The other day I was roused from the slumber of my retirement and lured like an aging Cyclops from my cave. With apologies to Homer, my essentially subterranean abode is not altogether lawless. I am, after all, somewhat civilized by monthly allotments from Social Security. I live, nonetheless, well insulated in my years, entertained only by the odd DVD from the BBC and an occasional MP3 download. But all this was shattered by a bird-like, annoying tweet coming from the world beyond my particular cavern. Abandoning the metaphor I must confess it was a cyber non-avian tweet from a Twitter generated email. It was festooned in living color by the photo of a very young and handsome pastor-type. You know, coatless, sport-shirted with Bible in hand and a clear unsullied look of a searcher for truth. Diogenes-like (or –lite, if you prefer) his comment was brief and derisive. In less than 20 words he dismissed the effrontery of "first year Greek students" daring to "criticize Bible translations."
At first glance, benumbed as we all are by the modern academic
Babylonian captivity of the church, this concern seems indisputably valid. How dare a callow abecedarian call into
question the labors of the learned; the obiter dicta of venerable scholars. Let the hoi paloi concern themselves
with less important matters like caring for the souls of the faithful or
raising funds for their alma maters.
Leave the rest for those who are schooled in the esoteric arts and the
arcane knowledge of the more highly educated. Can anyone effectively challenge a certain rendering of a
Biblical passage without grasping the intricacies of aspect theory with regard
to the Koine perfect tense? Can they challenge a rendering of
certain psalms without a full knowledge of the mysteries of the Canaanite Shift
from long "a" to long "o"? Of course not!
But wait a minute, of course they can! Grammatical nuances open up options but
rarely preclude ultimate alternatives if one knows even the most rudimental
principles of a language. As the
latest FSU quarterback should have known, "no" means "no",
whether or not it means "no longer" or "not ever" in its
individual appearances. Doctrines
are never settled on individual references to specific grammatical
options. From as early as
Augustine's formulation of the "Rule of the Church," it has been
acknowledged by all, that specific references to certain Scriptural passages,
however enlightened by grammatical nuance, remain subject to the greater interpretive
force of the whole of Scripture which is understood In a general, no nonsense
manner. That is, if plain sense
makes common sense, look for no other sense. Or better, God rarely, if ever, does or says stupid things. If you understand the essential pattern of Biblical Truth, regardless
of your mastery of language, you have every right to call into question
exegetical concoctions emerging from the often over heated minds of the learned.
Moreover (and there is more over) translations involve far
more than grammatical gamesmanship. For example, concern should be shown for the
easy flow and coherence of certain phrases within the targeted receptor language. Being sensitive to this led one critic
to describe the prose of the NASB as "English as spoken by no one
nowhere." One needn't be a
grammarian or a theologian to conclude "Hey, that sounds funny," or
"Yo, get over yourself."
As the committee convened to render the English revision of 1881 into a
more readable American vernacular encountered, though the translators of the Revised
Version were no doubt noble Victorian scholars all, they would have been well
advised to leave their top hats and tails at the door. And of course, there are fewer
embarrassments greater than when noted scholars attempt to, "get with it,"
in their use of language. At times effective criticisms of Bible
translations demand that non-grammarians among us speak up. There are certain renderings, from
time to time - no matter how non-compliant to the laws of well-educated
discourse - up with which the grammarian should have to put.
A final thought, though not definitive (I will leave
definitive to the Germans): one should remember the great Luther's concern that
we uphold the perspicuity of Scripture.
There are too many popes afoot already. We should listen carefully to the criticisms of serious
readers from every segment of our society and then make up our minds as to what
is and what is not a good translation. At least, that’s how I see it … with my one good
eye. Excuse me now but the night
grows cold and my cave beckons.
Yours truly,
No comments:
Post a Comment