From: Mike Sangrey (mike@sojurn.lns.pa.us)
Date: Wed Sep 20 2000 - 10:39:22 EDT
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew <c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net> said:
> Keep in mind that to function as a semantic priority aficionado you
> must be able to read the text. People who are not able to read are
> going to need to work with one text until they can read it before they
> can function as an SPA. This can be done by a second year student but
> it means you must stay in one text for a while until you master it.
If you are saying that a person MUST be able to read the Greek text
in order to apply one of various methodologies consistent with being
a semantic priority aficionado (SPA), then I disagree with the point
you are making here. However, I do believe you've surfaced, rather
succinctly, two viewpoints which need to be discussed. And, in fact,
the understanding of them will, IMO, significantly enhance one's ability
to understand the original author's intent.
Specific to my disagreement, though, is my belief, and this comes from
my own experience, that within language, by the very nature of language,
the meaning captured by the large constituents is the most prominent.
While this appears to be a truism, even tautological, the effects of
the original semantic prominence can not be hidden through translation.
In practice--that is, when utilizing a translation--one must lean more
toward the SPA end of the spectrum and away from the FLFA (Formal Language
Feature Aficionado) end. That is to say that one can't rely as heavily
on the details, because the details will not perfectly capture those of
the original[1]. However, the larger picture, or the larger semantic
constituents, or the original intent (take your pick) will be captured.
The larger the unit one is dealing with the more easily it is captured
in the translation. That's the hypothesis I've been working under for
a few years now.
For example, take a translation of the book of James. Exegetes have
had a real hard time with that book; it appears like a somewhat loosely
knit brain dump of various 1st century Christian issues. However, when
one sits down and reads the book several times in one sitting--in any
language--certain recurring features are easily noticeable. It turns
out, IMO, that the book is about how one is to live with two groups of
people: those who will do whatever to get ahead; and those who are in
the way of that first group--in short, the oppressor and the oppressed.
This explains, BTW, why a pericope in chapter 1 dealing with `rich and
poor' is stuck between two pericopes dealing with PEIRASMOS. What James
is saying is "Oppression by those in power has good results, but God
is not maneuvered by it, nor does He brings it about." Thinking of
PEIRASMOS in terms of `oppression' yields the happy result of relieving
the `testing' vis-a-vis `tempting' tension between verse 2 and verse
13 that has plagued the interpreter. The whole letter follows this
same thread.
Now, what am I saying? I came to this viewpoint regarding James by
reading a translation. The NIV, no less! A translation which hasn't
exactly nailed the details. And I suggest, Clayton, that this should
make you happy. :-) Why? Since SPA's would expect that the prominent
features of the original would naturally, almost mechanically , come over
in the translation process (Wayne Leman should be able to testify to how
much I respect translators, so I'm not disparaging their work by saying
`mechanically'. I am stressing, however, the author's original intent
adheres to the text even through a translation[2]). A mistake is made
by many exegetes, however.
That mistake is treating a translation, such as the NIV, in the way a
FLFA would. That won't work. That's what exegetes have done with the
letter by James and they have therefore missed the cohesiveness of the
entire book. I would suggest that translations could be positioned on
an SPA <--> FLFA spectrum by using span-bars. The original Greek text
would span the entire spectrum. Other translations, highly Dynamic
Equivalent translations, would have a small span and be appropriately
positioned on the SPA end.
I think, Clayton, this is what your above paragraph really ought to be
saying: being able to read the Greek text enables the reader to bounce
around the entire SPA-FLFA spectrum. That, obviously, has great benefits.
However, your paragraph above rules out the SPA benefits one can obtain
from translations. And that is going too far.
Thanks!! Clayton for an excellent topic. I think you've moved from
Molotov to fireworks.
Lastly, to all: I don't want to turn this into a translation-oriented
topic, which would not be appropriate for B-Greek; however, I did want
to illustrate my point by using translation as my platform.
---[1] This is probably one of the primary motivating factors behind students taking Greek in the first place. Paradoxically, this mitigates against the benefits of the SPA.
[2] I suppose one could try hard enough to supplant the meaning of the large constituents, but it would take a significant amount of work.
--- 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 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:01 EST