, would that (better: how does
that) help with resolving some of these exegetical problems? If not, why
not? One possible reason: even the most fluent "mere" reader is debarred
access from tone of voice, gestures, and other non-verbal communication.
Just think of the classic example in which a Protestant explains Mt.
16:18 like this: "You (Jesus says, pointing to Peter) are Peter, and (in
a tone of voice indicating that the "and" really means "but", accompanied
by a dramatic gesture toward a nearby cliff) on THIS rock I will build my
church."
So, I live here in Prague, and go on my merry way, understanding what is
being said. To do so, I need not only lexicon, grammar and syntax, but
also idiom, culture, tone of voice and gesture. However I *never* have to
rely on my "theology" (that is, something unrelated to the structure and
context of the Czech language) to understand what is being said. So, my
third question is "Is Rolf right?" Are there really times when "neither
lexicon, grammar or syntax is decisive and where theology must be the
primary basis for the translation"? And if so, what are the reasons for
that, given, as I said earlier, that for a native Koine speaker lexicon,
grammar and syntax would have sufficed to understand a theological
statement the same as any other statement. Which brings me back to my
first question: "Can we understand the New Testament as a normal piece of
Koine Greek writing?" Or, is it inherently different in form and content
from other Koine writings of the same period?
I hope that this is (a) clear; (b) an appropriate list topic (if not, and
if you're interested, please respond off-list); (c) interesting!
Merry Christmas to all.
Mark Joseph
____________________________
There are two kinds of fools:
The first says, "This is old, therefore it is good."
The other says, "This is new, therefore it is better."
______________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:41 EDT