An sad fact learned today in our final session in Post-Colonial Interpretation of the Bible course:
apparently, since the days of Cicero, approximately 46 Before Common Era, the debate over the interpretation of Scripture (word for word literal or sense for sense nonliteral)has gone unchanged.
Walk into any Christian bookstore today, and look for the sheet that they have comparing each of the translations of the Bible that they sell (and do not sell). You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
Ridiculous.
rod, this post is a bid ambiguous, don’t you think? why is the translation debate sad? what exactly is the debate? literal vs. non-literal? just curious what you’re thinking about.
mf
While I do see the seriousness of this debate, Mike, I find it problematic and funny (as in ha ha hah ha), that the debate has not been framed differently.
What “scripture” did Cicero’s contemporaries debate? Or if you mean Hebrew scripture, why reference Cicero?
I’m confused…
The lecture was on the Hebrew Bible. But, we could expand his arguments to the NT.
The reference to Cicero was because he is the one historians claimed to first start the framing of textual interpretation between literal and non-literal. These categories are problematic because they do not take into context the historical situation in which the human author was writing and we pretend that these persons somehow transcend their histories. And that is not just the case.
How would you frame it differently?
Is it really that much of a problem, or are people just not edumacated enough, since most of the translations available are designed to fit certain constituencies (although they say it’s about reading level/comprehension).
I would suggest placing to approximate the historical context of the author as close as possible, and work from texts from that era. We cannot pretend to be neutral objective translators. Translation is a political act.
I think I see what you mean, but how does that play with the word-for-word vs sense-for-sense debate? And does the NRSV fall into or out of your placement?
I think there is an issue with Bible translations being Church translations, in the sense [sic!!] of using theology words already predetermined in their meaning. But can you produce a translation, rather than, say, a study Bible that has notes by NTW and Bruce Malina?
The problem I see is that the Bible IS a church document, but if you go down this road, in the current climate of a severe split between academia and most of the church, you’ll just have another Scholars Version translation vs the New/Revised/Today’s/Reloaded Version. How is that gap to be bridged?
Excellent questions, Antony, as usual.
Well in the “word for word” v. “sense for sense” debate, the notion of a historical context for words does matters. It means taking into account things (both our locations and the locations of the authors) in the usage of the words and terms. We cannot claim either stance to be fully authoritative because we do not know what the literal meaning meant back then and claims to the sense for sense are only subjective in relation to the sense of whatever the translator feels like.
Translations are cultural productions, geared toward specific audiences. Translations are not for every Christian, but for some Christians who agree with the translating committees and editorial board. This is a problem. Especially when KJV onlyists and now ESV onlyists raise their texts in the air ,and say that these are the words of god one hundred percent. That this is THE translation.
Taking words in their historical context as well as constantly going back to the biblical text is vital to determining the meaning of the Scripture with its stories and instructions.
The bridge that should shorten the gap between academia and churches is the texts themselves. what I mean by that is, as i have argued, time and again on other blogs, that the people, congregations, should be taught the original languages, so they too, can have understand God’s word.
I get it now, and those are important points, but I’m still curious. What material was Cicero framing? How closely did the cultural-historical context of those writers parallel the late Republican era?
I’m supposing it might have been convenient for Cicero to ignore those questions, and yet the precedent he set still established a much worse convenience for others.
Or was Cicero himself actually being as ignorant as we sometimes are?
Hey Bill,
I will be honest with you. I need to look more into this issue. Although Cicero set the precedent, should not Christians ask more questions other than literal vs. nonliteral? i think it is a safe assumption to assume yes.
Oh, absolutely. Context is everything.
I’m also wondering who in particular followed Cicero, and so on. If you look more into it, I’d love to see more blog posts on the details.
You’re right that this is an important issue. Do keep us posted…
No problem, Bill.
I’ll try to after finals are over.
As far as teaching people Greek and Hebrew…well…(Solly sits back and remembers his youth, when he thought that if everyone read Atlas Shrugged, the world would be a better place. *sigh*)…it won’t work. It’s bad enough teaching them doctrine to get them out of their implicit docetism, apollinarianism, ebionitism, etc, w/o trying to teach them languages as well.
On top of that, look:
Judaism – Hebrew
Islam – Arabic
Buddhism – Sanskrit
Hinduism – whatever
Taoism – Chinese
Christianity – every language from every tribe and tongue.
The problem isn’t learning languages, it’s learning the Bible properly, and the most ideal translation in the world won’t do that.
To state my own position, I came out of a KJV-only Calvinistic Baptist church. I embraced the ESV when it came out (ESV-onlyists?? Tell me that’s a joke!) But I also use the NRSV in equal measure (I value the Tyndale legacy). My ideal Bible would combine them, with notes under the editorial team of Wright, Malina, and Brueggemann. I don’t think you can get the Bible you mean, because people need to know it in their own context – see Conrad Mesters, Defenceless Flower. That’s why we have preachers and interpreters. Academia needs to get back with the Church, and make Biblical studies user friendly.
I agree with all that you have said, Antony.
But I think that the feat should be attempted, no matter how difficult we think it is (teaching congregants greek and hebrew).
Baruch haba b’shem rod