[B-Greek] Translating Mark 1:8

Curtis Hinson curtis at curtishinson.com
Wed Nov 2 14:44:16 EST 2005


GEIA SAS,

Well that's an issue that is not settled, and won't be.  There are 
plenty of folks who think that transliterating some Greek words such as 
this one is obscurationist, allowing the word to take on connotations in 
English that are foreign to the Greek idea.  In other words, there is a 
respectable school of thought that would rather translate the meaning of 
words, especially words with some theological significance like this 
one, rather than transliterating them so uninformed English speakers 
read it and THINK they know what it means.  Transliterating can amount 
to redefining the word entirely, unless the readers are intimately 
familiar with the source language and so the connotations are delivered 
intact to the reader, but in the sad case of most of Christendom, that 
is no the case.

Another question is what Aramaic/Hebrew term (and related implications) 
the word in the NT lexicon is dealing with-- ha mikvah?  If so, I should 
think that should be a factor in translation.

In a word, I think the answer to the question, is this translation good, 
depends more on what your personal definition of "good translation" is 
rather than on some established standard list members agree on.  
Personally I think immersed is fresh enough to make the reader's mind 
sit up and think through, whereas readers are inoculated to the word 
"baptise" and read over it without considering the meaning.  Sometimes 
it is useful in biblical translation to pick a fresh word with less 
semantic baggage to suggest something about the meaning of the original 
that usually gets read over, or at least to make the reader realize 
there is more to the story than any particular English word might convey.

I think translations (with the possible exception of ancient versions, 
which are texts in themselves) should be considered by all to be tools 
instead of the text itself, as a means rather than an end.  There should 
be an awareness out there that translations are always going to be 
"milk": the text in it's own language is the "meat" that should be 
pursued in the course of growth and education.  There is only so far a 
translation can take anyone, although they are good introductory tools.  
It is good at least many out there have the initiative to not content 
themselves with approaching their holy text only through the eyes of 
translators, but there's always room for more.  I guess I'm suggesting 
that translations need to be colloquial, but also shouldn't solve 
theological questions for the reader if the text doesn't, or give the 
option of never wanting more direct access to the text.  
"Interpretation" is probably a better word in any case, because the 
words we pick already are allowing the translator to do too much 
theology and the reader to do too little, and there is no solution 
except direct pursuit of the text by all.  Because their is no such 
actual thing as "literal" or "word-for-word" translation as each 
language ALWAYS has unqiue semantic baggage, it might be a disservice to 
allow that misconception to be propagated.  Interpretation is a stop-gap 
measure at best.

Bless the Name
Curtis Hinson
http://curtishinson.com

George F Somsel wrote the following on 11/2/2005 1:20 PM:

>BAPTIZW is a technical term and should simply be translated as "to
>baptise."
>
>george
>gfsomsel
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list