From: Iver Larsen (alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org)
Date: Mon Dec 18 2000 - 10:25:49 EST
Since Roger directed his question to "the translator" let me comment from a
translator's point of view.
>
> Matthew describes an encounter with the Canaanite woman.
>
> Matt 15
> 22 KAI IDOU GUNH CANANAIA APO TWN hORIWN EKEINWN EXELQOUSA EKRAZEN LEGOUSA
> ELENSON ME KURIE hUIOS DAVID hH QUGATHR MOU KAKWS DAIMONIZETAI
> 23 hO DE OUK APEKRIQH AUTHi LOGON KAI PROSELQONTES hOI MAQHTAI AUTOU
> HPWTOUN AUTON LEGONTES APOLUSON AUTHN hOTI KRAZEI OPISQEN hHMWN
> 24 hO DE APOKRIQEIS EIPEN OUK APESTALHN EI MH EIS TA PROBATA TA APOLWLOTA
> OIKOU ISRAHL
> 25 hH DE ELQOUSA PROSEKUNEI AUTWi LEGOUSA KURIE BOHQEI MOI
>
> From the text, can the translator tell whether Christ in v 24 is responding
> to what the woman said or to what the disciples said? Could one legitimately
> take either position?
There is a very important branch of modern linguistics and communication theory
called Relevance Theory. Using insights from this theory can sometimes aid in
interpreting an apparently ambiguous statement. To do that one needs to ask
what kind of answer would the woman have expected? What would be a relevant
answer? What kind of answer would the disciples have expected? What would they
consider a relevant answer? Quite often Jesus did not answer right away or
answer directly, because he wanted to give people time to think or act or he did
not want to confront them directly.
Jesus did not immediately answer the woman in verse 23. He probably did this to
test her faith and persistence, and he may have wanted to teach the disciples of
lesson, too. His disciples then spoke up in their eagerness to help out, and
thereby revealed their lack of compassion for anyone who was not from the house
of Israel: "She is nuisance! Send her away!"
Jesus then answered: "I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the House of
Israel."
This answer would not be relevant for the disciples. They already knew that (see
Matt 10:6). It seems as if Jesus is agreeing with the disciples about sending
the woman away, but the later events show that he does not. Although the primary
mission of Jesus is to Israel, there are exceptions, and those exceptions are
important for various reasons. One of the reasons is that they underscore the
need to have faith and be persistent in prayer (15:28).
The answer would be more relevant for the woman. It explains to her the
hesitancy Jesus showed by not answering right away. It also helps her to
interpret the cryptical statement about the food of the children and the dogs.
She had no problem identifying the children as the House of Israel and the dogs
as the Gentiles. There is irony in this cryptical statement. It would be the
disciples, and especially the Pharisees, who would describe the Gentiles as
dogs. Jesus himself would not have used such a negative expression without
irony. Maybe the woman detected that in his eyes or tone of voice or the "small"
dogs. We don't know for sure. But it is important to see how Matthew (or Mark?)
has organized his account. This story follows a skirmish with the Pharisees and
teaching about what is clean and what is unclean.
I am wondering about the significance of the imperfect tense in v. 25 which is
lost in all English translations: "Having come she was kneeling down before him
while saying..." Normally, the imperfect tense indicates a background event. It
is possible that she was already kneeling down before Jesus when he made the
comment about only having come to the lost sheep of Israel. It is even possible
that her position in front of Jesus on her knees and with her face lifted
towards Jesus while begging him, would resemble the position of a dog begging
for food.
So, there are sufficient contextual reasons to suggest that Jesus is talking to
the woman here, but, of course, the disciples would listen in, and Jesus
certainly had them in mind, too, when he framed his statement. It is therefore
acceptable from a translation point of view, when the New Living Translation
says in v. 24: "Then he said to the woman...".
>
> If one takes the position that Christ is responding to His disciples, is
> Christ agreeing with them (that the woman should be sent away) or disagreeing
> with them (that the woman should be allowed to stay)? Could one legitimately
> take either position?
Legitimate from the point of view of relevance theory? Not really.
>
> The NIV translates v 24 as, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
> Is this an accurate translation or is it merely what the translator thinks
> Christ has said or wants Christ to have said to fit one's exegesis of the
> passage.
I don't understand the question. My suspicion is that you define "accurate
translation" in a very different way from me. My (brief) definition of an
accurate translation is that it accurately communicates the assumed intended
meaning of the original author to the intended audience for the translation. So,
an accurate translation in my view builds on careful exegesis, involves careful
communication and is relative to the intended audience.
>
> Roger Hutchinson
> RHutchin@AOL.com
>
Iver Larsen
Kolding, Denmark
alice-iver_larsen@wycliffe.org
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:44 EDT