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