translate or explain?

Originally posted on April 19, 2008 – by Andre Piet

‘biblicist’

Anyone who makes his or her position firm by appealing to what “is written” is soon called a ‘biblicist’. That apparently is something very bad (see e.g. this weblog). Among theologians the idea prevails that one cannot simply appeal to the Bible. For yes, the Bible is a tremendously difficult book and in order to be understood it must first be properly explained. That is to say: explained by theologians…

explaining or translating?

In this weblog I would like to take a closer look at the word ‘explaining’. In our Bible translations we encounter this word regularly. Most of all in chapters 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. Thus we read in 1 Corinthians 14:26 (NBG):

“… whenever you come together, each one has something, a psalm, or a teaching… or an explanation….”

The word for ‘explanation’ here is ‘hermeneia’ (from which our word ‘hermeneutics’ is derived). Earlier (12:10) this same word was rendered as ‘translation’ (see NBG). The latter is correct. For in Corinth there were those who spoke in foreign languages, and in order to understand them there had to be people who could translate this. ‘Hermeneia’ (and what is related to it) denotes ‘translating’ or ‘interpreting’. Thus we read for example in John 1:42:

“… you shall be called Cephas, which is translated as Peter.”

Or earlier in that same chapter (1:38):

“… they said to Him, Rabbi, which translated means: Teacher….”

Here nothing is explained but only translated.

interpreter

An interpreter or translator must always beware of starting to explain. Anyone who acts as an interpreter should transfer from one language into another. Not less, but certainly not more either. That can sometimes be quite difficult, I am aware of that. But fundamentally a translator is nothing other than a conduit. The great temptation for every interpreter is always to add, along with the transfer of what is said, his own interpretation and opinion.

arbitrariness

The misery of so many Bible translations is that they are all too often more explanations than translations. One renders what one thinks the meaning is instead of transferring what “is written.” With the sad result that the reader is chiefly burdened with the (mis)understanding of theologians. Misunderstanding that especially manifests itself in the non-concordant (read: arbitrary) rendering of words. To stay with the example mentioned: ‘hermeneia’ is rendered one time as ‘explanation’ and another time as ‘interpretation’. Or ‘aion’ is one time ‘age’ and another time ‘eternity’. Or ‘katabolē’ one time ‘foundation’ and another time ‘casting down’. And so on, and so on.

puzzle pieces

Consistently transferring what “is written” is what translators are supposed to do. And if passages are still unclear even then (which is often the case), it is Scripture itself that claims to be its own interpreter. For “no prophecy of Scripture is of its own interpretation,” we read in 2 Peter 1:20. That is to say: one prophecy explains another prophecy! Like puzzle pieces, passages of Scripture complement one another and thus also explain one another.

shedding light on what?

Many look for explanations that shed light on the Bible. Strange, since the Bible itself testifies to be a radiant light… Whoever understands that will make a reverse discovery: the Bible sheds a great deal of light on its (countless) explanations!

Delen: