[B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John1:18-revised

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Fri Nov 6 11:15:27 EST 2009


Dear Yancy,

Ten years ago I wrote a book on "The Role of Theology and Bias in 
Bible Translation," and I am at present almost finished with a 
revised and expanded edition. Here I argue along some of the lines 
you draw below. For example, I show that there are particular 
passages where Greek grammar and syntax are not decisive, and 
therefore the theological view of the translator must be used.  One 
example is PNEUMA hAGION. More than half of the occurrences do not 
have article, and the following are the choices of the translators: 
"holy spirit; the holy spirit; The holy spirit; The Holy Spirit" etc. 
The translators' theological view of PNEUMA hAGION will lead them to 
use the article or not and to use capital letters or not. This is in 
my view a legitimate use of theology in Bible translation, and it 
seems that we agree in this.

Very few passages in the NT are in the category mentioned above, and 
lexicon, grammar and syntax should be the decisive factors. All of us 
believe in something and we have an horizon of understanding that 
will influence us, also when we translate the Bible. It is very 
important for the Bible translator to realize this and to try hard to 
curtail his or her personal viewpoints and beliefs as much as 
possible, in order to avoid biased renderings. When I use the words 
"scientific" and "linguistic" in connection with Bible translation, 
it means that the translator should work inside the rules of 
translation science and not violate these rules, and that he or she 
definitely should put Greek lexicon, grammar, and syntax above 
theology. However, modern Bible translations, including NET, have in 
many instances biased renderings, and they even break fundamental 
translation rules.

We can only come to know John's ideas through his written text. The 
danger is that we, on the basis of our knowledge and horizon of 
understanding, make up our mind regarding what John's ideas are, and 
then translate a text in a way that expresses the ideas that we 
believe John has, even though we have to stretch the translation 
possibilities to the limit or even transgress the line of 
possibilities. This is clearly bias, and in my view, the NET 
rendering of John 1:18 is a striking example of such bias. The 
language of this verse is very simple, and we can learn something 
about John's view of LOGOS by taking the Greek text in its simple 
everyday sense, without any theological twisting.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo




>Dear Rolf,
>I understand the comforting sentiment that one's position on this or 
>that linguistic decision has the vaunted authority of "scientific" 
>this or that. However, the choice of using the honorific capital God 
>or not using such honorifics with god, a god, or G-d is simply 
>theological. Theology and ideology affect language and vice versa 
>whether we admit it or not. In the case of GJohn 1 we have a noun 
>that also functions like a proper noun ... i.e. like a name for a 
>one of a kind entity. I have no quarrel with using    only begotten 
>god. But we should the translate GJohn 1:18
>  "no one has ever seen a god, an only begotten god who is 
>[reclining? an energy?] in the bossom of the father he has made him 
>known [to us?]." that gets the honorific, bothersome capitals out of 
>the way, but i dare say, it doesn't dispense with theology or 
>somehow put us in some modrnistic theologically spin free zone. i 
>wonder what john's polytheistc readers would have thought of such 
>nonsense? it was axiomatic that many had seen gods. when translating 
>a text on auto mechanics, one better know some automechanical 
>theory. when translating plutarch on isis, one had better know some 
>polytheistc and isian theology, and when translating some texts of 
>jewish christian theology like gjohn, one needs to know something 
>about john's ideas. but perhaps we should do like e.e. cummings and 
>dispense with marking proper and improper nouns with capital letters 
>altogether.
>
>yancy smith
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list