Re: Articles, theology, and translation

From: mjoseph (mjoseph@terminal.cz)
Date: Tue Jan 06 1998 - 09:02:22 EST


Rolf Furuli wrote:

>What I primarily have been discussing, is the translation of the Bible into
>modern languages such as English and Czech. Do you deny that there are
>passages translated into these languages where theology is the primary
>criterion?

Dear Rolf:

We may be speaking past each other now. It would be silly to deny that,
de facto, some modern translations decisions are made on the basis of
theology--among other things, that accounts for probably every reading
related to the deity of Christ in the Jehovah's Witnesses New World
"translation." I wouldn't dream of denying either that translators are
human, or that the task is difficult.

My point, however, which I don't think you addressed, is whether or not
this is *necessarily* the case. That is, given the obvious (to me, at
least) fact that someone reading a book in their own native language
understands the single, intended meaning of what they read (except in the
cases of intentional [play on words] or unintentional [lack of clarity]
ambiguity on the part of the author), *even when* a foreigner who knows
the language fairly well might have to stop and choose between two (as in
the case of Heb. 1:8) or three (as in the case of Jn. 1:1c) possible
readings of the text. I'm not saying that, in a contextual vacuum, a
phrase can't have more than one possible meaning. Of course it can. I'm
saying that given a sufficiently thorough linguistic and cultural
context, the sentence can be read in the way it was intended by its
author and perceived by its original readers. Furthermore, I'm saying
that we *ought* to be able to arrive at that point (as I have in French
and Czech, and haven't in Greek) in a foreign language. In other words,
I'd like to claim that the gulf between Koine and modern English is only
quantitatively larger, and not qualitatively different, than the gulf
between modern French and modern English. That is why my very first
question was: "Can we understand the New Testament as a normal piece of
Koine Greek literature?"

>If that is the case, please tell us what is the correct translation of Heb
>1:8, and show how lexicon and/or grammar and/or syntax is decisive for this
>translation.

I'm not saying that I can; I'm saying that it is possible, given the
addition of cultural context to the troika of lexicon, grammar, and
syntax. As I mentioned in my last post, I can't imagine first-century
Greek-speaking Jewish readers muttering over this phrase and settling
down to do some exegesis to try and find out what it means!

A related question: When you say *decisive* for this translation, do you
mean "absolutely certain" or "most likely"? That is, reasonable exegesis
will, in most cases, show that one or another of the possibilities is
most probable, but that doesn't necessariIy mean that the less probable
meaning isn't the intended meaning in a particular passage.

I'm about all written out on this thread, though I do look forward to
your response. About Heb. 1:8, without doing the exegesis (and certainly
not reading it as would a native Koine speaker :-) it sure looks to me as
though QEOS here is a vocative. (1) In the Hebrew of Psalm 45 the word
ELOHIM is clearly vocative. (2) It appears to me that the LXX (from
which the author of Hebrews is quoting) sees it as a vocative (though
they didn't use the vocative form; on the other hand, Aquila, translating
literally, did). (3) FF Bruce says: "The marginal alternative 'Thy
throne is God' is quite unconvincing." I looked through Westcott's
arguments for the alternative, and they did indeed seem forced. Bruce
goes on to say: "Indeed, our author may well have understood 'God' in the
vocative twice over in this quotation; the last clause could easily be
construed 'Therefore, O God, thy God has anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows.'" Case not closed, but I think that there is
enough here to warrant the opinion that those who translate QEOS with the
vocative here aren't doing so just, or even primarily, on theological
grounds. On the other hand, that QEOS is nominative is clearly not
impossible. However, my *real* point is, that whoever read this first
knew which one the author meant!

Mark Joseph

_____________________________________________________
I don't despise religion. I'm a mortal man--Euripides

For as the coveted object is, so becomes the coveter
   --Kierkegaard

There is no intellectual awkwardness about a God who speaks
   --Walter Brueggemann

The road may be hard, but the map is clear--CS Lewis
____________________________________________________



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:47 EDT