From: mjoseph (mjoseph@terminal.cz)
Date: Thu Jan 08 1998 - 14:21:33 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote:
>EMOI, a translation should not be based on a "systematic theology", but
>every translation is based on an understanding of what the author intended
>to say, and when more than one interpretation is possible for a given
>passage, our overall understanding of the author's intent does influence
>which interpretations we find plausible. In translating John, we try to
>gain an understanding of what "light", "life", "the Word", etc. mean to
>John in the whole gospel, and this influences our understanding of what it
>means in a particular instance. To me, this *is* a kind of theology, and it
>does affect translation.
I would hope that no one disputes this. On the other hand, it is not my
point at all! What I am trying to maintain in saying that Koine should
optimally be read as any other language is that in doing so, we get
around using *our* theology as a basis for tanslation, **NOT** that we
get around using the theology of the *author*, which is necessary as one
component to the background of the text.
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 - 15:38:48 EDT