[B-Greek] Theologically motivated translation, at times
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Sun Jun 28 09:09:49 EDT 2009
Mitch,
The statement that "theologically motivated" translation is sometimes
necessary might perhaps be a shrewd attempt to hoist the nay sayers of
"theologically motivated" readings of the text on their own petard. I
guess Wallace's assumption here would be that theological readings are
impossible to avoid and that one should be careful to get one's
theologically motivated readings from correct theology. My assumption
is that, when it comes the translation or analysis of the Greek New
Testament, theological decisions are sometimes unavoidable because of
the nature of the field. If one were translating Nonnus' Dionysiaca,
the Hermetic Literature, or Plutarch's Moralia for that matter, at
least a general orientation to the theological outlook of the author/s
of the corpus is absolutly necessary for a reader or translator.
Another way of thinking about this is that all reading or translating
should operate with an understanding of the contextual assumptions of
the authors of literature one is working with.
The problem, of course, is that assumptions are not often stated
directly. We are forced to guess and the passage of time has a way of
brutalizing unspoken assumptions. When it comes to understanding Mark
11:22, one would assume that little more is needed than general
biblical background (either Catholic or Protestant) to make right
choice about the use of the genitive. BTW, I have heard some speakers
try to establish the point that the most natural way to read Mark
11:22 is "of God," just like it says in the KJV. But these speakers
have not often dealt with the implications of God having faith.
Wallace, on the other hand would seem to be on firm footing when he
says that "such an idea is unparalleled anywhere else in the Bible and
doesn't fit the context." We might think that nonsense test can help
here. My rule of thumb is, if my theologically motivated reading makes
nonsense out of an otherwise meaningful text, then the nonsensical
reading, all things being equal, should be quietly left aside.
But not so fast. Let me indulge in a little nonsense. I suppose that
the only way to construe ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ ECETE
PISTIN THEOU "have faith of God" in the passage as anything other than
what Carl says is should be construed would be to assume it is a
possesive genitive. And it would seem that, biblically, "have faith of
God" is simply nonsense, at least in English. For me it conjures up
the idea that, when one prays, one must pray with the kind of faith
God has. And this is precisely the question that Wallace's obiter
dictum raises: Does God have faith? Or does God pray? These question
seem rediculous to anyone trained in Christian theology. I know they
do to me. But Rabbis of the Talmud do not ask the question, "Does God
Pray?" Rather, they took it for granted that God prays on the basis of
Scripture. The Rabbis point to the Book of Isaiah (56:7) as proof of
the assumption that God prays. The prophet offers a universal vision
of foreigners, not just Jews, coming to worship at God's holy
mountain. God says: "I will let them rejoice in My house of prayer."
In Hebrew, though, that last phrase, "My house of prayer," literally
reads, "the house of My prayer." In other words, the Temple may be
viewed, not only as the place where God is worshiped, but also as
God's very own synagogue, where God goes to pray. Since they took it
for granted that God prays, what they did ask was: What does God pray?
(Berachot 7a) E.g., "Rabbi Zutra ben Tobi teaches in the name of Rav:
[God prays:] 'May it be My will that My mercy may suppress My
anger, . . . so that I may deal with My children in the attribute of
mercy and, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict
justice.'" Remarkable. These words of the Talmud seem to suggest that
God may lack full control over God's own actions, even over God's own
emotions. God seems to recognize that God is occasionally too strict,
too tough on humans, causing or allowing bad things to happen, instead
of overriding the wicked with mercy and love. God may be omnipotent,
except that God lacks full power over God! God sometimes doesn't live
up to God's own desire to be a loving and merciful God.
But do any of these rabbinic considerations fit the context of Mark
11:22? Indeed they might. In Mark 11:17 Jesus cites Isaiah 56:7 in a
rhetorical question. Then in v. 21 comes the cryptic teaching about
the fig tree and, in context, the even stranger teaching about faith
(v.22, 24) and moving "this mountain" (Zion?) into the sea (23) and
the application of this teaching to prayer and forgiveness (25),
followed by the confrontation with the chief priests, the scribes, and
the elders over Jesus' authority. In the context, the fig tree and the
mountain are symbolic of the Jewish people centered in their worship
of the temple that had not born the fruit (the joy of all nations?)
that Jesus desired to find. For the disciples the shocking
implications of these cryptic statements would lead to their request
for further explanation (Mark 13). However, if we see the pericope of
11:13-25 as dealing with the severity and the mercy of God in response
to the failures of Israel, perhaps better sense can be made of the
more cryptic elements of this passage.
Yancy Smith, PhD
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
yancy at wbtc.com
5636 Wedgworth Road
Fort Worth, TX 76133
817-361-7565
On Jun 28, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Mitch Larramore wrote:
>
> I read the following short blurb by Dr. Wallace on Mark 11.22 and
> the reason for translating ECETE PISTIN QEOU. My question is below
> the blurb, and this topic is coincidental to the resent set of
> exchanges about GGBB's discussion of the Genitive.
>
> Why doesn't the translation of the genitive in Mark 11:22 use the
> word of? How is theology used to translate this verse?
> By: Daniel B. Wallace
>
> The Greek genitive case can be used in dozens of ways, and to leave
> it as simply an 'of' idea is often very misleading. For example, the
> genitive case is used with the comparative adjective for the idea of
> comparison. We would translate this something like, "His car is
> better THAN her car." The 'than' is the genitive word 'of.' But to
> translate it as 'his car is better OF her car' doesn't make any
> sense. In Mark 11:22, although there are a couple of valid ways to
> translate the text, when one is dealing with God as the object, it's
> difficult to think of more than one. So, yes, theology does play a
> part in translation, but necessarily so. There are some groups that
> want to translate this passage as 'Have the faith that God has' but
> such an idea is unparalleled anywhere else in the Bible and doesn't
> fit the context. 'Have faith in God' is the preferred translation
> and meaning.
>
> [End of paragraph]
>
> Is that really true that the translation "of God" is perhaps
> expected, but for theological reasons, "in God" is substituted? It
> seems strange to me to suggest that deviations from the translation
> "of xyz" for the Genitive may result from theological motives,
> especially in a "theological" book!
>
> Mitch Larramore
> Sugar Land, Texas
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list