From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Sun Dec 28 1997 - 09:16:21 EST
Mark Joseph wrote:
>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.
SNIP
>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?
Dear Mark,
A text can only be translated if it is understood by its translators.
The purpose of the Bible is to give the readers an understanding of God.
Thus theology (= understanding of and belief in God) must play an important
role in Bible translation. I would like to claryfy and exemplify this and
to show that theology can influence translators both in a good and a bad
way.
I evaluate a Bible translation in the light of two parameters:
(1) Is it biased? I define bias in relation to language and not to
theology. If we used theology as criterion, it would turn out that any
other theology than our own would be biased. Even theological viewpoints
which are generally accepted are not good criterions for bias because the
old saying "vox populi vox dei" ("the voice of the people is the voice of
God") simply is not true.
(2) Are the interests of the readers taken care of in a good way? While
theology must be used on all levels of the translation process, are the
readers helped by the translated text to make their own decisions of the
meaning of the text, or are the theology of the translators forced upon the
readers when not at all necessary?
Point (1) can be used to evaluate all translations because bias is always a
weakness in a translation; the application of point (2) is heavily
dependent upon who is the target group. For missionary translations where
the target group is completely ignorant of the Bible it is hardly
applicable at all.
A good example of bias in Bible translation is the rendition "hell"
("l`infer" or "Holle") for Greek "GEHENNA". It is contrary to linguistic
theory to translate a geographic name with a completely different word.
True, the stocks of phonemes of different languages are different, so we
get Jesus in English and Gesu in Italian, but the identity is the same.
The word "hell", however, has a huge connotational load from Dante and
onward, a load which is lacking in GEHENNA. It is also interesting that the
Hebrew equivalent GEI HINNOM generally is translated by "the valley of
Hinnom".
The words SHEOL/HADES are sometimes translated by "the realm of the dead".
This rendition is coloured by the theological view of the translators
because "realm" is naturally associated with life and activity, something
which not necessarily are inherrent in the Grek and Hebrew words. This
rendition, however, is not biased because the words are apellatives rather
than proper names, and they must be rendered in the way the translators
believe their contents is best conveyed. However, the interests of the
readers are not adequately cared for by using "the realm of the dead", at
least not if a footnote with alternatives is lacking. The best way to let
the readers decide the meaning is to transcribe the words as HADES and
SHEOL. Interestingly, of the 15 "modern" translations on the Gramcord`s CD,
8 have transcribed the words, 3 have "neutral" renditions and 4 have
renditions which can be criticized. (Only 3 of the same translations
transcribe GEHENNA).
Regarding passages where neither lexicon nor grammar or syntax are
decisive, but where theology is the primary basis for the translation I
give three examples:
(1) Hebrews 1:8. Is hO QEOS vocative or nominative, giving either "Your
throne, God" or "God is your throne"?
(2) Tit 2:13. Does TOU MEGALOU QEOU KAI SWTHROS hHMWN CRISTOU IHSOU mean
"of our great God and saviour Jesus Christ" or "of our great God and of the
saviour Jesus Christ"? Are two individuals mentioned or just one?
(3) John 1:1. Should KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS be translated "and the Word was
God", "and the Word was divine" or "and the Word was a God?
Different arguments based on grammar or syntax can be used for a particular
choice in the examples above, but they are not decisive, not even Sharp`s
rule, which is a generalization rather than a rule. Theology therefore,
does play an important part in Bible translation. But the goal should be to
use it in a "legitimate" way, i.e. to avoid biased renderings and to
arrange the text in such a way as to leave as many decisions as possible to
the reader.
What you described regarding Czech was the "presupposition pool" of
yourself and of other native speakers. The NT writers and the Christians
of the first century had such a presupposition pool which included their
religious beliefs, and this helped them to get an immediate understanding
of things that we understand only after a thorough analysis (For instance
would first century Jews understand JesusŤ use of GEHENNA and SHEOL/HADES).
There were, however, many things which they could not understand by the
help of their presupposition pool(s) but which needed a grammatical
analysis or interpretation by others (2 Pet 3:16). Matt 4:3 would for
instance be unambiguous if the words were spoken or written in Hebrew, but
the Greek text is ambiguous and the presupposition pool of the first
Christians could not help them in this case. So the NT is "a normal piece
of Koine Greek writing" but all the same, study and more study were needed
both in the first century and today.
Our problem, however, is that we both must use our modern presupposition
pool and understand the one of the NT writers. But to keep the two apart
when we study the Bible is not easy, particularly because religious beliefs
are strongly involved in our study. Striving hard, we may reduce the
influence of our own beliefs when we work with the Greek text, but our
motives and views will allways be lurking in the background and influence
our decisions.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:42 EDT